Former Guantanamo Bay Prosecutor Turns Against Tribunals: Dan Slater at Wall Street Journal Blog posted a story on former U.S. Prosecutor Darrel J. Vandeveld. According to the post, Vandeveld was a U.S. Prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay actively involved in prosecuting detainees until last month, when he resigned from his case, the military commissions overall, and, ultimately, active military duty. The LA Times also ran this story. Apparently Vandeveld was disturbed by the U.S. government's failure to provide defense lawyers with the evidence it had against their clients, including exculpatory information. Army Col. Lawrence J. Morris, the chief prosecutor and Vandeveld’s boss, disputed this charge, saying that the Office of Military Commissions provides “every scrap of paper and information” to the defense.

Tracking Offenders on Probation: Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy sees an expansion of "technocorrections." Berman provides a link to an article from the San Bernardino Sun that reports the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors has voted "to expand the county's use of surveillance technology to track criminal offenders who are on probation or serving time on house arrest or weekends in jail." The surveillance would include GPS, home-based electronic monitoring, and alcohol monitoring. Berman believes that where faced with tight budgets, the expansion of "technocorrections" is inevitable. He also believes the San Bernardino "article provides a big window into the criminal justice future...".

Linda Greenhouse Reflects on Three Decades of Supreme Court Reporting: Howard Bashman at How Appealing provides a link to an interview in Radar, by Charles Kaiser, where Greenhouse looks back on her years reporting on the Court for the New York Times.

Funny Essay on Statutory Interpretation: Orin Kerr provides a link to the abstract for what he calls a "Very Funny Essay" by Hillel Levin. The abstract, and a link to download the essay, are available on SSRN. The abstract describes: "Based on a true story, this piece starts with a proclamation by Mother, the Supreme Lawmaker, that "no food may be eaten outside the kitchen." What follows is a series of rulings by Judges--father, babysitter, grandma (a liberal jurist, of course), etc.--who, using traditional tools of interpretation, eventually declare it to mean that all food may be eaten outside of the kitchen. Ultimately, the supreme lawmaker reacts and clarifies." The essay is meant to demonstrate that we all use statutory interpretation and often "the various tools seem perfectly reasonable individually, [but] in the aggregate, they can lead to ridiculous results."

Oregon v. Ice: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has this preview of tomorrow's argument on whether the Apprendi line of cases will be extended to consecutive sentencing. CJLF's brief is here.