tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82243312024-03-12T21:46:40.049-04:00INCourtsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-32161702969359656202009-01-14T21:03:00.005-05:002009-01-14T21:26:36.110-05:00Ice is Here--and Chills the Spirit<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Oregon v. Ice</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> was decided today. (</span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-901.ZS.html">Here at Cornell</a><span style="font-family: arial;">). 5-4 with a wacky split to say that juries do not need to find facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences. Roberts, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas were the four.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I haven't read the opinions. The result is certainly disappointing, especially when you consider how close--and weird--the vote was. I thought Ginsburg and Stevens were true </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> believers. (We know after Booker that Justice Breyer is a traitor to the cause.) And maybe they are and just don't think the principle applies to consecutive sentences.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Although I don't blog about my own cases, I will say that I am going to have to abandon some pending post-conviction claims based on </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> and consecutive sentences.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">This leaves two </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> shoes to drop--well, a boot and a slipper. The boot is retroactivity--full, to the beginning of time, or merely to </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Apprendi</span><span style="font-family: arial;">. ("As our precedents make clear . . ." Justice Scalia wrote in </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;">.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The slipper is whether juvenile adjudications without jury trials are "prior convictions." Most courts seems to have said, "Yes." I do not think that can possibly be correct and that the majority of courts that take the position are dodging Blakely similarly to the way they dodged </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Apprendi</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> for years--except Kansas.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">More about </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Ice</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> after I actually read the opinions.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-35549231471594211792008-11-11T11:06:00.003-05:002008-11-11T11:15:07.603-05:00Quote of the Day: On Mediocrity & the Supreme Court<blockquote style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">There are a lot of mediocre people in this country, and mediocrity should be represented on the Supreme Court.<br /></span><blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"> -Senator Roman Hruska (R-Nebraska), in defense of Nixon's nomination of G. Harold Carswell</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">From </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Indiana-Political-Heroes-Geoff-Paddock/dp/0871952688/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226419999&sr=8-2"><span style="font-style: italic;">Indiana Political Heroes</span> by Geoff Paddock</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-87918226071709967732008-10-31T20:12:00.004-04:002008-10-31T20:19:22.061-04:00Happy Halloween<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BTCulzOzLU4/SQugRkD1odI/AAAAAAAAAAU/QfOh4UlmSYE/s1600-h/Zombie+Cat.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 213px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BTCulzOzLU4/SQugRkD1odI/AAAAAAAAAAU/QfOh4UlmSYE/s320/Zombie+Cat.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5263476813110550994" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">From Zombie Cat</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-51957941092528671492008-10-22T09:58:00.004-04:002008-10-22T10:19:00.643-04:00Oregon v. Ice (More): SCOTUSBlog's Take<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">After the oral argument in </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Oregon v. Ice</span><span style="font-family: arial;">, the case about whether </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> is going to apply to consecutive sentences, </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp">SCOTUSBlog</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> provided </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-expansion-of-apprendi-looming/">this summary of the argument</a><span style="font-family: arial;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Here is the intriguing paragraph for the fair folk of Indiana:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">While the Court leaned noticeably toward the jury option, one potential question went unanswered in the argument Tuesday: would the jury have to have that role as a general constitutional proposition, or have it only in states that had laws requiring that multiple sentences for two or more crimes normally be served concurrently unless some added fact supported consecutive sentencing? Perhaps as many as 13 states have such laws, so if their existence was necessary for the jury to have the fact-finding task to make sentences consecutive, that would give such an expansion of <em>Apprendi </em>less impact. Oregon has that kind of law, but Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that it was “unusual.