The Remaining Supreme Court Decisions: Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog posted his predictions for the 2007-2008 cases that are still unresolved. Based on his SCOTUS sudoku method, Goldstein predicts Justice Scalia is the author of District of Columbia v. Heller, indicating a probably win for the would-be gun owner. He also predicts that Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito are the likely authors of opinions for Giles v. California and Kennedy v. Louisiana but concedes these predictions are "wild speculation."

Critiquing Epstein's take on Boumediene: Ed Whalen at Bench Memos critiques a point made by Richard Epstein in an Op-ed Epstein wrote for Saturday's New York Times. Whalen's post points to Epstein's comment "Nothing in the suspension clause distinguishes citizens from aliens.”, and discusses how irrelevant this statement is when "The Suspension Clause doesn’t purport to define the scope of the privilege of habeas corpus; it merely governs suspension of the privilege." Whalen is critical of Epstein's failure to address the originalist argument made in Scalia's dissent, as well as Epstein's failure to recognize no precedent exists "for recognizing in aliens abroad the same constitutional rights of “persons” that U.S. citizens abroad..." Whalen then notes that Andrew McBride got Boumediene right in Saturday's Wall Street Journal.

Sixth Amendment After Rothgery: Orin Kerr has a post at the Volkh Conspiracy pondering when the right to counsel attaches after today's decision in Rothgery v. Gillespe County. Kerr confesses he is not a Sixth Amendment expert, so he asks readers to help resolve some of the questions he has after reading today's decision. One question that Kerr poses, and offers up for comment, is: "If it means there must be counsel before the detention hearing, how is Rothgery consistent with the Sixth Amendment discussion in Gerstein v. Pugh, where the Court indicated that "pretrial custody may affect to some extent the defendant's ability to assist in preparation of his defense," but that a probable cause hearing did not trigger a critical stage requiring a constitutional right to counsel?"

Psychology and Crime News has a couple of interesting research items. First, Behavioral Science and the Law has a special issue on videoconferencing and the law. Another post gives a summary of an article on "The limited role of neuroimaging in determining criminal liability." (Probably not limited enough.)