Results matching “willingham”

Steven Kreytak has this update in the AA-S:

An inquiry into whether Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongly executed was postponed today after state District Judge Charlie Baird announced that he needed some time to review a motion for his recusal from the case.

Baird reset the case for a week from Thursday in his Travis County courtroom.

From the Corsicana Daily Sun:

Steven Kreytak reports in the Austin American-Statesman, "Navarro County District Attorney Lowell Thompson has filed a motion asking for Judge Charlie Baird's recusal from tomorrow's planned court inquiry into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for the arson deaths of his three young daughters."

"Thompson also noted that the statute of limitations for official oppression, the crime the petition alleges was committed by unnamed state officials, has expired."  The procedure being invoked here, the court of inquiry, is only for the purpose of determining if there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and, if so, initiate a prosecution.  Absent a prosecutable offense, there is no reason for the proceeding.

Another nugget: "Thompson's motion also noted that earlier this year Baird received the Courage Award from the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, another factor that could call into question his ability to be impartial."

Jeff Carlton of AP has this brief story on the motion.

Also, at the DMN's blog, Michael Landauer has this post on CJLF's press release.

The prior post on this case is here.

Update: A revised version of Kreytak's story is here. Janet Jacobs has this story in the Corsicana Daily Sun, the local paper of the scene of the crime.

There is much buzz in Texas about a hearing that the notorious Judge Charles Baird intends to hold this week on the Willingham case.  According to this story by Steven Kreytak in the Austin-American Statesman, the Innocence Project went to their favorite judge to ask for a court of inquiry to examine whether the crime of "oppression" had been committed in this infamous case.  (See links to prior posts at the end of this one.)  Now, you wouldn't think that Texas law would allow such blatant judge-shopping, and you would be right.  Courts of inquiry are governed by Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Article 52.01(b)(2) provides,

After the affidavit has been entered into the minutes of his court and a copy filed with the district clerk, the judge shall request the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district in which the affidavit is filed to appoint a judge to commence the Court of Inquiry. The judge appointed to commence the Court of Inquiry shall issue a written order commencing the Court of Inquiry and stating its scope. The presiding judge shall not name the judge who requests the Court of Inquiry to preside over the Court of Inquiry.

From the press reports, one would think that Judge Baird is actually going to conduct the Court of Inquiry this week and decide the question of whether there was a violation of the law in Willingham's case and (by the way) whether Willingham was actually innocent.

But Judge Baird has no authority to decide those things.  All he has authority to do is request the presiding judge to name another judge to conduct the inquiry.  Willingham's petition further asks him to "Declare that Mr. Willingham was wrongfully convicted, and that all legal disabilities attaching to him or his survivors as a result of that conviction are forever removed."

Judge Baird has no authority to enter such a declaration in this proceeding, and such an order would be void.

Oh, and there aren't any "legal disabilities."  Willingham is dead, and we haven't attached disabilities to criminals' family members since long before Texas was a state. Of course, Willingham doesn't have any descendants any more.  He burned them all alive.

The issue of crime was barely mentioned in the 2008 election, but shoots are poking up as we head into this year's season. Robert Garrett has this article in the Dallas Morning News on a Democratic primary debate for Texas governor. It appears that newcomer Farouk Shami has swallowed the anti side's propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and he has called for a moratorium on executions.

"We have killed lots of innocent people in the state of Texas," Shami said - a claim that hasn't been definitively proven.

Garrett's "hasn't been definitively proven" is a major understatement. Not a single execution of an innocent person in Texas has been definitively proven. Shami's claim of "lots" is a flight of imagination.

[Former Houston Mayor Bill] White, though, said a moratorium on executions would be too broad. "That would disrespect the juries and the victims," he said.

White acknowledged the system has problems, but said it generally works pretty well. He said he rejects "one-size-fits-all" solutions in this and other parts of government.

White also managed to get in a dig at Perry on the question, criticizing the governor for reshuffling a state forensic science panel that was scheduled to hear experts on flawed arson science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the fire that killed his three daughters.