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Nobody's ever claimed Indiana isn't "unusual." It's especially unusual in this context, because there is no statute requiring the finding of additional facts to impose consecutive sentences. That requirement came from the Indiana Supreme Court in the early 80's.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">When is the Supreme Court going to take care of the other really big </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Blakely</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> boot that has not yet dropped--retroactivity?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Related Links:</span><br /></span><ol style="font-family: arial;"><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2008/10/blakely-consecutive-sentences-oregon-v.html">Prior post about <span style="font-style: italic;">Ice</span></a></span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-901.pdf">Transcript of argument</a></span></li></ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-71408667522488191392008-10-22T09:37:00.002-04:002008-10-22T09:43:14.818-04:00New Blog on the Block: The Indiana Criminal Law Blog<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Lorinda Youngcourt has started up a new blog dealing with Indiana criminal law: </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://incrimlaw.org/">The Indiana Criminal Law Blog</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. It looks like it will contain case blurbs put together monthly by the </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.in.gov/ipdc/index.html">Indiana Public Defender Council</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. Maybe it will have other goodies too.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Have a look. I'm sticking it into my feed reader and the blog roll.</span><br /><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://incrimlaw.org/?feed=rss2">Here's the link</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> to the RSS feed.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-22372401741365571272008-10-14T21:41:00.007-04:002008-10-14T22:18:35.197-04:00Blakely & Consecutive Sentences: Oregon v. Ice<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Oregon v. Ice</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court today. Does </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> apply to consecutive sentences if the finding of additional facts are required to impose sentences consecutively?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The transcript of the argument is </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-901.pdf">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> (PDF). Doug Berman's take on the case is </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/10/the-little-ice.html">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;">. (</span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/">Sentencing Law & Policy</a><span style="font-family:arial;">). Kent Scheidegger's take is on the argument is </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/2008/10/notes_on_oregon_v_ice_argument.html">here</a><span style="font-family:arial;">. (</span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/">crime & consequences</a><span style="font-family:arial;">).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I have not read the transcript yet. I am also agnostic on the subject.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Indiana still requires the finding of additional facts to impose consecutive sentences, even after the 2005 statutory amendments that did in </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;">'s Indiana sojourn.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/03090501.rts.html">Smylie</a>, of course, said that </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> does not apply to consecutive sentences. So if Ice wins, what happens here? Probably almost nothing. That the Indiana Supreme Court will have gotten it wrong won't make much difference to almost all the </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> claimants. Their cases are final. And as I am thinking about it now, I'm not sure how a </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> claim regarding consecutive sentences can be revived either by post-conviction proceeding or by fed habeas. I'll have to think about that for a while more, though.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, the game would change considerably if the Supremes got around to saying that </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> was fully retroactive. In Indiana at least, it should be. </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> raised the standard of proof for aggravating circumstances from practically nothing to beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, from my particular corn field, </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> looks a lot like </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/397/358.html">In re Winship</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> for sentencing facts. That should get retroactivity for </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> by even Indiana's version of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Teague</span><span style="font-family:arial;">.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-77695633235026622592008-10-05T23:02:00.004-04:002008-10-05T23:09:33.550-04:00The Sunday (SPAM) Pickle<pre wrap=""><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Anyone else get one of these? I think it's hilarious.