Will Melendez-Diaz Affect Parole in Texas?: Scott Henson writes at Grits for Breakfast that a post by R.J. MacReady at Texas Court of Criminal Appeals blog has him wondering if Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could change how Texas courts view confrontation in cases involving business records and parole revocation certificates. MacReady's post focuses on Justice Scalia's ruling that "business records that satisfy the hearsay definition of a business record aren't necessarily immune from a Confrontation Clause objection[.]" This is a problem, because earlier this year, Smith v. Texas held that business records are not "testimonial" under Crawford v. Washington, because, in MacReady's words, they "contained sterile recitations of the fact of revocation rather than a detailed description of the cause." MacReady and Henson both believe that the decision in Smith is suspect now that Justice Scalia has stated business records may be considered "testimonial" if they were prepared specifically for use in court.
Supreme Court Yet to Rule on Troy Davis: Wall Street Journal Law Blogger, Ashby Jones, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has "kicked the can" on the cert petition of death-row inmate Troy Davis. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court, went on summer recess without deciding whether it will consider Davis' appeal for a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed Davis' execution last September, denied his appeal, and sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit eventually rejected Davis' request for a new trial. Jones reports that the Supreme Court will reconsider the appeal next fall.
Ricci May Indicate Larger Battles Ahead: At NRO Bench Memos, Ed Whalen comments on Stuart Taylor Jr.'s post on The Ninth Justice. Both Whalen and Taylor believe that the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of the Sotomayor-endorsed Second Circuit position (that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam), and the different stances taken by the Ricci's dissenters and the Second Circuit, are "important and revealing." (Whalen's post is available here). Taylor, in particular, focuses on the different stances taken by Justice Ginsburg's dissent and the Second Circuit panel. He writes that while both "risk converting disparate-impact law into an engine of overt discrimination against high-scoring groups across the country," Justice Ginsburg "at least required the city to produce some evidence that the test was invalid." The Sotomayor panel did not even require that. Taylor worries that if the Second Circuit's panel decision had been adopted by any of the Justices, the logic would "provide irresistible incentives for employers to abandon any and all tests on which disproportionate numbers of protected minorities have low scores."
When It Comes to Sentence Enhancement, Who is a Fraud Victim?: At Sentencing Law and Policy Doug Berman provides a link to a National Law Journal article addressing the circuit courts' failure to consistently answer that very question. In the article Sheri Qualters reports that last Friday, the First Circuit held that judges should count people who are reimbursed for financial losses from criminal schemes as victims when deciding whether to increase a defendant's sentence. The Eleventh Circuit has reached a similar conclusion. Apparently, however, other circuit courts have decided the issue the other way. Berman believes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission should resolve these discrepancies. He does not believe it is necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Supreme Court Term Summary: Kristina Moore at SCOTUSblog posts Akin Gump annual term summary memo. The memo analyzes voting patterns of the Justices. No surprise: Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote in 18 of the 23 5-4 decisions.
Supreme Court Yet to Rule on Troy Davis: Wall Street Journal Law Blogger, Ashby Jones, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has "kicked the can" on the cert petition of death-row inmate Troy Davis. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court, went on summer recess without deciding whether it will consider Davis' appeal for a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed Davis' execution last September, denied his appeal, and sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit eventually rejected Davis' request for a new trial. Jones reports that the Supreme Court will reconsider the appeal next fall.
Ricci May Indicate Larger Battles Ahead: At NRO Bench Memos, Ed Whalen comments on Stuart Taylor Jr.'s post on The Ninth Justice. Both Whalen and Taylor believe that the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of the Sotomayor-endorsed Second Circuit position (that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam), and the different stances taken by the Ricci's dissenters and the Second Circuit, are "important and revealing." (Whalen's post is available here). Taylor, in particular, focuses on the different stances taken by Justice Ginsburg's dissent and the Second Circuit panel. He writes that while both "risk converting disparate-impact law into an engine of overt discrimination against high-scoring groups across the country," Justice Ginsburg "at least required the city to produce some evidence that the test was invalid." The Sotomayor panel did not even require that. Taylor worries that if the Second Circuit's panel decision had been adopted by any of the Justices, the logic would "provide irresistible incentives for employers to abandon any and all tests on which disproportionate numbers of protected minorities have low scores."
When It Comes to Sentence Enhancement, Who is a Fraud Victim?: At Sentencing Law and Policy Doug Berman provides a link to a National Law Journal article addressing the circuit courts' failure to consistently answer that very question. In the article Sheri Qualters reports that last Friday, the First Circuit held that judges should count people who are reimbursed for financial losses from criminal schemes as victims when deciding whether to increase a defendant's sentence. The Eleventh Circuit has reached a similar conclusion. Apparently, however, other circuit courts have decided the issue the other way. Berman believes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission should resolve these discrepancies. He does not believe it is necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Supreme Court Term Summary: Kristina Moore at SCOTUSblog posts Akin Gump annual term summary memo. The memo analyzes voting patterns of the Justices. No surprise: Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote in 18 of the 23 5-4 decisions.
Leave a comment