Does Guinness World Records have an entry for the greatest number of false or misleading factual assertions in a single newspaper editorial? Apparently not, but if they wish to start one, this death penalty editorial in the San Jose Mercury News is a credible candidate.

Some of the statements in the editorial are opinion, and of course the paper is perfectly entitled to its opinion, as is everyone else. As the saying goes, though, while they are entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Some of the statements supporting the opinion are misleading and some are outright false.

US Supreme Court to determine Adequate Miranda Warnings:  A St. Petersburg Times article written by John Frank reports on a case to be heard by the US Supreme Court today to determine whether Kevin Dewayne Powell was adequately advised of his right to an attorney.  Powell was arrested on a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after police saw him leave a room and found a gun under a bed.  After being given a Miranda warning, Powell signed a acknowledgment of rights form and confessed to owning the gun.  At trial, he changed his story and alleged that police threatened to arrest his girlfriend if he did not take responsibility.  He was convicted by a jury and a judge sentenced him to 10 years.  In September of 2008, Florida's Supreme Court ruled that authorities needed to expressly convey the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the Tampa police warning was inadequate. It "suggests to a reasonable person in the suspects shoes that he or she can only consult with an attorney before questioning." Opinion found here. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has asked the US Supreme Court to clarify the issue.  Tampa Police have since change the wording of the Miranda warning used, but there are Florida cases pending that are asking for clarification on the Miranda issue.  Oral argument transcripts are available here. 

Support for the Death Penalty:  Gant Daily published an article by Jesse Hicks reporting on the support of the death penalty in America.  According to professor Suzanna Linn at Penn State, support for the death penalty is on a decline.  Linn says "[a]lthough a majority still supports the death penalty in the abstract, fewer and fewer defendants are being sentenced to death both because prosecutors are less likely to seek the death penalty and juries are less likely to mete out a death penalty sentence."  Linn believes the decline in support is because of articles like "Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?", which was featured in the New Yorker magazine.  Kent's posts have demonstrated the healthy degree of skepticism that must be given to that particular piece.  More relevant information can be found by accessing the Gallup polls and by looking at the 35 states that still have Death Penalty statutes.    

Jurors Dispute Willingham's Innocence:  Evidence keeps cropping up to challenge the veracity of roving reporter David Grann's allegation in his September 7, New Yorker article  that Texas executed an innocent man 2004. Earlier posts here, here and here reported facts related to Todd Cameron Willingham's conviction and death sentence for the 1991 arson and  murder of this three children. Grann's piece focuses on the forensic evidence of arson, which has been disputed by other experts. Today, a story by AP writer Jeff Carlton quotes Willingham's defense attorney, and four jurors he was able to locate from the 1992 trial. All of them still believe Willingham is guilty.  The veteran defense attorney says that he did not present a fire expert at trial because "We hired one...and he said: 'Yep.  It's arson.'"  The two fire experts who testified for the prosecution found evidence that an accelerant was used to start the fire.  The jurors noted that, in addition to the forensic evidence, other information helped to convince them.  Days after the fire Willingham was at the scene complaining that his dart set was either burned or stolen. He then told a fire department paramedic that he had poured cologne (an accelerant) along the floor from the bathroom through the hallway (where the childrens' bodies were found) because the children liked the smell.  Neighbors testified that while his children were trapped inside the burning house, Willingham moved his car to keep it from catching fire.      

Innocence Project Report on Willingham: At Homicide Survivors, Dudley Sharp refutes multiple misstatements in the Innocence Project's report on the Willingham case.

Wood v. Allen Argument Preview: At SCOTUSblog, Tiffany Cartwright, a 3L at Stanford Law School, previews Wood v. Allen.  The case addresses how a federal court should review the state court's finding of facts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).  Wood was convicted for murdering his ex-girlfriend and sentenced to death.  On direct appeal, the state courts rejected his petition for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence of his mental impairments during sentencing constituted ineffective assistance.  He filed a habeas petition and the district court granted relief because it believed the "finding by the state courts that a strategic decision was made not to investigate or introduce . . . evidence of mental retardation is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the clear and convincing evidence presented in the record."  The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Cartwright notes that Wood's first argument is different from the question presented in his cert. petition, i.e., that relief may be granted because the state court decision was an unreasonable application of the Court's decisions in Strickland v. Washington and Wiggins v. Smith.  Alabama's brief urges the Court to disregard this argument because because it is not the question presented, and it is also without merit.  CJLF also filed a brief in Wood.  It can be found here, along with Kent's other posts on the case (here, here and here). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next Wednesday, November 4th.  