</span></span><br /><br /><br />FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION<br />ROOM 4-230, KALANIANAOLE FOB<br />300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD HONOLULU , HAWAII 96850-0053<br /><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fbi.gov/">http://www.fbi.gov</a><br /><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Email:garrity.robertg.robert994@gmail.com">Email:garrity.robertg.robert994@gmail.com</a><br />Robert J. Garrity, Jr Deputy Assistant Director,<br />Records Management Division FBI<br /><br />Before the House of Represenatatives, Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights Los Angeles, California<br /><br /> Attn: Honourable Beneficiary.<br /><br />We the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI Honolulu) United States Of America have discovered through our intelligent monitoring network that you have a transaction going on as either inheritance payment,job offer,Lottery or contract payment in a tone of Millions of United States Dollars which have been approved but have not been settled.<br /><br /> This is to officially inform you that we have verified your contract / inheritance file after close monitoring and found out why you have not received your payment,both on your part and on the part of your debtors. Secondly we have been informed that you are still dealing with the non officials in the bank who are attempting to secure the release of your fund to you.<br /><br /> We wish to advise you that this is illegal and you should stop further communication with them forthwith because such an illegal act like this can lead to cancellation of your fund.<br /><br /> We have been having so many complains from people who have been scammed around the world hence,after concluding in a meeting with members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF),United Nations(UN) and all the presidents in africa and UK concerning these, we came to a conclusion that every payment will be made through the Citi finance Int'l Corporation,New York. We also concluded on the use of Swift cable Wire Transfer as the only direct means to pay all beneficiaries.<br /><br /> This is to inform you that we have just pass a NOTIFICATION to the United Nations to pay you an accumulated deposited funds of US$8,300,000.00.<br /><br />By this method, from the financial houses there is no limit.So if you would like to receive your funds in this way please send your following information to the paying bank via the United Nations Representative.<br /> 1. Full Name<br /> 2. Full Address (P.O box not acceptable)<br /> 3. Phone and fax #<br /> 4. Your age, sex and current occupation .<br /><br />We immediately instruct you to contact Dr JOhn Phillips with the email contact below.Below are the contact details of the United Nations Representative in the United Kingdom to whom you will send your information for the processing of the fund as soon as possible:<br /><br />CONTACT: Dr.John Phillips<br />HEAD OF COMMUNICATION<br />DEBT SETTLEMENT COMMISSION<br />United Nations Association of the UK<br />3 Whitehall Court,<br />London SW1A 2EL.<br /><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:EMAIL:jpjphillips27@gmail.com">EMAIL:jpjphillips27@gmail.com</a><br /><br /> The DEBT SETTLEMENT COMMISSION has been mandated to issue out your payments for this fiscal year 2008. Also for your information, you have to stop any further communication with any other person(s) or office(s) who claim that to be established agents using it to defraud innocent people worldwide.This is to avoid any hitches in receiving your payment.<br /><br />THANKS FOR LISTENING TO OUR ADVISE<br /><br />Faithfully,<br /><br />MR .ROBERT S. Garrity, III<br /> FOR CORPORATE AFFAIRS<br /> FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI Honolulu))<br /> Los Angeles , California<br /> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</pre>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-59759495811831573452008-09-11T12:13:00.003-04:002008-09-11T12:27:52.671-04:00What I Learned Today: Strangulation as a Class D Felony<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >I had no idea that there was a special crime of "Strangulation." But here it is--<a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch2.html#IC35-42-2-9">Indiana Code § 35-42-2-9(b)</a>:<br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">A person who, in a rude, angry, or insolent manner, knowingly or intentionally:<br /> (1) applies pressure to the throat or neck of another person; or<br /> (2) obstructs the nose or mouth of the another person;<br />in a manner that impedes the normal breathing or the blood circulation of the other person commits strangulation, a Class D felony.</span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >Subsection (a) exempts "medical procedures." So a doctor can strangle you in a rude, angry, or insolent manner as part of a medical procedure?<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08270801mpb.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">Autuan M. Leanyear v. State</span></a>, Court of Appeals No. 02A03-0806-CR-268 (Ind. Ct. App. 8/27/08) (NFP<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>). (If you read the case, there might have been a pretty good claim that there was no evidence that the "strangulation" was rude, angry, or insolent.)<br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-14333582089973396902008-09-04T17:40:00.002-04:002008-09-04T18:01:54.284-04:00Why There Are Lawyers: "Custody" vs. "Confinement"<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">More language fun, this time from the 7th Circuit.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It is fundamental that to be eligible for habeas relief, one must be "in custody." After all, a habeas petition is a request that one's jailer produce one's body (the corpus part) before the court (instead of the king now) and justify the detention. It is also fundamental that "custody" includes parole or probation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">For the purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) and the 10-year limit (absent extreme justification) on the use of prior convictions to impeach, however, it works a little differently. The 10-year limit runs from "the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for the conviction, whichever is the later date . . . ."