“Commentary: Specter and TV in the Court.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
At National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Matthew Franck has a post titled “Specter Sputters.” Ed Whelan, who will like me also be at Harvard Law this Friday (but at a separate event), comments on Franck’s post here.
Generating all this comment is U.S. Senator Arlen Specter‘s op-ed today in The Washington Post.
One week ago, my law.com “On Appeal” column addressed this same subject under the headline “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”
In news from Kentucky: The Louisville Courier-Journal provides a news update headlined “Gay rights group sues Fletcher over Cumberlands funding.”
And The Lexington Herald-Leader provides a news update headlined “Gay-rights leader sues to block money for pharmacy school.”
“Judges reexamine lethal injections for convicts; In a twist, lawyers argue that the method of execution – not the death penalty itself – is cruel if administered improperly”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“Boyle’s time”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an editorial that begins, “If Federal District Judge Terrence Boyle in fact is headed toward vote by the Senate on his nomination to serve on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that could mean Boyle finally is in line for a long-delayed and well-earned promotion.”
Zacarias Moussaoui, on appeal: The AP reports that “Moussaoui Jurors End Deliberations, Day 2.”
Here are some questions for readers to ponder: (1) if Moussaoui is sentenced to death, under federal law must an appeal proceed regardless of the defendant’s wishes, or can the defendant accept the sentence and refuse to appeal; and (2) if Moussaoui is not sentenced to death, and then he appeals to challenge the trial court’s decision to preclude him from conducting his own defense, if he prevails on that appeal and wins a retrial, would double jeopardy preclude the prosecution from seeking the death penalty on retrial, and would Moussaoui affirmatively have to raise the defense of double jeopardy in order to do so?
If any readers have particular insight into these questions and the workings of the federal death penalty law, I’d welcome responses via email.
Update: A helpful reader emails to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania would deprive Moussaoui of any double jeopardy argument if the reason a life sentence was imposed was due to jury deadlock over whether to impose the death penalty. On the other hand, it appears (based on my initial read of the decision) that under Sattazahn a double jeopardy defense would arise if the first jury had unanimously decided to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “Justices Weigh Abuse in Woman’s Defense.”
And in other news, “Supreme Court Rehears Kan. Execution Case.”
Programming note: In connection with my day job, I’m meeting this afternoon in Philadelphia with co-counsel on a new appellate matter. Additional posts will appear after that meeting concludes.
“According to Ms. Powell, Ms. Kreutz propositioned her for sex, sought to convert her to Ms. Kreutz’s religion, and spiked her beverage with methamphetamine.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this decision today.
“Justices Split on Fixing Appeal Deadlines”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Protecting Constitutionally Entrenched Human Rights: What Role Should the Supreme Court Play? (With Special Reference to Capital Punishment, Abortion and Same-Sex Unions).” Law Professor Michael J. Perry has this essay (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“This case poses the question whether the word ‘daily,’ as used in the Clean Water Act, is sufficiently pliant to mean a measure of time other than daily.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today. The opinion proceeds to hold, “Daily means daily, nothing else.”
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court today issued two opinions in argued cases, and these are the first decisions in argued cases in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. took part in the rulings.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Day v. McDonough, No. 04-1324. This is the first 5-4 decision of the newly constituted Court, and the line-up of the Justices is rather interesting. Joining in Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion were the Chief Justice, and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, and Alito. Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined. And Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Breyer joined.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Chatham County, No. 04-1618. Miguel A. Estrada argued the case for the prevailing party. You can access the oral argument transcript here.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court rules on habeas, state immunity.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Moussaoui’s Fate Now in Jury’s Hands“; “Former Chairman Blames Others for Collapse of Enron“; and “Court to Answer Questions on Lethal Injection Executions.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“High Court Nomination Troubled; Controversy Roils Capitol After Ex-Chief Justice Says He Tried To Help Successor’s Chances”: Lynne Tuohy has this article today in The Hartford Courant, along with an article headlined “Borden Letter Indicates Contentious Atmosphere On Court.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “‘Helping’ Justice Zarella.”
And in related news, The Associated Press reports that “Zarella wants Rell to withdraw his nomination for chief justice.”
“High court calls for inquiry; Judge who spoke to legislators could face removal from bench”: The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article that begins, “In what may be an unprecedented move, the chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court on Monday asked a judicial watchdog group to investigate possible wrongdoing of a member of her own court.”
The Wichita Eagle reports today that “Panel to review justice’s conduct; The Kansas Supreme Court chief justice asks for an investigation into a meeting between a justice and two state senators.”
And The Lawrence Journal-World reports that “Fellow justice wants probe into meeting.”
