Vetting - Through a Judge's Decisions: At SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein has a lengthy post summarizing Judge Sotomayor's "principal opinions in civil cases." Goldstein writes that while media commentary may provide insight into the next Supreme Court Justice, a Judge's opinions, "the most accessible and valuable source of information," should also be considered. Goldstein's post reviews Judge Sotomayor's opinions on First Amendment rights of speech and religion, abortion, civil rights, environmental law, the second amendment, international law, privacy and voting rights. Goldstein promises that a summary of criminal opinions will follow. Jonathan Adler has a post at Bench Memos pointing to another good source of information - judge's speeches. Orin Kerr chimes in at Volokh Conspiracy on one of Judge Sotomayor's speeches.
The Great Writ Isn't Used Much... At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman links to a SSRN article by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman titled, "The Great Writ Diminished." The article examines a random sample of 2,384 habeas petitions filed in United States District Courts in 2007 by state prisoners in non-capital cases, and finds relief was only granted in seven cases. Adelman argues that, based on his own experience of granting relief in 12 cases in 2007, "the Great Writ has been diminished." Adelman is a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and a former Wisconsin legislator.
The fact that a small fraction of petitions for writs of habeas corpus are granted has been known for a long time. As Justice Jackson pointed out in 1953, that is because nearly all of them are meritless. Also, referring to the modern writ of collateral attack as the "Great Writ" is misleading. The historical writ of habeas corpus that earned that name was simply unavailable to collaterally attack a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Because Findings of Innocence Get Appealed... At Blog of Legal Times, Mike Scarcella reports that the Department of Justice is planning to appeal a certificate of innocence issued by the D.C. federal district court earlier this year. In 2005, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer overturned the murder convictions against Joseph Eastridge and Joseph Sousa for their alleged roles in the 1974 racially charged stabbing death of Johnnie Battle. Lawyers for Sousa and Eastridge argued the certificate of innocence was necessary to pursue a wrongful conviction claim against the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. (Previous posts on the grant can be found here.) In order to obtain a certificate of innocence, 28 U.S.C. ยง2513 requires the petitioner to prove, among other things, that "He did not commit any of the acts charged or his acts, deeds, or omissions in connection with such charge constituted no offense against the United States, or any State, Territory or the District of Columbia, and he did not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about his own prosecution..." The government argued that Sousa and Eastridge could not meet this burden in the initial hearing. Scarcella does not report on whether the DOJ is arguing the same issue on appeal.
The Great Writ Isn't Used Much... At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman links to a SSRN article by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman titled, "The Great Writ Diminished." The article examines a random sample of 2,384 habeas petitions filed in United States District Courts in 2007 by state prisoners in non-capital cases, and finds relief was only granted in seven cases. Adelman argues that, based on his own experience of granting relief in 12 cases in 2007, "the Great Writ has been diminished." Adelman is a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and a former Wisconsin legislator.
The fact that a small fraction of petitions for writs of habeas corpus are granted has been known for a long time. As Justice Jackson pointed out in 1953, that is because nearly all of them are meritless. Also, referring to the modern writ of collateral attack as the "Great Writ" is misleading. The historical writ of habeas corpus that earned that name was simply unavailable to collaterally attack a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Because Findings of Innocence Get Appealed... At Blog of Legal Times, Mike Scarcella reports that the Department of Justice is planning to appeal a certificate of innocence issued by the D.C. federal district court earlier this year. In 2005, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer overturned the murder convictions against Joseph Eastridge and Joseph Sousa for their alleged roles in the 1974 racially charged stabbing death of Johnnie Battle. Lawyers for Sousa and Eastridge argued the certificate of innocence was necessary to pursue a wrongful conviction claim against the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. (Previous posts on the grant can be found here.) In order to obtain a certificate of innocence, 28 U.S.C. ยง2513 requires the petitioner to prove, among other things, that "He did not commit any of the acts charged or his acts, deeds, or omissions in connection with such charge constituted no offense against the United States, or any State, Territory or the District of Columbia, and he did not by misconduct or neglect cause or bring about his own prosecution..." The government argued that Sousa and Eastridge could not meet this burden in the initial hearing. Scarcella does not report on whether the DOJ is arguing the same issue on appeal.
Leave a comment