Friday, November 19, 2004
florida v nixon.
been reading transcripts.
nixon, this one, is a nutjob, a killer-arsonist. he refuses to attend his trial, get naked, rants and raves about he's being set up. his lawyer goes and says look, this guy's guilty - the issue for the jury is do you kill him or not?
(i'm guessing they said yes, although i don't see that spelled out)
florida supreme court reverses, says you need consent to have functional equivalent of guilty plea. i think the supremes disagree.
it's a close and tricky case, but here, no rights are being waived under strickland,
so it's not really a plea after all. there's a trial, even tho guilt isn't contested.
now there are some facts here that could support not just lack of consent but repudiation. i havent read the lower court opinions, and sometimes the facts aren't clear.
so i think they uphold the conviction, and kill the guy. stevens will dissent.
of course you can't always tell fronm the transcripts.
i think they will find adequate representation, and no repudiation.
my point, in blogging about this, is obscured, because it's another pdf.
http://access.adobe.com/simple_form.html
but there's a paragraph where scalia gets it wrong. he says, if this is federal,
the legislature can't change it, but if it is a state court rule, the legislature can change it. and ok that's right but he misses a step. the state court rule could be based on the state constitution.
so this is a case where ignoring state constitutional law becomes literally a life or death matter. at least possibly.
i need to get dressed and go out. it's another day when i didn't get enough sleep. part of that is drunken roommate troubles, so i'll need to deal with that. yes, i've noticed personal stuff is slipping intio the blog here which i try not to do. except when it's germane and helpful, which this isn't.
been reading transcripts.
nixon, this one, is a nutjob, a killer-arsonist. he refuses to attend his trial, get naked, rants and raves about he's being set up. his lawyer goes and says look, this guy's guilty - the issue for the jury is do you kill him or not?
(i'm guessing they said yes, although i don't see that spelled out)
florida supreme court reverses, says you need consent to have functional equivalent of guilty plea. i think the supremes disagree.
it's a close and tricky case, but here, no rights are being waived under strickland,
so it's not really a plea after all. there's a trial, even tho guilt isn't contested.
now there are some facts here that could support not just lack of consent but repudiation. i havent read the lower court opinions, and sometimes the facts aren't clear.
so i think they uphold the conviction, and kill the guy. stevens will dissent.
of course you can't always tell fronm the transcripts.
i think they will find adequate representation, and no repudiation.
my point, in blogging about this, is obscured, because it's another pdf.
http://access.adobe.com/simple_form.html
but there's a paragraph where scalia gets it wrong. he says, if this is federal,
the legislature can't change it, but if it is a state court rule, the legislature can change it. and ok that's right but he misses a step. the state court rule could be based on the state constitution.
so this is a case where ignoring state constitutional law becomes literally a life or death matter. at least possibly.
i need to get dressed and go out. it's another day when i didn't get enough sleep. part of that is drunken roommate troubles, so i'll need to deal with that. yes, i've noticed personal stuff is slipping intio the blog here which i try not to do. except when it's germane and helpful, which this isn't.
Comments:
Post a Comment
