Odds and Ends Part I

In an effort to catch up on all the odds and ends, I will divide them into manageable chunks of lawful goodness. 

• Another Twist to the “Law of the Circuit” Rule.  The 9th Circuit, in Bradley v. Henry (9th Cir. - Feb. 29, 2008), explains how to deal with plurality decisions.  This is actually fairly important an interesting because it shows that a plurality decision by an en banc court does not become the law of the circuit.   California Appellate Report reports on how.
• Lock Em’ Up.  Ex-Judge Cassell explains that the Pew Report that shows how 1% of Americans are in jail doesn’t show that there can be positive to putting so many people in jail.  I guess this is true.  But, it also shows what the real goal of the Victims Rights Industry is: to put everyone in jail.  This is, surprisingly, easier to stomach than Judge Posner’s book which argues that 1) civil liberties unfortunately lead to more civil liberties; and 2) those that favor civil liberties somehow don’t care about the welfare of the nation (or “national security”).
• If at first you fail, you can try again. Wait a Second reports on the Second Circuit holdings that in a habeas case, the District Court should not have barred the state from trying to retrying the defendant. 
• Tort-reform, First Amendment Style.  Wait a Second also reports on the Second Circuit holding that ‘the English defamation judgment cannot be enforced here in light of our superior free speech values.”  (This is what we call “libel tourism.”)
• The People  The Saucy Vixen explains that public defenders also represent “the people” but “just happen to have one sitting next to [her].”
• A Florida Judge. Indefensible points out that the “Judicial Qualifications Commission recommended the state's highest court should punish [Cheryl ] Alemán for what it said was "arrogant, discourteous and impatient" conduct.” This was the judge that was called an “evil witch” by a lawyer who seems to be facing some punishment for it.  “At trial the comission found that Alemán, unfairly threatened to hold defense attorneys in contempt of court and set unreasonable time limits [especially in death penalty cases] for lawyers to prepare important court documents.”  [The actual findings cand be found here.]
  

Comments

[Ted Frank]

It's funny how I check into this blog for the first time in almost two years, and right away in the first post I read, you get the holding of a case 180 degrees wrong. I plainly haven't missed anything, and you're still plainly not reading (or, at least, understanding) the cases you're talking about.