Chelsea King Killer Violated Parole but Avoided Prison: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman posts a link to a Los Angeles Times article describing how the man accused of killing Chelsea King violated his parole, but avoided being sent back to jail. In his article, Richard Marosi explains that John Albert Gardner III violated parole in 2007 by living close to a school, but was not sent back to prison because he complied with relocation orders. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released a statement yesterday explaining that while Gardner had several minor potential parole violations, the violation of the residency rule could have led to a hearing process
with parole officials. Todd Spitzer, a prosecutor, said the department has eased up on parole violators because of
prison constraints. "They were ignoring public safety with one goal in
mind: They were trying to solve the prison overcrowding."
Notable Criminal Petitions to Watch: On SCOTUSblog, Erin Miller has posted its Petitions to Watch for the Supreme Court's March 19 Conference. Miller provides links to seven cases that Tom Goldstein has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted, and three of them address areas of criminal law. Moran v. United States (09-392) asks the Court to decide whether a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, which permits a defendant to comment on "matters relating to an appropriate sentence," entitles a defendant to be notified prior to the pronouncement of sentence that sex offender special conditions of supervised release are contemplated; Kentucky v. Cardine and Curry (09-419) addresses whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of a defendant after the trial court sua sponte declares a mistrial absent manifest necessity and the defendant does not object prior to the actual discharge of the jury; and Beard v. Thomas (09-527), an AEDPA capital case, asks whether Thomas was prejudiced by the absence of supposedly mitigating evidence, when the mitigating nature of that evidence is disputed and he refused to allow any mitigation evidence.
Some Comments on Justice Thomas's Silence: February 22, 2006, marked the last time Thomas asked a question during oral argument, and on February 22, 2010, Tony Mauro wrote an article on those criticizing Justice Thomas's silence. Yesterday, Linda Greenhouse joined their ranks with her opinion piece on New York Times' Opinionator blog. Mauro's post discusses a recent Florida Law Review article, Why Justice Thomas Should Speak at Oral Argument, by David Karp, that argues "[b]y removing himself from oral argument, Justice Thomas' opinions do not benefit from the full adjudicative process designed to test theories in open court." Mauro goes on to explain that Justice Thomas may remain silent out of respect for the advocates, and to give them a chance to talk. Steffen Johnson of Winston & Strawn in Washington, an advocate who appeared before the Court in Holmes v. South Carolina, said Justice Thomas' style "reflects humility on his part."
Notable Criminal Petitions to Watch: On SCOTUSblog, Erin Miller has posted its Petitions to Watch for the Supreme Court's March 19 Conference. Miller provides links to seven cases that Tom Goldstein has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted, and three of them address areas of criminal law. Moran v. United States (09-392) asks the Court to decide whether a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, which permits a defendant to comment on "matters relating to an appropriate sentence," entitles a defendant to be notified prior to the pronouncement of sentence that sex offender special conditions of supervised release are contemplated; Kentucky v. Cardine and Curry (09-419) addresses whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of a defendant after the trial court sua sponte declares a mistrial absent manifest necessity and the defendant does not object prior to the actual discharge of the jury; and Beard v. Thomas (09-527), an AEDPA capital case, asks whether Thomas was prejudiced by the absence of supposedly mitigating evidence, when the mitigating nature of that evidence is disputed and he refused to allow any mitigation evidence.
Some Comments on Justice Thomas's Silence: February 22, 2006, marked the last time Thomas asked a question during oral argument, and on February 22, 2010, Tony Mauro wrote an article on those criticizing Justice Thomas's silence. Yesterday, Linda Greenhouse joined their ranks with her opinion piece on New York Times' Opinionator blog. Mauro's post discusses a recent Florida Law Review article, Why Justice Thomas Should Speak at Oral Argument, by David Karp, that argues "[b]y removing himself from oral argument, Justice Thomas' opinions do not benefit from the full adjudicative process designed to test theories in open court." Mauro goes on to explain that Justice Thomas may remain silent out of respect for the advocates, and to give them a chance to talk. Steffen Johnson of Winston & Strawn in Washington, an advocate who appeared before the Court in Holmes v. South Carolina, said Justice Thomas' style "reflects humility on his part."
Leave a comment