“Judge refuses new trial in Fell case”: The Rutland Herald today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge on Monday rejected Donald R. Fell’s bid for a new trial, clearing the way for an expected death penalty sentence in the slaying of a North Clarendon woman. Judge William K. Sessions III has set a sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court in Burlington for June 16, nearly one year after the opening arguments in his case, the first death penalty trial in Vermont in nearly 50 years.”
“Lay proclaims his innocence; He blames Fastow, bad publicity and ‘a classic run on the bank'”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.
The New York Times reports today that “Folksy Lay Opens Up to the Jury.”
The Washington Post reports that “On the Stand, Founder of Enron Doles Out Blame.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Lay Faults Fastow for Enron’s Collapse; The former chairman blames the ex-CFO, who pleaded guilty in a deal with prosecutors.”
USA Today contains an article headlined “Lay: No ‘simple answer’ on failure; ‘American dream’ became ‘nightmare.’”
The Dallas Morning News reports that “Lay tells jury he doubts ‘conspiracy of any kind’; Former Enron chief denies misleading investors, says he thought firm was sound.”
And The Chicago Tribune reports that “Enron’s Lay pins blame on Fastow; Firm’s founder calls ex-CFO ‘liar, thief.’”
“Moussaoui’s Fate Is Handed Over to Jury; The federal panel begins debate on whether the Al Qaeda follower should die for his role in the 9/11 plot; Nearly 3,000 people were killed”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today. The newspaper also contains a related op-ed by Alan Hirsch entitled “Why the innocent confess.”
And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports today that “Moussaoui case goes to jurors; Panel can choose life or death for role he played in Sept. 11 attacks.”
“Microsoft Opens Appeal in Europe”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“Justices to consider if lethal-injection appeal can be heard; Execution process violates civil rights, inmate says”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
“Justices Decline Church-State Case Involving a Kindergarten Poster of Jesus”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
“Judicial conduct panel to face Mass. high court; Authority in harsh decision questioned”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The state’s highest court is embroiled in a power struggle with the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, summoning panel members this week to defend their authority to suspend a Plymouth County judge for a year without pay and fine him $50,000 for sexually harassing two female court employees.”
“U.S. to Free 141 Terror Suspects; The Guantanamo prison detainees pose no threat, an official says; Most of those still in custody have no charges pending against them”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“City lawyers are standby counsel for Muhammad; Sniper is representing himself, but they can offer advice at trial in Montgomery”: The Baltimore Sun contains this article today.
And The Washington Post reports today that “Lawyers Assigned to Muhammad; Counsel to Be Tightly Restricted in Montgomery Sniper Trial.”
“The Enigmatic Man: Claude Allen’s Desire to Rise in the GOP Puzzled Some, but His Fall Confounds Them More.” This lengthy article appears today in The Washington Post.
A preview of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee judicial confirmation hearing: Ninth Circuit nominee Milan D. Smith, Jr. is on the agenda. The hearing is scheduled to get underway at 2:15 p.m. Once confirmed, there will be U.S. Circuit Judges with the last name Smith serving on the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.
“Hidden Justice(s)”: U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.
“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ suit dismissed; Judge says military can exclude gays”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe. My earlier coverage is here.
“Jury Begins Deliberating Moussaoui’s Fate”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.
And The Washington Post on Tuesday will report that “Moussaoui’s Fate Is in the Jury’s Hands; Prosecution in Terrorism Case Argues for Death Sentence; Defense Asks for Life in Prison.”
“2nd Circuit Revives Suit Over Man’s Refusal to Work on Sunday”: law.com provides this report.
“Microsoft Appeal in AT&T Case Gets High Court Inquiry”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.
And Reuters reports that “Top court seeks US view in Microsoft patent case.”
In this post, “SCOTUSblog” links to Microsoft’s cert. petition.
“High court refuses to hear Utah cross-burning case”: The Salt Lake Tribune provides a news update that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear the appeal of a Utah man who was convicted of violating the civil rights of an interracial Salt Lake City couple by burning a cross outside their home.”
“The Ninth Circuit and the No-Cite Rule”: In last Friday’s edition of The Recorder of San Francisco, Law Professor Stephen R. Barnett had an essay that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on April 12 approved a new federal rule of appellate procedure — Rule 32.1 — requiring all federal courts to allow citation of their unpublished opinions.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Police Entry Case Heard in Supreme Court” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Jury Deliberates on Moussaoui’s Sentence“; “Gauging Effects of a Death-Penalty Change“; and “Lay Declares Innocence in Enron Trial.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio files.
“Federal judge throws out suit challenging ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'”: The Associated Press provides this report from Boston.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has issued this press release in reaction to the ruling.
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts at this link.