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The 7th says (in a circuit first-impression case) that once released on probation, one has been released from confinement for Rule 609(b) purposes. But while on probation, for habeas purposes, as I said above one is still "in custody."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I guess it's the difference between Tyson's chickens and the free-range variety.</span><br /><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=06-3730_018.pdf">United States v. Rogers</a><span style="font-family: arial;">, Case No. 06-6730 (7th Cir. 9/4/08)</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-60883242170657970162008-09-04T17:08:00.003-04:002008-09-04T17:26:45.896-04:00Comment Bait: "Advertising Material" vs. "Legal Advertisement"<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Indiana Lawyers have to include the words "Advertising Material" in their ads. So a couple of lawyers screwed up and put "Legal Advertisement" in their ad instead of the magic words. And they sent a copy of the ad to the Disciplinary Commission to boot, as they were required to do. The lawyers even corrected the mistake four years ago.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The Indiana Supreme Court dings the lawyers in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09040801per.pdf">this case</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> with a public reprimand for this in part, saying that "[u]se of the phrase Legal Advertisement' may create the impression that the Commission or some other body had reviewed it and found it to be 'legal.'"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Maybe under an ad for a chiropractor. The only possible double meaning I perceive under an ad for a lawyer would be that the ad is legally permitted. Some people might think lawyers are not permitted to advertise, since once upon a time, in many jurisdictions at least, they weren't. (Ahh, those were the days, right?)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It seems to me that only the Indiana Supreme Court and the lawyers in the Disciplinary Commision itself could think that "Legal Advertisement" might refer to the Commission or some such entity.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Anyone with a different take?<br /></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-3033121816575570102008-09-03T15:22:00.004-04:002008-09-04T17:29:33.245-04:00Quote of the Day: About Suicide Clauses in Insurance Contracts<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">"[A]n insured is not 'performing' a life insurance contract by not committing suicide."</span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-2826_012.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Dean Officer v. Chase Ins.</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, Case No. 07-2826 (7th Cir. 9/3/08) (Judge Tinder), slip op. at 12.</span></span><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-2826_012.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote></blockquote></span></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-1439213545858147322008-08-29T10:35:00.004-04:002008-08-29T10:51:37.429-04:00More about Woods : a Correction<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I was incorrect the day before yesterday in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2008/08/brian-woods-v-state-ind-82708-offer-to.html">this post</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> about </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08270802rdr.pdf">Woods</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, the decision from the Indiana Supreme Court of a couple of days ago. Someone more knowledgeable has pointed out to me that post-conviction relief is available after probation revocation proceedings. </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/postconvict/index.html#rpc1">Ind. Post-Conviction Rule § 1, 1(a)(5)</a><span style="font-family:arial;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The same more knowledgeable person also had a peek into the Marion County online docket: Woods was represented by counsel at the revocation hearing.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-64239358591282591332008-08-29T10:10:00.004-04:002008-08-29T10:53:31.815-04:00Forgery: Strict Liability for Presenting a Forged Check? (WILTD)<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">What I learned today:</span><br /></span><ol style="font-family:arial;"><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Someone steals a blank check.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Sometime later, someone buys a couch from me (I say) using the stolen, now-forged check.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Three months after the check was stolen, I open a bank account using the forged check.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">That I present the forged check for payment, without more, is enough to support a conviction for forgery.</span></li></ol><span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;" href="http://www.blogger.com/49A02-0801-CR-44">Gina Williams v. State</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, Court of Appeals No. 49A02-0801-CR-44 (Ind. Ct. App. 8/27/08).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">News to me. And Judge Najam's opinion cites a number of cases older than dirt for the proposition. Slip op. at 9-10. Maybe in this case, it was just that the stolen check was number 1050 and made out for $1050. (Jeesh.