Medellin, Again
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Medellin v. Texas, the case on implementation of the Vienna Convention and the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case. The orders list is here. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision is here, and our post on that decision is here. The U.S. Supreme Court's previous nondecision on federal habeas corpus is here.
In other SCOTUS action, the Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the police officer in the bumping-the-fleeing-car case, Scott v. Harris: decision here, video is here. We will have more on this multifaceted decision later today.
Comments
I found Justice Steven's dissent curious. He states: "In my view, the risks inherent in justifying unwarranted police conduct on the basis of unfounded assumptions are unacceptable, particularly when less drastic measures—in this case, the use of stop sticks or a simple warning issued from a loudspeaker— could have avoided such a tragic result."
How many car chases has the Justice been in? And how would a "warning from the loudspeaking" have changed anything? It seems that the suspect has only himself to blame for this serious injuries he suffered.
Posted by: Steve![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 30, 2007 08:41 AM
You really have to feel sorry for the victims' families in Medellin. One wonders if those judges in the international court gave one hoot about their suffering. They ordered up a remedy that no other nation has given. One has to question the purity of their motives.
Big win in the chase case. Stevens is living in the past. He also was the lone dissent from a PC case a few years back on a similar issue.
Posted by: federalist![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 30, 2007 08:44 AM