More Death Penalty Delay in Ohio: Doug Berman reports on Sentencing Law and Policy that Ohio is having a hard time finding doctors to help revise its lethal injection protocol.  Berman links to an Associated Press article by Andrew Welsh-Huggins that reports ethical and professional rules are deterring doctors and nurses from speaking publicly or privately about alternatives to the state's lethal injection process.  Attorney General Richard Cordray has said that it has been difficult to identify qualified medical personnel willing and able to provide advice to the state regarding lethal injection.  This is nothing new, North Carolina has had to address similar issues in the past.  There is one fairly recent factual development (although relatively old-hat request) mentioned in the article.  According to Welsh-Huggins, last Friday the European Union asked Ohio's governor not to execute Broom and to temporarily halt all executions in Ohio.  

Less Punishment = Less Crime?: Over the weekend Volokh Conspiracy opened up its blog to UCLA Public Policy Professor Mark Kleiman, so that he could present his thoughts on How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment.  In his post, Kleiman argues that "brute force" has not helped America control crime, and believes that now is the time for Americans to start thinking about new ways to control our crime rate.  In Kleiman's view, "[p]unishment should be swift and certain rather than severe; those subject to it should know precisely what actions will lead to punishment; efforts should be concentrated, rather than dispersed, to enjoy the benefit of the positive-feedback process in which reduced offending leads to increased deterrence." The argument is typical of the claim that better enforcement and sufficient punishment are somehow opposed, and we must choose between them. It is a false dilemma. We would need to cut one to boost the other only if everything else government does is higher priority than public safety, and there is nowhere else in the entire budget to cut. We all know that is not true.

One person the New Yorker story has definitely not convinced of Cameron Todd Willingham's innocence is Stacy Kuykendall. Her statement, printed in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, says, "Governor Rick Perry called Cameron Todd Willingham a 'monster' and indeed he was." She should know. She was married to him and is the mother of the three baby girls who died in the fire.

I did witness Cameron Todd Willingham's execution. Todd set our house on fire then stood outside and watched it burn. He knew our three daughters were inside this home taking [their] last breath. He watched them die. I felt like the only thing that I could do is watch their murderer die. I wasn't there for closure. My closure was when he told me what he had done. I stood on the behalf of my three daughters. Todd's final words never mentioned his daughters but yet I keep hearing what a loving father he was. Todd spent his last words expressing his love to his prison pen pal Gabby and then he addressed me. He told me repeatedly in obscenity-laced language that he hoped I would "rot in hell" and attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist, into an obscene gesture.

So we have confirmation that the tirade in Willingham's very last words, the portion David Grann chose to omit from his story, was indeed directed at her.  Further, unless Ms. Kuykendall is lying, Willingham himself admitted his guilt.

One thing is certain. Those who contend Willingham was certainly innocent are full of baloney.  This is looking more and more like a rerun of the Coleman case. A major news magazine convinced large numbers of people the executed man was innocent. His supporters asserted his innocence as a proven fact. When all the facts were in, he was clearly guilty.

Also in the FWS-T, Dave Montgomery has this long story on the case.

Update: The Dallas Morning News has this story by Steve McGonigle, Brooks Egerton, and Gary Jacobson.  They come close to calling Barry Scheck a liar.

The very last paragraph of David Grann's much-discussed New Yorker piece on the Willingham case is:

Just before Willingham received the lethal injection, he was asked if he had any last words. He said, "The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return, so the Earth shall become my throne." ♦

That poignant end reads almost like a Hollywood script, doesn't it?  He reasserts his innocence, and his very last words are religious. Fade to black. Well, Grann doesn't actually say those words are the very last, but that is certainly the picture the reader gets. And the statement as Grann reports it is consistent with what we might expect from a person who actually was innocent.

