On Tap for the Supreme Court next Monday: Today SCOTUSblog has two informative posts on what to expect from the Supreme Court next Monday. In her Petitions to Watch post, Erin Miller links to information for twelve cases up for consideration at the Justices' private conference today. Of the twelve, four have been relisted from earlier conferences, and two address criminal justice issues. Another case, Rasul v. Myers (09-227) involves torture claims made by the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In her second SCOUTSblog post, Miller tells us not to expect any Supreme Court opinions on Monday. She writes that the Court expects to release orders, but "[n]o mention was made of any opinions."
O'Connor's Initiative Against Judicial Elections: On Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman links to an article in today's National Law Journal where Jordan Weissmann discusses the creation of the O'Connor Judicial Selection Initiative. The Initiative, a collaboration between the University of Denver's Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and O'Connor, intends to assist state level efforts to move away from judicial elections. The former Supreme Court Justice will chair the 11-member advisory commission. Berman comments on his blog that he is not "quick to assail elected judges" but members of the defense bar might be. He also believes prosecutors "might be among those most eager to see judicial elections retained." Of course, when we talk about moving away from something, we need to consider what we are moving to. For all the deficiencies of directly contested judicial elections, so-called "merit selection" that effectively delegates selection authority to the state bar is even worse.
Polanski's Lawyer Argues for Dismissal: At Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Ashby Jones writes that according to the LA Times, an attorney for Roman Polanski is arguing that an "astonishing record of misconduct" should result in dismissal of the case. In the article, Jack Leonard reports that Chad S. Hummel argued to a California appeals court panel that "Judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly discussed with a prosecutor how to punish Polanski and threatened to lock up the director for a longer period if his attorney challenged the judge's decision to return Polanski to prison." A Los Angeles judge declined to address similar arguments earlier this year, and yesterday the panel suggested that Polanski might be 32 years too late in his request to dismiss the case. They wondered why Polanski couldn't have asked his lawyer to raise the misconduct concerns at the time rather than flee the country.
O'Connor's Initiative Against Judicial Elections: On Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman links to an article in today's National Law Journal where Jordan Weissmann discusses the creation of the O'Connor Judicial Selection Initiative. The Initiative, a collaboration between the University of Denver's Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and O'Connor, intends to assist state level efforts to move away from judicial elections. The former Supreme Court Justice will chair the 11-member advisory commission. Berman comments on his blog that he is not "quick to assail elected judges" but members of the defense bar might be. He also believes prosecutors "might be among those most eager to see judicial elections retained." Of course, when we talk about moving away from something, we need to consider what we are moving to. For all the deficiencies of directly contested judicial elections, so-called "merit selection" that effectively delegates selection authority to the state bar is even worse.
Polanski's Lawyer Argues for Dismissal: At Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Ashby Jones writes that according to the LA Times, an attorney for Roman Polanski is arguing that an "astonishing record of misconduct" should result in dismissal of the case. In the article, Jack Leonard reports that Chad S. Hummel argued to a California appeals court panel that "Judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly discussed with a prosecutor how to punish Polanski and threatened to lock up the director for a longer period if his attorney challenged the judge's decision to return Polanski to prison." A Los Angeles judge declined to address similar arguments earlier this year, and yesterday the panel suggested that Polanski might be 32 years too late in his request to dismiss the case. They wondered why Polanski couldn't have asked his lawyer to raise the misconduct concerns at the time rather than flee the country.
Leave a comment