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Maybe I need to create a new Dickensian category of post: "The Law is an Ass." And in this case, it seems to have been so for a long time.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-77078037550093499922008-08-27T21:11:00.005-04:002008-08-27T21:59:25.776-04:00ISC Oral Argument Tomorrow: John W. Miller v. State<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">9:45 A.M, tomorrow, Thursday, August 28th. </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.indianacourts.org/apps/webcasts/default.aspx?view=table&yr=2008&sort=&page=2">The live link</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> (RealPlayer) will be up a few minutes earlier.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">This is a shackling case involving a voluntary manslaughter conviction. John Pinnow is arguing it for Miller. John is great. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Joby Jerrels is the DAG on the case. I haven't seen any of his arguments.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Here's the court's blurb on the case:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">The LaPorte Circuit Court ordered that Miller be placed in restraints during his trial and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision, <a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04150802par.pdf">Miller v. State</a>, No. 46A04-0612-CR-696 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2008). Miller has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span><span style="font-family: arial;">I would be willing to bet that the recent 7th Circuit opinion in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=05-2747_023.pdf">Wrinkles v. Buss</a><span style="font-family: arial;">, No. 05-2747 (7th Cir. 8/12/08) plays a part in the argument. Wrinkles is a death case out of Indiana. Three to two, the 7th affirmed the denial of habeas relief on a shackling claim. Judge Rovner's dissent is compelling. And, in any event, </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/06290101.rdr.html">the Indiana Supreme Court's shackling opinion from 2001</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> only just escaped, thanks to some fancy footwork by Judge Kanne that I find merely a tortured reading of Justice Rucker's opinion.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-49166865017778205702008-08-27T20:38:00.007-04:002008-08-29T10:50:32.024-04:00Brian Woods v. State (Ind. 8/27/08): Offer to Prove after the Judge Says No?<span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08270802rdr.pdf">Woods v. State</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, Supreme Court No. 49S04-0808-CR-469 (Ind. 8/27/08) is an odd little case. It is odd, if only because the Indiana Supreme Court took it up at all. It did not even rate oral argument.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Here's about what happened:</span><br /></span><ol style="font-family:arial;"><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Woods is on probation.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Any violation will lead to 15 years of backup time.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">The State files a notice saying he missed some urine screens.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">Woods asks the trial court if he can explain.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">The trial court says no, because any violation leads to the backup time.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">The Indiana Supreme Court says that it's over, because Woods did not make an offer to prove.</span></li></ol><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">This may be unobjectionable, if Woods was represented at the probation revocation hearing. Nothing in either the Supreme Court case or </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11270707pdm.pdf">the original Court of Appeals opinion</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> says that he was. It seems to me unreasonable to expect someone unrepresented to continue after a judge has said he may not explain--that is, that he may not produce evidence that he violated the terms of the probation.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">[Update (8/29/08):</span> Woods was represented. See <a href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-about-woods-correction.html">this post</a>.<span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">If Woods had good reasons for missing the urine screens, this is particularly ugly, because post-conviction relief is not available with respect to probation revocation proceedings. <span style="font-weight: bold;">[Update (8/29/08): </span>This is incorrect. See <a href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-about-woods-correction.html">this post</a> with the correction.<span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I guess the Supreme Court took it up, because the Court of Appeals opinion was published and said some unnecessary things about "strict compliance" probation terms.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">From a litigant's perspective, this is ugly too. Woods's petition to transfer was filed at the end of December 2007. By now, both Woods and his lawyer would have been reading tea leaves. None of the leaves would have suggested a grant of transfer with an affirmance--especially when the State did not file a transfer brief in opposition. Had I been Woods's lawyer today, I would have been shocked and dismayed, after being thrilled, to see the opinion appear out of nowhere with an affirmance.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">But that's the way this business of criminal defense is. A court reporter in the Autonomous Republic of Lake (County) once referred to it as "grave-digger's work."