President Bush Issues Pardons: At Blog of the Legal Times David Ingram posts on President Bush's 19 new pardons and one new commutation. The pardons, announced by the DOJ today, involved convictions for financial crimes, firearm violations, or drug offenses. One drug commutation went to Reed Raymond Prior, sentenced to life in prison in
Ohio in 1996 for possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute. His sentence will now expire Feb. 23, 2009. Ingram reports that Reed's commutation was supported by Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which says he has overcome his addiction and begun tutoring other inmates. Ingram's post contains the DOJ's press release, which provides a full list of those pardoned. Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy also has a post with links to an AP article and Ben Smith's commentary at Politico.
Bush v. Gore Eight Years Later: David Post has a piece on Volokh Conspiracy discussing Adam Liptak's article "Bush v. Gore Set to Outlast Its Beneficiary" in yesterday's New York Times. Liptak's article states that although the Bush v. Gore decision was intended to "produce a president and then self-destruct[,]" courts are beginning to see the case argued in briefs, and are invoking it in decisions. For example, the Sixth Circuit invoked Bush v. Gore last month in League of Women Voters of Ohio et al. v. Brunner et al. The three-judge panel relied on (and quoted) Bush v. Gore when it held that once a state grants the right to vote on equal terms, it may not "by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." The 2000 decision was also front and center in last week's recount litigation in the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Post comments on Volokh Conspiracy that the Bush v. Gore decision can have several different meanings, and that "[u]ltimately, its meaning will [be] determined by what happens subsequent to the decision itself, in the ways in which later courts use it and apply it in future cases." I guess we will have to wait and see what happens in the next eight years...
Research No Defense for Child Porn Possession: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman blogs on the guilty plea of Wade Rowland Sanders, a Vietnam War hero who served in a senior Navy post during the Clinton administration. Sanders pled guilty in San Diego federal court yesterday for possessing computer files containing 600 images of minors, including a 21-minute video that depicted girls engaging in sex acts with an adult man. CNN and the San Diego Tribune have both reported on the plea. Sanders apparently told the Tribune that he downloaded the files "as part of his research for an article on the sexual exploitation of children in foreign countries[,]" pleaded guilty even though he didn't realize federal child pornography laws barred downloading or viewing the material even by researchers. Sanders, a lawyer, stated his decision was based on the fact that "I'm technically guilty of the crime." The plea, to one felony charge of possession of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, could result in a maximum of 10 years in prison. Sanders could also be fined $250,000 and be required to register as a sex offender. James Taranto of WSJ weighs in here.
Bush v. Gore Eight Years Later: David Post has a piece on Volokh Conspiracy discussing Adam Liptak's article "Bush v. Gore Set to Outlast Its Beneficiary" in yesterday's New York Times. Liptak's article states that although the Bush v. Gore decision was intended to "produce a president and then self-destruct[,]" courts are beginning to see the case argued in briefs, and are invoking it in decisions. For example, the Sixth Circuit invoked Bush v. Gore last month in League of Women Voters of Ohio et al. v. Brunner et al. The three-judge panel relied on (and quoted) Bush v. Gore when it held that once a state grants the right to vote on equal terms, it may not "by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." The 2000 decision was also front and center in last week's recount litigation in the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Post comments on Volokh Conspiracy that the Bush v. Gore decision can have several different meanings, and that "[u]ltimately, its meaning will [be] determined by what happens subsequent to the decision itself, in the ways in which later courts use it and apply it in future cases." I guess we will have to wait and see what happens in the next eight years...
Research No Defense for Child Porn Possession: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman blogs on the guilty plea of Wade Rowland Sanders, a Vietnam War hero who served in a senior Navy post during the Clinton administration. Sanders pled guilty in San Diego federal court yesterday for possessing computer files containing 600 images of minors, including a 21-minute video that depicted girls engaging in sex acts with an adult man. CNN and the San Diego Tribune have both reported on the plea. Sanders apparently told the Tribune that he downloaded the files "as part of his research for an article on the sexual exploitation of children in foreign countries[,]" pleaded guilty even though he didn't realize federal child pornography laws barred downloading or viewing the material even by researchers. Sanders, a lawyer, stated his decision was based on the fact that "I'm technically guilty of the crime." The plea, to one felony charge of possession of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, could result in a maximum of 10 years in prison. Sanders could also be fined $250,000 and be required to register as a sex offender. James Taranto of WSJ weighs in here.
Leave a comment