Death penalty stuff

A year ago I counted heads in over 75 Supreme Court death penalty cases. I compiled this information into an Excel sheet to track whether and when a particular now-serving justice voted for death. If anyone wants it, email me (overpundit at yahoo dot com).

Also, I have the "final meal requests" of all inmates executed in Texas. This information was available online until the Texas DOC withdrew it as "tasteless."

Special annoucement from John Edwards today at 4

I recevied the below message in my email today:
"Senator John and Elizabeth Edwards will return home to share a special announcement with their family, friends and supporters in Raleigh, NC today. Tune in at 4:00pm EST for live cable coverage of the event."

Hmm...

BREAKING NEWS West to face criminal charges for gay marriages

New Paltz village Mayor Jason West will be charged with numerous misdemeanor counts for the gay marriages he performed Friday under a media spotlight and without standard paperwork.

Jeremy Blachman hits 100,000

Jeremy asks a favor:

"If you like something you read here, tell someone about it. If you really like it, tell two people. If you really really like it, tell that guy you know who works for that magazine, or that girl who works for that literary agency, or Jon Stewart's personal assistant."

I like it.

Doug Kmiec on Locke v. Davey...

...can be found here.

Fourth Amendment summary on exceptions to the warrant requirement.

This story (via CrimLaw) reminded me of this language:

"[T]he Court has vacillated between imposing a categorical warrant requirement and applying a general
reasonableness standard. Compare Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U. S. 17, 20 (1984) (per curiam), with United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 65 (1950). The Court has most frequently held that warrantless searches are
presumptively unreasonable, see, e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967); Payton v. New York, 445
U. S. 573, 583 (1980), but has also found a plethora of exceptions to presumptive unreasonableness, see, e.g.,
Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762–763 (1969) (searches incident to arrest); United States v. Ross, 456
U. S. 798, 800 (1982) (automobile searches); United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311, 315–317 (1972) (searches of
“pervasively regulated” businesses); Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523,
534–539 (1967) (administrative searches); Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298 (1967) (exigent
circumstances); California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 390–394 (1985) (mobile home searches); Illinois v. Lafayette,
462 U. S. 640, 648 (1983) (inventory searches); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 272 (1973)
(border searches). That is, our cases stand for the illuminating proposition that warrantless searches are per se
unreasonable, except, of course, when they are not."
Groh v. Ramirez (Thomas, J. dissenting).

Justice Thomas failed to mention the good faith exception, which in practice is yet another exception to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).

In good company when making mistakes...

"Every lawyer and every judge can recite examples of documents that they wrote, checked, and doublechecked, but that still contained glaring errors."

That goodie is contained in Justice Kennedy's dissent in Groh v. Ramirez (02-811), on pp. 3-4 in the slip opinion.

No one ever gets framed, really...

High School principal (with the "pal" at the end) attemted to frame a high school student, saying, "I know this isn't or wasn't ethical," but since "we both know he is dealing drugs, [ ] I wanted to catch him so I put drugs in the locker."

Sabri Reply Brief

...is available here. Note that one of the Brief's authors clerked first for Judge Richard Posner and then for Justice Antonin Scalia.

On children and puppies

At Crescat Sententia, a debate over whether to have children rages. (Well, "rages" isn't the right word).

My wife used to want to have children. Then we bought a puppy. Having to wake up early and stay up late (based on the whim of the puppy and how much he naps during the day), having to take the dog out 10 or 15 times a day (when we're lucky enough to catch him before he goes on the carpet), and having to be ready to jump up at a moment's notice to ensure the puppy does not destroy anything else has changed her mind. If having a puppy is this much stress, imagine what having a child would be like.

Pleasure reading

You can't go wrong reading Ken Starr on the Sixth Amendment.

Kid 'n Play

The Lock v. Davey decision is now available. It is a 7-2 decision written by C.J. Rehnquist. Rather than rely on the text of the Constitution, Rehnquist applies the "play in the joints doctrine." The doctrine "play in the joints" seeks to answer this question: Is it true that every time a funding decision would not violate the Establishment Clause then States must fund religious and non-religious groups equally or else violate the Free Exercise Clause? In other words, if a "faith-based" initiative would not violate the Establishment Clause, then must the State and Federal governments fund these initiatives because the Free Exercise Clause requires non-discriminatory funding?

Incidentally, this is not the first time "play in the joints" has been risent. See Groh v. Ramirez (No. 02-811), a Fourth Amendment case. Oral Argument Transcript at 40, Lines 20-24.
(Rehnquist asks: "Of course, that's really not what the Fourth Amendment says, is it? It just - it doesn't say you need - you need - I mean, surely there's some play in the joints, isn't there? It's - it categorically
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, right?")

Heck v. Humphrey & Section 1983

Muhammad v. Close makes clear that the Heck v. Humphrey bar against Section 1983 claims applies only where the action attacks the underlying conviction or determination of actual confinement time. (Slip Opinion at 4-5)("His §1983 suit challenging this action could not therefore be construed as seeking a judgment at odds with his conviction or with the State’s calculation of time to be served in accordance with the underlying sentence. That is, he raised no claim on which habeas relief could have been granted on any recognized theory, with the consequence that Heck’s favorable termination requirement was inapplicable.")

Lawyer loses $150 an hour for poor writing.

In a civil rights case (where the prevailing plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees), the lawyer was compensated $300 per hour for his trial work. But this rate was cut in half for his written work because of its poor quality.

No meal reimbursement for work on Christmas Day

This exchange is so sad, for so many different reasons.

Legal writing in Rush Limbaugh case...

Thanks to Criminal Appeal for this pointer.

Capitalism meets Christ

I am a Christian and I am a capitalist. But this makes me sick:

"Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."
Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.

"Hundreds of stores across the country will be selling licensed items tied to the movie, a graphically violent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday.

"The souvenirs include a book, pins, key chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts.

Instead donating more money to one of the many deserving charities, these consumers are wasting money on trikets, junk, and other possessions of this world.

"Getting More from Google"

If you are a googlephile, you will enjoy this article. (Requires free registration to the MIT Technology Review. With a smart-sounding title like that, who wouldn't register).

Dead, but not forgotten

See this post at Legal Fiction for an example of Aristotle's Rhetoric to the Edwards and Kerry campaigns.

Every post I have read at Legal Fiction is intelligently written (And I say this even though I often disagree with 'em).

A new blog

From what I can tell, Criminal Appeal kicks ass.