</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-912212106469842372008-05-30T09:53:00.008-04:002008-08-27T22:09:43.312-04:00Habeas in Indiana: Not What You Might Think<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">There's an article on SSRN by Professors Nancy King and Susan Sherry at Vanderilt about how habeas has been derailed from challenges to state court judgments to challenges of administrative prison decisions: </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135229#PaperDownload">Habeas Corpus and State Sentencing Reform: A Story of Unintended Consequences</a><span style="font-family:arial;">. (Thanks to Doug Berman at </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/05/habeas-corpus-a.html">Sentencing Law & Policy</a><span style="font-family:arial;">.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">According to the article, 61% of Indiana habeas cases in 2003-04 "contested sentence-administration decisions, not criminal judgments. . . . Thus in Indiana, the </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >primary </span><span style="font-family:arial;">function of federal habeas review is to examine the decisions of state corrections officials, not state courts . . . ." (P. 11). It is not crystal clear, but it would seem that this is 61% of non-capital cases.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Here's the beef: in one national study of habeas cases filed in 2003-04, "only about one third of 1% of non-capital habeas petitions filed (7 cases total) received any relief and </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >none</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> of the claims granted relief were sentence administration claims." (P. 12).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Because there is no judicial review of decisions by the Department of Correction in Indiana, one would have thought that sentencing administration claims, not subject to the AEDPA, might be more successful. Apparently not.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I have an active interest--meaning a client--with a real problem in this area. He was found guilty but mentally ill some time ago. In Indiana, "GBMI" gets you nothing: you're sentenced just like everyone else. A GBMI verdict is supposed to be a big mitigating circumstance. At least in my client's case, he was given the maximum sentence nonetheless.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">There is an unnoticed problem with sentencing the mentally ill like everyone else: they are unlikely to be able to behave themselves in prison. As a result of the misbehavior, they lose their credit time, which is one day for each day actually served in most cases. So a mentally ill inmate is likely to serve twice as much time as a normal inmate.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I am working on a few ideas about how to do something about this. The key seems to me to be that there has to be an equal protection claim against a system in which a judge sentences against a known background employing credit time and, at the same time, is supposed to sentence the mentally ill without regard to the known background.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">If anyone has other ideas, please comment.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-87392099621415305132008-05-11T19:16:00.005-04:002008-05-11T19:43:07.610-04:00The Sunday Pickle<span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://grrl.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/words-that-make-my-stomach-plummet-by-mira-mcewan/">Words That Make My Stomach Plummet</a><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">by </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://litlive.blogspot.com/2007/10/mira-mcewan.html">Mira McEwan</a><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">from </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097436035X/102-7592395-7815366?ie=UTF8&tag=writal-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=097436035X">Ecstatic</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.allbook-books.com/">Allbook Books</a><span style="font-family: arial;">, 2007</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Committee Meeting. Burden of Proof.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The Simple Truth. Trying To Be Nice.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Honestly. I Could Have Died. I Almost Cried.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It’s Only a Cold Sore.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It’s My Night. Trust Me. Dead Serious.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I Have Everything All Under Control.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I’m Famous For My Honesty.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I’m Simply Beside Myself. We’re On The Same Page.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Let’s Not Reinvent The Wheel.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">For The Time Being. There Is That.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I’m Not Just Saying That.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I Just Couldn’t Help Myself. I Mean It.</span><br /><br /></span><hr style="font-family: arial; height: 4px;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Coming Post: The Indiana </span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;font-size:130%;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> Lottery Continues: </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05090807jsk.pdf">Steven Kendall v. State</a><span style="font-family: arial;">, Court of Appeals No. 49A05-0707-PC-391 (Ind. Ct. App. May 9, 2008).