Testing Deterrence:  Doug Berman posted his thoughts at Sentencing Law and Policy today on whether Maryland and Virginia's contrary death penalty stances are the perfect set-up for a case study on death penalty deterrence.  Berman points to a recent piece in the Washington Post by Marc Fisher titled "Maryland & Virginia Go Separate Ways On Death Penalty."  The piece describes the actions of Virginia and Maryland with regards to the death penalty.  According to Fisher, Virgina is making moves to expand its death penalty while the Governor of Maryland is taking steps to end it.  Fisher's article is critical of Virginia, but finishes with the statement "if history is any guide, economic down times will lead to more crime--not exactly the atmosphere in which a repeal of the death penalty is likely to be carried along by a wave of public support."  Look to Kent's comment at the end of Berman's post for statistics on how the murder rate has been affected by the death penalty in Virginia and Maryland.

SCOTUScasts on Bell v. Kelly and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts:  The Federalist Society has posted SCOTUScasts on two criminal cases heard by the Court this term.  The first, Bell v. Kelly, is discussed by Ronald Eisenberg, a Deputy District Attorney in the Philadelphia DA's office.  Bell v. Kelly concerned the application of the deference rule in federal habeas review.  Bell had appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the deference rule should not apply to a claim based on evidence not heard by a state court.  However, when the Court heard arguments in November it became clear Bell had misstated his claim.  The case was dismissed as improvidently granted.  CJLF's brief can be found here.  The second SCOTUScast, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, features John Douglass, the Dean at the University of Richmond School of Law.  Melendez-Diaz is a confrontation clause case asking the Supreme Court to address whether crime lab reports constitute the kind of testimonial evidence which implicates the Sixth Amendment's protection of the accused's right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." 

And For Something a Little Different... Business Method Patents?:  At Blog of the Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports that the "long-anticipated petition appealing Bilski, et al., v. Doll was filed at the Supreme Court today.  The Bilski petition asks the Court to reexamine a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "business methods" are not patentable because they are not tied to a machine, and do not result in a physical transformation.  Mauro reports that while the legal community was shocked by the Federal Circuit's decision, some believed the decision brought the federal circuit more in line with current Supreme Court sentiment against broad interpretation of patent law.  J. Michael Jakes, partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, filed the petition.  His petition argues that the Supreme Court should return to broader principles that will allow business methods to be patented.