“Enron Founder, Awaiting Prison, Dies in Colorado”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times, along with articles headlined “Lay’s Death Complicates Efforts to Seize Assets” and “A Quiet Influence in Aspen” and an obituary headlined “Kenneth L. Lay, 64, Enron Founder and Symbol of Corporate Excess, Dies.”
Thursday’s edition of The Deal will report that “Lay’s Death Clouds Legal Process, Attorneys Say.”
Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain a front page article headlined “Enron’s Lay Dies Of Heart Attack; Convicted Founder Faced Life in Prison.” In addition, Henry Allen will have an essay headlined “Ken Lay’s Last Evasion; To Some, CEO Is Cheating Them One More Time,” while business columnist Steven Pearlstein will have an essay entitled “Ken Lay’s Optimism Was Outpaced by Reality.”
The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Preliminary report says Lay died of natural causes.”
And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Enron Founder Ken Lay, 64, Dead of Heart Attack.”
San Diego Padres 6, Philadelphia Phillies 3: My son and I had the pleasure of spending this evening at Citizens Bank Park, where thanks to a colleague we had tickets eight rows behind home plate in the Diamond Club section. Unfortunately, San Diego’s closer proved a bit more dependable than Philadelphia’s this evening. You can access the box score at this link, while wraps are available here and here.
“How Scalia Lost His Mojo: Why the Supreme Court’s most exciting justice is becoming much less fun to read.” Conor Clarke has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Twenty-four circuit and district judges from across the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sign letter expressing overwhelming support for the passage of legislation splitting that circuit: You can view the letter, dated June 29, 2006, online at this link.
Does massive fraud, followed by massive heart attack resulting in death, leave Kenneth Lay as though he had never been indicted or convicted? Both “White Collar Crime Prof Blog” and The Wall Street Journal’s “Law Blog” offer thoughts on that question.
“Because proportionality review and penalty review both determine whether a death sentence was properly imposed, votes in the two reviews must be combined. A combined vote in DiFrisco’s proportionality review and penalty review reveals that a majority of this Court concluded that DiFrisco should receive a life sentence.” The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued this interesting decision today. Although a death row inmate lost two separate challenges to his death sentence before that court, the combined effect of those two rulings against him — we learn in today’s opinion — is that the inmate must be released from death row. Thanks to “Capital Defense Weekly” for the pointer.
“Timeline of Uncertainty for Bush Judicial Nominee”: The Center for Investigative Reporting has posted this timeline today related to the nomination of Terrence W. Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The latest development, occurring today, is a letter to the editor (second item) from the editor in chief of Salon.com responding to an op-ed from U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) that The Washington Times published recently.
Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook has harsh words both for tax protesters filing frivolous appeals and for the U.S. Department of Justice‘s Tax Division, which may have overstated the cost of responding to such appeals: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this interesting opinion today.
“In short, I don’t believe that it is appropriate or reasonable for a lawyer to pluck a few words from the middle of a sentence and pretend that they say something very different from what they mean in context. This is true of every lawyer who appears before us, but it goes doubly for lawyers who represent the government in criminal cases.” So writes Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski in a concurring opinion issued today.
“‘The Good Guys’ Won?! Why Americans don’t trust liberals on national-security issues.” Robert Alt has this essay today at National Review Online.
“A ‘split-the-difference’ Court”: Lyle Denniston provides this end-of-Term analysis at “SCOTUSblog.”
New York Court of Appeals may rule today in same-sex marriage cases, but then again perhaps it won’t: The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Top State Court’s Ruling on Gay and Lesbian Marriage Is Awaited” that begins, “New York’s highest court is expected to rule today on what one legal scholar called a contest between judicial hearts and minds, a parsing of legal texts and private sympathies: whether to permit gay and lesbian marriage.”
Although the day is far from over, the list of decided cases that the Court of Appeals of New York has posted to its web site today does not, as of this moment, include any ruling in the same-sex marriage cases.
Update: I am now reliably advised that the opinion will not issue today.
“Enron founder Ken Lay dies; 64-year-old former energy executive was awaiting sentencing for fraud”: CNNMoney.com provides this report.
The Associated Press reports that “Enron Founder Kenneth Lay Dies at 64.”
The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Enron’s Ken Lay dies after heart attack.”
And KHOU.com reports that “Ken Lay dead of massive heart attack.”
“How Guantanamo Detainees May Have Their Day in Court”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Predicting Technology’s Impact on Appellate Oral Argument”: This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.
“An AIDS Case Tests California Law”: Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at washingtonpost.com.
“Coincidentally, a few weeks ago I switched my default font to Century Schoolbook. In an upcoming post, I’ll tell you why I did that.” At “the (new) legal writer” blog, appellate lawyer Raymond P. Ward offers this suspenseful post.
“GOP Conundrum: Heed the High Court, or Play Politics?” Columnist Harold Meyerson has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.
“Judicial nominee asked about club”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
“California Court Allows Defendant’s Sexual History Into HIV Case; California justices rule that those who don’t inform their partners of previous relationships can be liable for transmitting diseases”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. My earlier coverage appears here.
On the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times: Today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “An insane definition: The Supreme Court rolls back 100 years of defining mental illness.”
And yesterday’s newspaper contained an editorial entitled “Protecting whistle-blower blowback: The Supreme Court was right to recognize that workplace retaliation comes in many varieties.”
“The Kennedy Center: The Supreme Court’s Balance Is Precarious.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.
“Democrats Not Eager to Emulate Texas’s Redistricting”: This news analysis appears today in The Washington Post, along with an editorial entitled “Tolerating Texas Rules: The Supreme Court makes clear it won’t do anything about partisan redistricting.”
Retired judge’s conviction at penis-pump trial could give rise to penis-pump conviction appeal: The Associated Press reported this past weekend that “Thompson bonds out, attorneys weigh options.”
And yesterday’s edition of The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald contained an article headlined “Transcript: Brewster tried to influence testimony” that begins, “A defense lawyer for former judge Donald Thompson could be in deep trouble with the Oklahoma Bar Association.”
“Mack puts together diverse legal team”: This article appeared Sunday in The Reno Gazette-Journal.
“The Flag Fetish: Better to burn a banner than to deface the Constitution.” Christopher Hitchens had this essay yesterday at OpinionJournal.
“Senators Kyl and Graham’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Scam: The Deceptive Amicus Brief They Filed in the Guantanamo Detainee Case.” John W. Dean has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“Top State Court’s Ruling on Gay and Lesbian Marriage Is Awaited”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “New York’s highest court is expected to rule today on what one legal scholar called a contest between judicial hearts and minds, a parsing of legal texts and private sympathies: whether to permit gay and lesbian marriage.”
“No Bad Executions? Justice Scalia should study these death penalty cases.” This editorial appeared yesterday in The Washington Post.
