Commentary on Medellin Execution: Lyle Denniston posted a commentary on the Supreme Court's recent decisions of Medellin, Kennedy, and the "meaning of silence" at SCOTUSblog today. Denniston finds it significant that in these two recent death penalty cases, the silence of the U.S. Solicitor General and Congress has or will play a role in the Court's decisions. In the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, the U.S. Solicitor General and the state of Louisiana have asked the Supreme Court to reopen the case to address the gap left in the ruling regarding the death penalty for child rape. In Medellin, the majority denied Medellin's petition for a stay of execution in part because of the U.S. Solicitor General's decision not "to seek our intervention" in Medellin's execution. Denniston believes the implication of these cases is "obvious" "on an issue as volatile as capital punishment, every last argument — including an argument not made — may turn out to be weighty authority." Of course, Denniston also notes this is not the norm, as the Court does not normally address issues not raised in the lower courts. According to Denniston "the role of the two political branches of the federal government — including roles not played — could be seen as one crucial factor" in the decisions.

Seventh Circuit Decision on Standard of Proof: Sentencing Law and Policy has Guest Bloggers from the criminal defense firm of Proskauer Rose posting while Doug Berman is on vacation. Today's post is on the Seventh Circuit's decision to vacate and remand the district court's decision in United States v. Schroeder, because the district court failed to apply the correct standard of proof. According to the post, the decision clarified the distinction between the government’s burden of proof with respect to a disputed fact and the standard for admissibility of evidence at sentencing. Schroeder's first sentence had been reversed by the Seventh Circuit because the sentence was six months longer than the statutory maximum. Schroeder was resentenced in a second hearing, and appealed his second sentence arguing the prosecution had not met its burden of proving the improper tax deductions for which he was being sentenced were his fault. The Seventh Circuit's decision reversed the district court's finding that disputed fact was "based on information of sufficient reliability," and noted "that although the standard for admissibility at sentencing is whether 'the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy,' a disputed fact must nonetheless be proved by a preponderance of the evidence."

Free Access to Psychology and Psychiatry Journals from Sage: Hattip to Psychology and Crime News for letting us know that from August 1 through September 30th, Sage will make a set of their Journals in Psychology and Psychiatry available for free. All you have to do is register.