Is Grann's report the truth? Yes, if one defines truth in the Clintonesque way of defensible as not literally false. Is it the whole truth?

Notice: The extended portion of this post (following this paragraph and after the jump if you are viewing our main page), contains language we would not normally use on this blog. However, it is necessary in order to tell the whole truth.

At the Dallas Morning News's Texas Death Penalty Blog, editorial writer and death penalty opponent Rodger Jones has a note of caution for his fellow opponents:

But we haven't heard the full and undistorted story about this tortured, politically tinged case. I'm dismayed that so many people are jumping the gun on it -- assuming the worst on the part of the state and suspending all skepticism where fire expert Craig Beyler is concerned. This extends to people in the media. How can we make conclusions until we know everything that's knowable? How can we fail to question Dr. Beyler's findings as though he is the last word in these matters? Is there no range of thought within the world of science or forensics?

*                              *                            *

The AP has this story on the Willingham case, a case in which the anti side is running around saying it is certain an innocent man was executed. (The last time they said that was in the case of Roger Coleman, subsequently proven guilty to a certainty by DNA.)

Kuykendall said his sister Stacy, Willingham's former wife, called her family together on Feb. 8, 2004, to tell them about a visit with her ex-husband, the Corsicana Daily Sun reported.

"Stacy asked all of us to come into the living room, at this time she started crying and told us about her visit with Willingham," Ronnie Kuykendall said in the affidavit.

"She stated that after visiting with him for about one hour and 45 minutes he told her that he had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him in January (1992) like she had said and that she was going to divorce him and he figured if he did this she would stay with him and she could get her tubes untied and that they could start another family and that he wanted her to write the board a letter because he did not want to die," according to Ronnie Kuykendall.

Stacy Kuykendall has declined to talk to the media since her ex-husband's execution.

The second affidavit is from a neighbor who this month gave a statement about what he saw on the morning of the December 1991 fire.

Tony Ayala told Corsicana police Detective Seth Fuller on Oct. 6 that he saw Willingham packing his vehicle and moving it out of the carport as smoke poured out of the house.

Ayala told Fuller that he tried to tell police in 1991 what he saw, but he was rebuffed.

Janet Jacobs has this story in the Corsicana Daily Sun. An earlier story on Gov. Perry's statement regarding the Forensic Science Commission is noted in yesterday's News Scan.

Anderson Cooper of CNN has this interview with Willingham's trial counsel David Martin and Chicago Tribune reporter Steve Mills.

Senate Bill Would Eliminate Cocaine Sentencing Disparity:   Washington Post Staff Writer Carrie Johnson reports that Thursday, the Senate's second-ranking democrat introduced a bill to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine.  Under current law, it takes 100 times more powdered cocaine than crack to trigger the same mandatory minimum sentence.  Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin introduced the bill to change the sentencing disparity between the two forms of the drug.  Senator Durbin believes that tough sentencing has led to the imprisonment of African Americans at a rate six times the rate of whites. The bill would erase the current sentencing disparity and would increase the volume of crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory prison term.  The measure would stiffen penalties for large-scale drug traffickers and violent criminals.  Law enforcement officials have approached the issue differently.  They advocate elimination of  the disparity by increasing the penalties for possessions of powder cocaine.  Raising the volume of crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory prison term could save more than $510 million over the next 15 years, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Texas Governor Defends Execution:  Associated Press writers Kelly Shannon and Michael Graczyk report that Texas Governor Rick Perry is standing firm on the recent controversy surrounding Cameron Todd Willingham.  He stated that Willingham is "a monster" who killed his three children.  He believes suggestions that Willingham may have been innocent are anti-death penalty propaganda.  Willingham was convicted of capital murder for the 1991 deaths of his children, by setting fire to the family's home while the children were inside.  Recently, forensic scientists have called into question arson evidence used to convict Willingham, but the prosecutor in the case, John Jackson, still believes Willingham is guilty.  Governor Perry was recently criticized for replacing members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission before they reviewed the arson report used in Willingham's conviction.  Craig Beyler, an arson expert hired by the Forensic Science Commission to study the case, concluded that "the arson findings were not scientifically supported and that investigators at the scene had poor understanding of fire science."  Beyler went further last Wednesday, when he stated Governor Perry's failure to recuse himself from the Commission is "unethical and injurious to the cause of justice."  Allison Castle, the Governor's spokeswoman, said, "this statement demonstrates that [Beyler] was never an objective scientist looking only at forensic facts.  He clearly has another agenda."  Governor Perry states that he wants to remind the public of all the facts of the case that implicated the man, instead of "glomming onto" one piece of evidence "and saying 'Ah-ha.'" 

