The California Attorney General today filed a notice of appeal in the Jones v. Chappell case.
Earlier posts on this case:
The Lackey Claim, Again
Summing up the Jones Death Penalty Case
Why Jones v. Chappell is Wrong, Part 2
Why Jones v. Chappell is Wrong, Part 3 -- Teague v. Lane
Time to Appeal Jones v. Chappell, Ms. Harris
Does a California District Attorney Have Standing to Intervene in a Federal Habeas Corpus Case?
Further Strange Developments in Jones v. Chappell
The Attorney General said in a press release, "I am appealing the court's decision because it is not supported by the law, and it undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants. This flawed ruling requires appellate review." Undermines important protections? Well, certainly "not supported by the law," "flawed," and "requires appellate review" are correct. With apologies to Meatloaf, three out of four ain't bad.
Earlier posts on this case:
The Lackey Claim, Again
Summing up the Jones Death Penalty Case
Why Jones v. Chappell is Wrong, Part 2
Why Jones v. Chappell is Wrong, Part 3 -- Teague v. Lane
Time to Appeal Jones v. Chappell, Ms. Harris
Does a California District Attorney Have Standing to Intervene in a Federal Habeas Corpus Case?
Further Strange Developments in Jones v. Chappell
The Attorney General said in a press release, "I am appealing the court's decision because it is not supported by the law, and it undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants. This flawed ruling requires appellate review." Undermines important protections? Well, certainly "not supported by the law," "flawed," and "requires appellate review" are correct. With apologies to Meatloaf, three out of four ain't bad.
Leave a comment