Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a strong dissent on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to review the case of a man handed a life sentence for the 1998 murder of a teenage pizza delivery driver in Louisiana. She criticized her fellow justices for not adhering to “enforce its own precedents.”

Accompanied by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor contended that it was inconsistent for the Supreme Court to have previously released James Skinner’s co-defendant from death row but leave Skinner serving life without parole. Both men were convicted of killing 16-year-old Eric Walber based on “similar sets of evidence” primarily reliant on the same eyewitnesses.

“Equal justice under law,” a phrase prominently displayed on the Supreme Court’s building, mandates that co-defendants convicted of the same crime, with nearly identical constitutional claims, should receive the same judicial outcome, Sotomayor articulated. “Here, because the Louisiana courts failed to apply this Court’s Brady precedents, including one involving the exact evidence, Skinner risks a life behind bars while [Michael] Wearry walks free,” she noted. “Because the Court declines to enforce its own precedents, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.”

According to Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are obligated to disclose “Brady material,” which includes evidence that could exonerate or be beneficial to the defense. The Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that withholding such evidence, which is crucial to determining a defendant’s guilt or punishment, violates due process rights.

In Michael Wearry’s case, the Brady violations were so severe that in 2016, the Supreme Court determined his conviction and death sentence should be overturned, necessitating a new trial. A significant issue was the state’s concealment of information regarding its key witness, a “jailhouse informant” named Sam Scott, who implicated Wearry, Skinner, and others two years post-crime after minimizing his involvement in Walber’s death.

This witness not only altered his account but also inaccurately described fundamental details. For instance, he incorrectly stated Walber was shot, whereas evidence showed that on that April 1998 day, the Albany High School athlete was substituting for an absent colleague at Pizza Express, only to be beaten and run over with his own vehicle, according to local CBS affiliate WAFB. Skinner was reportedly the driver.

Further explaining why the Supreme Court found Scott’s account “dubious,” one of his versions of the crime said Randy Hutchinson — who had “undergone knee surgery to repair a ruptured patellar tendon” nine days earlier — ran after the pizza delivery driver.

Worse yet, Scott had made statements behind bars that he wanted to “‘make sure [Wearry] gets the needle cause he jacked over me,’” an inmate reported. Neither the defense nor the jury were aware of this evidence.

“Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry’s conviction,” the Supreme Court, except for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, concluded at the time. “The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than Wearry’s alibi.”

But there wouldn’t be another trial, because Louisiana prosecutors, realizing the prospect of persuading a jury to convict against this backdrop was slim, reached a deal with Wearry, one which would enable him to walk free on time served in 2023.

As part of that deal, Wearry pleaded guilty to manslaughter, something he had “mixed feelings about,” according to his Innocence Project attorney.

“He was not present at the crime and he had nothing to do with it. But, would you roll the dice in front of an all-white jury where the community still remembers the crime?” Jim Mayer asked.

On Monday, Sotomayor wanted to know why Wearry is free but Skinner isn’t entitled to a new trial, when he was “subject to the same constitutional violations that Wearry was (and more),” and was sentenced to life without parole on the strength of an 11-1 jury verdict after his first trial ended with a hung jury.

“[H]e is entitled to the same relief that Wearry received. The Louisiana courts denied him that relief. Rather than leaving that injustice in place, the Court should have granted certiorari to uphold its obligations to ensure the supremacy of its own decisions and to treat like defendants alike,” the justice said, noting that Skinner discovered even more evidence from police records — beyond the known Brady violations — after hiring an attorney.