The City of Corsicana, Texas, has responded to the report of Craig Beyler regarding the arson investigation of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Janet Jacobs had this story over the weekend in the Corsicana Daily Sun. The tone of the response is rather breezy for such a serious matter. The author is apparently a member of the Kozinski school of contractions. Even so, it provides more pieces to the puzzle.

From the opening paragraphs, it appears that the Forensic Science Commission gave the fire chief one month to investigate and respond to allegations about an 18 year old case. This tends to confirm the suspicions that the commission was engaged in a setup and the governor was correct to replace three members whose terms had expired.

On page 2 is this paragraph:

Dr. Beyler continually uses the phrase "standard of care." NFPA 921 speaks in terms of Recommended Practices and Standards. As I understand it, the phrase "standard of care" is usually used by lawyers and judges when talking about medical care. Corsicana runs an EMS service and that phrase is used to describe what a reasonably prudent EMT (or nurse or physician) would do under the same or similar circumstances based on accepted medical practices. The use of the phrase in this context leaves the impression that Dr. Beyler's report is being written much like an expert witness report in a lawsuit -- that is, Dr. Beyler is assuming the role of an advocate and not acting as an objective, independent voice. Given some of Dr. Beyler's distortions of the trial record, as described below, it may be that he has assumed the role of an advocate.

The response of the state fire marshal is not in yet. We look forward to that response. In the meantime, it would be good for everyone to remember that New Yorker Magazine is not Revealed Truth. I shouldn't have to say that, but people who really should know better (such as Jonathan Adler at VC) seem to be accepting the magazine story uncritically.

For a very long time, the anti-death-penalty crowd has been desperately seeking proof of an innocent person who has been executed. For many years, Roger Coleman of Virginia was their poster boy, despite the fact that the limited DNA testing available before his execution confirmed his guilt to substantial degree. He even made the cover of Time Magazine. When the definitive test was done with improved technology years later, it proved his guilt beyond doubt, and the people who had proclaimed him certainly innocent were publicly shown to be the dishonest people they are.

Then they dug up Ellis Wayne Felker. The test in that case was inconclusive. The search continued.

The latest darling is Cameron Todd Willingham.  For background, see this article by Janet Jacobs from the local newspaper, the Corsicana Daily Sun.  This story includes this nugget:

From his seat at the defense table, attorney David Martin's job was to fight tooth and nail for Willingham. Once it was over, though, Martin became convinced his client was guilty. He dismisses the Beyler report as propaganda from anti-death penalty supporters.

"The Innocence Project is an absolute farce," Martin said. "It's a bunch of hype, in my opinion."

In these actual innocence claim cases, it is not unusual for the trial prosecutor to stand by his case, but I do not recall one where the original defense lawyer is also convinced his former client was indeed guilty as charged.

The New Yorker Magazine, unsurprisingly, has a different take in this article by David Grann.

The dispute turns on arson investigation, and the Texas Forensic Science Commission had scheduled a meeting on Friday to consider a report on the case. However, the terms of four of the members expired on September 1. Gov. Rick Perry has decided not to reappoint three of them. The new chairman has decided to postpone the meeting until the new members acquaint themselves with the issues. Janet Jacobs, once again, reports on the case for the local paper.

