Here is an interesting piece from Karen Franklin on her blog.
Here is Edward Humes, Guilt by the Numbers, California Lawyer, April 2009.
This should not be an issue in most military cases because there’s usually an identified suspect. But it’s interesting to see, once again, how law enforcement and prosecution control of the crime labs can potentially influence what the public (and defense) sees or gets – the cheerleading.
The hideous nature of an offender’s conduct must not drive us to forget that it is not severe punishment that promotes respect for the law, it is appropriate punishment. Although there are clearly times when anything less than severe punishment undermines respect for the law, it is just as certain that unduly severe punishment can negatively affect the public’s attitude toward the law and toward the criminal justice system. It is no doubt partly for that reason that jurists have referred to the responsibility of sentencing as "daunting." See United States v. Grober, F. Supp. 2d , 2008 WL 5395768, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2008) (quoting then Chief Judge Becker in United States v. Faulks, 201 F.3d 208, 209 (3d Cir. 2000)). The power and responsibility of a sentencing court is indeed, nothing short of "daunting." It requires a careful balancing of societal and individual needs, and an ability to determine a sentence based on dispassionate analysis of those often competing concerns. United States v. Olhovsky, No._________, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7895, at *56–1 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2009).
Here is an interesting bit from Crime & Consequences blog.
Reprimanded for Delayed Ruling: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts an excerpt from a Memphis Commercial Appeal article describing the public reprimand of a Shelby County Criminal Court judge for taking more than seven years to rule on a death penalty appeal. According the the article, Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett was publicly reprimanded for waiting seven years, five months and 21 days to enter her ruling on Perry Cribbs’ death penalty appeal.
Haven’t noted something on technology for a while, so here is a piece by the American Constitution Society (the antithesis of the Federalist Society).
Susan Freiwald, Phone Tracking Should Require a Warrant.
A pending case in the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals raises a profound question — should the government be able to track your location without a warrant? Not so long ago, few of us carried cell phones. Today, the vast majority of Americans does. At stake are the rules for tracking the location of cell phones and their owners.
For more than five years, the ACLU and other advocacy organizations have been seeking the release of Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos that supplied the basis for the Bush administration’s interrogation, detention, rendition, and warrantless surveillance policies.
So here they are from the ACLU blog.
Concurring Opinions blog is discussing speculation that we will soon hear a retirement announcement from Justice Souter. So,
This means that breathless speculation about a successor can begin.
According to the Honolulu Star Bulletin:
Question: It has been almost three years since 1st Lt. Ehren Watada refused to join his Stryker Brigade Combat Team when it deployed to Iraq from Fort Lewis, Wash. What is his status?
Answer: The Army says it is still awaiting a decision from newly appointed U.S. Solicitor Elena Kagan, who was sworn in three weeks ago, as to whether it will appeal a federal judge’s decision rendered in October.
Here is a link to an event at Washington College of Law, sponsored by NIMJ.
Public Trials? Lifting the Veil on Military Courts-Martial.
Date:
04/14/09
Slightly off message, but in light of the attention given to collateral consequences of a court-martial conviction and my earlier comment about impact on clearances, perhaps there is no impact.
Del Quinten Wilber, Security-Clearance Checks Eyed, Washington Post, 9 April 2009.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog