Monday, December 13, 2004
S ct. roundup via scotusblog.
Applying the 9th circuit overrule rule, the court, per curiam, determined qualified immunity applies to a cop who shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back, in a summary reversal. The fact specific analysis does not change the qi standard of saucier v katz. stevens dissents saying there is a jury question; i'm inclined to agree.
Nixon v Florida correctly decided a guy had had effective counsel. This was a case that could have been resolved on state grounds by the state court. The most disturbing part of the case was that the defendant refused to participate because he was being set up - this turned out to be basicly true. On the other hand, the guy did set the fire that killed the lady. He had effective counsel. Did he have due process? I'm still not sure.
Alford was another 9th circuit overrule case. The new rule is an arresting officer can lie about why you are being arrested, and make something else up later, if the later reason is valid. Throw in qualified immunity, and this exonerates a lot of police abuse. Nixon and Alford were 8-zip.
Cooper Industries is a case about pollution remediation in the absense of a CERCLA claim (superfund). I haven't read it, to know whether it was just bad pleading or what. Cooper had no cercla claim so would have had to argue constructive trust or something innovative.
Kowalski was a 3rd party standing case, in which Michigan indigents who plead guilty are in a catch-22 and unable to appeal, and their clever lawyers don't get to appeal either. Possible moral: don't plead guilty? However, game theory suggests in the non-iterated case, pleading guilty is the least costly option for a falsely accused indigent person. It is the person who expects to continue to be falsely accused who has a motive to stand and fight, but this may be impossible for the indigent.
Screwed either way.
That's it for the court decision-wise till january.
This changes the odds of when Booker will hand down, call your Booker bookie if you want in on the pool. I want to go on record as not being a Fan-Fan fan. We were not fen-fen fen either. Fiawol.
In Troy Kunkle* v Texas, Stevens concurrs in denial of cert. Kunkle faces execution.
Stevens is doing something interesting - he's saying the guy is about to be wrongly executed, but used the wrong process. That is either a hint to try a new process, or is saying we'll let this guy be killed to show the system doesn't work.
Troy Ray Kunkle? Troy Lee Kunkle? Just plain Troy? Don't know.
Brad Pitt is still a hottie, but I couldn't buy him as achilles in Troy, which was the last movie I'd seen until Finding Neverland. I found finding to be only so-so. It could be a fun movie for those who don't already know the back-story of Peter Pan, and who like victorian costume drama. The kids are cute, Dustin Hoffman is very understated, supporting rather than stealing the movie. The dog gets the best lines.
Future post title - finding apprendi-land.
Attorney General v Raisch transcript here
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
Applying the 9th circuit overrule rule, the court, per curiam, determined qualified immunity applies to a cop who shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back, in a summary reversal. The fact specific analysis does not change the qi standard of saucier v katz. stevens dissents saying there is a jury question; i'm inclined to agree.
Nixon v Florida correctly decided a guy had had effective counsel. This was a case that could have been resolved on state grounds by the state court. The most disturbing part of the case was that the defendant refused to participate because he was being set up - this turned out to be basicly true. On the other hand, the guy did set the fire that killed the lady. He had effective counsel. Did he have due process? I'm still not sure.
Alford was another 9th circuit overrule case. The new rule is an arresting officer can lie about why you are being arrested, and make something else up later, if the later reason is valid. Throw in qualified immunity, and this exonerates a lot of police abuse. Nixon and Alford were 8-zip.
Cooper Industries is a case about pollution remediation in the absense of a CERCLA claim (superfund). I haven't read it, to know whether it was just bad pleading or what. Cooper had no cercla claim so would have had to argue constructive trust or something innovative.
Kowalski was a 3rd party standing case, in which Michigan indigents who plead guilty are in a catch-22 and unable to appeal, and their clever lawyers don't get to appeal either. Possible moral: don't plead guilty? However, game theory suggests in the non-iterated case, pleading guilty is the least costly option for a falsely accused indigent person. It is the person who expects to continue to be falsely accused who has a motive to stand and fight, but this may be impossible for the indigent.
Screwed either way.
That's it for the court decision-wise till january.
This changes the odds of when Booker will hand down, call your Booker bookie if you want in on the pool. I want to go on record as not being a Fan-Fan fan. We were not fen-fen fen either. Fiawol.
In Troy Kunkle* v Texas, Stevens concurrs in denial of cert. Kunkle faces execution.
Stevens is doing something interesting - he's saying the guy is about to be wrongly executed, but used the wrong process. That is either a hint to try a new process, or is saying we'll let this guy be killed to show the system doesn't work.
Troy Ray Kunkle? Troy Lee Kunkle? Just plain Troy? Don't know.
Brad Pitt is still a hottie, but I couldn't buy him as achilles in Troy, which was the last movie I'd seen until Finding Neverland. I found finding to be only so-so. It could be a fun movie for those who don't already know the back-story of Peter Pan, and who like victorian costume drama. The kids are cute, Dustin Hoffman is very understated, supporting rather than stealing the movie. The dog gets the best lines.
Future post title - finding apprendi-land.
Attorney General v Raisch transcript here
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
Comments:
Post a Comment