The Dallas Morning News is predictably outraged, with this story by Christy Hoppe. How many loaded words can you count in the story? The new appointee to the commission chair is "conservative" and "hard-core." The author of the report is "a nationally recognized fire expert." The predictable Barry Scheck is prominently quoted with a predictably incendiary comparison to President Nixon's "Saturday night massacre" firing of Archibald Cox. Not until half-way down the story does the reader who reads that far find out that the governor did not fire anyone but rather declined to reappoint people who terms had expired, a major difference.

Missing from the story is any mention of the concerns I have heard, albeit second-hand, that the hearing was a set-up and the commission was not going to give the Texas fire marshal's office a fair chance to respond.

The commission has nine members. Replacement of three is not going to produce a whitewash. A pause for the new members to get up to speed and to conduct a fair hearing may produce a report that people can have more confidence in.

Another Perspective on Willingham's Case:  Over the weekend, Homicide Survivors posted a piece by Janet Jacobs of the Corsicana Daily Sun on Texas' execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.  Jacobs piece, "No doubts," was published in the local paper of Corsicana, Texas where Cameron Todd Willingham lived with his family in 1991.  In early September, the New Yorker published an article, "Trial by Fire," wondering whether Willingham had committed the arson that he was executed for.  Jacobs article starts with a brief synopsis of Willingham's case:

"The undeniable facts of the Cameron Todd Willingham case are these:
• On Dec. 23, 1991, 2-year-old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and 1-year-old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham died in a mid-morning house fire at 1213 W. 11th Ave. in Corsicana.
• Willingham, 23, the children's father, and the only adult home at the time of the fire, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death on Aug. 21, 1992.
• After five appeals and 12 years on death row, he was put to death by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004.
Everything else is controversial." 

Appointing a "Professional" Judiciary:  At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts his thoughts on Gerard Magliocca's Concurring Opinion's post "A Professional Judiciary?"  Both Berman and Magliocca are concerned that President Obama's "early pattern" of elevating lower court judges in his nomination choices could, in Magliocca's words, "harm[] the quality of the bench and creates undue pressure on District judges to act in a politically safe way in the hope of getting promoted."  Berman writes that he is a fan of judicial diversity, and believes that "federal circuit sentencing law might be improved by having more circuit judges who have experienced sentencing first-hand."

Washington Supreme Court Allows Warrant to Obtain Blood Alcohol Test of Drunk Driving Suspect:  At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has a quick post on Seattle v. St. John, where the Washington Supreme Court said that police could get a warrant to force a blood alcohol test on a drunk driving suspect after St. John refused to give one voluntarily.  St. John challenged the warrant and the test as a violation of Washington's implied consent statute.  FourthAmendment.com also has a link to the case. 
 
Would Overruling Austin and McConnell on Narrow Grounds be "Faux Judicial Restraint"?  That's what Rick Hasen wonders over at Election Law Blog.  In his post, Rick discusses oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, focusing in on Justice Scalia's line of argument that the requirement that corporations pay for federal-election related expenditures is not flat-out unconstitutional (as Justice Scalia has repeatedly said in the past) but perhaps merely "overbroad," because it includes non-wealthy corporations.  Hasen, who has "always been a fan of Justice Scalia's opinions," does not agree with this line of reasoning and calls it "faux judicial restraint that obfuscates what the Court is really doing."  He believes that if the Court accepts Scalia's argument (transcript here), and remands to Congress to rewrite the statute more narrowly, any new law would then be struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

I have received some inquiries on why we have not posted on the New Yorker article on the Willingham case. Two reasons:

First, the case has been kicking around a long time, and I do not regard the article as the kind of major event that demands immediate comment.

Second, and more importantly, the broader subject of innocence and the death penalty does not lend itself to the kind of "quickie" post I can dash off in a few minutes. When we do post on the subject, it will be one of the longer posts on this blog, and we will have to go over it carefully to minimize the ability of the more dishonest elements of the opposition to distort what we say. (We can never eliminate that possibility entirely, of course.)

CJLF has three briefs and two law review articles due this month, so in the short run blogging will be limited to things we feel comfortable writing and posting quickly. This case is not one of them.