Second Circuit Rules on Mandatory Minimum Statutes: Doug Berman posts a link to today's Second Circuit decision in U.S. v. Williams. Williams involved the appeal from judgment against Williams for "a drug trafficking crime which carried a ten-year mandatory minimum
sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of that drug trafficking crime, an offense which carried a
five-year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence '[e]xcept to the
extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by . . .
any other provision of law' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)." A district court in New York had imposed the five-year minimum sentence consecutively, even though the ten-year mandatory minimum was provided for by the predicate the drug trafficking offense. The Second Circuit held that 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(1)(A) was "inapplicable where the defendant is subject to a longer mandatory minimum sentence for a drug trafficking offense that is part of the same criminal transaction or set of operative facts as the firearm offense."
Getting Rid of Peremptory Strikes: At the Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel reports on the "radical" possibility of getting rid of peremptory strikes. The article briefly discusses two cases that addressed the judge's role in rooting out discriminatory peremptory strikes: Rivera v. Illinois argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week (CJLF's brief can be found here) and a recent Fifth Circuit decision in Price v. Cain. Koppel writes that it is unlikely states will get rid of peremptory strikes, but it is possible that states will decide to limit the number of strikes available to each party.
Defunding the Adam Walsh Act: At The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry, Cully Stimson has a post criticizing the Justice Department's lack of support for the Adam Walsh Act.
Does Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Have First Amendment Implications?: Jonathan Adler, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, wonders whether Bradley A. Smith and Jeff Patch correctly interpret Caperton as a political speech issue in the context of judicial elections. Smith and Patch wrote an op-ed for Tuesday's Wall Street Journal arguing that Caperton "is one of the most important cases this term" because of "the free speech consequences of requiring a judge's recusal based on the spending of an independent group."
Getting Rid of Peremptory Strikes: At the Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel reports on the "radical" possibility of getting rid of peremptory strikes. The article briefly discusses two cases that addressed the judge's role in rooting out discriminatory peremptory strikes: Rivera v. Illinois argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week (CJLF's brief can be found here) and a recent Fifth Circuit decision in Price v. Cain. Koppel writes that it is unlikely states will get rid of peremptory strikes, but it is possible that states will decide to limit the number of strikes available to each party.
Defunding the Adam Walsh Act: At The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry, Cully Stimson has a post criticizing the Justice Department's lack of support for the Adam Walsh Act.
Does Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Have First Amendment Implications?: Jonathan Adler, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, wonders whether Bradley A. Smith and Jeff Patch correctly interpret Caperton as a political speech issue in the context of judicial elections. Smith and Patch wrote an op-ed for Tuesday's Wall Street Journal arguing that Caperton "is one of the most important cases this term" because of "the free speech consequences of requiring a judge's recusal based on the spending of an independent group."
Leave a comment