</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-76462536537036891142008-04-06T16:10:00.008-04:002008-04-06T16:22:13.055-04:00The Sunday Pickle<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Wheel</span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Through winter-time we call on spring,</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">And through the spring on summer call,</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">And when abounding hedges ring</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Declare that winter's best of all;</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">And after that there's nothing good</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Because the spring-time has not come ---</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Nor know that what disturbs our blood</span></div> <div style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Is but our longing for the tomb.</span></div><div><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" ></span><blockquote style="font-family: arial;" face="arial"></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family:arial;"><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >- </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Butler_Yeats"><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >W.B. Yeats</span><br /></a></blockquote><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-63363213238298322342008-04-04T14:34:00.004-04:002008-08-04T08:45:56.851-04:00Two Terrific Posts from Indiana Blogs<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Thomas Kemp at </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.kemplog.com/index.php">Kemplog</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> has </span><a dragover="true" style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.kemplog.com/2008/04/04/public-records-private-profits/">this great post</a><span dragover="true" style="font-family:arial;"> titled "Public Records, Private Profits." Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court turned down free access to its own historic records? Go read all about it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And Doug Masson at </span><a dragover="true" style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.masson.us/blog/">Masson's Blog</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> has </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.masson.us/blog/?p=3047">this terrific post</a><span dragover="true" style="font-family:arial;"> titled "I Remember." It's about the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination. The account of Bobby Kennedy calming a crowd in Indianapolis two months before his own assassination I find chilling.<br /><br />WAMU in Washington has a great show going on the assassination right now from Memphis moderated by Tavis Smiley. (<a href="http://www.pri.org/politics-society/martin-luther-king.html">Link to permanent archive</a> on PRI.)<br /><br /><br /></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-24675613901135685202008-04-04T13:41:00.003-04:002008-04-04T14:15:02.493-04:00Sealed Cases & Oral Argument<span style="font-family: arial;font-size:130%;" >Marcia Oddi at the <a href="http://www.indianalawblog.com/">Indiana Law Blog</a> has been posting about the cases that the Clerk has sealed and that have also disappeared from the docket. (<a href="http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2008/04/ind_courts_more_234.html">Here</a>, <a href="http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2008/04/ind_courts_yet_11.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2008/04/ind_courts_yet_12.html">here</a>, for example.) One of my cases has suffered this fate.<br /><br />I have been listening to oral arguments--especially those in the Indiana appellate courts. Back on March 25th, the Court of Appeals held argument in <span style="font-style: italic;">Allianz Insurance Company v. Guidant Corporation</span>. (<a href="http://realvideo.ind.net:8080/ramgen/real/SupremeCourt/03252008_1100am.rm">Direct link to argument</a>; RealPlayer required).<br /><br />It is very difficult to figure out what this case is all about. But the argument begins over whether the briefs were properly sealed and what information is so sensitive that it cannot be public. Chief Judge Baker seems pretty skeptical confronted with briefs, the only public portion of which seems to be the table of contents and proof of service.<br /><br />It sounds like the parties agreed to keep it all hush-hush, because if the world knew how much other litigation there is involving the parties--and this information is in the briefs, presumably--then the businesses would suffer.<br /><br />I had a case that I requested sealed once upon a time. But that was because of some allegations about someone not a party to the litigation that I didn't think needed to be aired. I simply filed the brief in a sealed envelope with a motion to have the case sealed pasted to the envelope. No green paper; no filet of brief.<br /><br />The first 15 minutes or so of the argument about the secrecy is pretty interesting. I can't make much of the rest on the merits.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-101354282213132042008-04-04T12:20:00.005-04:002008-12-12T00:54:32.360-05:00Time Stamps Bloat Court PDF Files<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The recent practice of the Clerk to include time stamps with the PDF files bothers me. The graphic bloats the files from 75-150 KB to 500 KB. Half a megabyte for information that interests me not at all.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The graphic slows down loading considerably; and it's just plain ugly.</span><br /><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BTCulzOzLU4/R_ZZ4jVt9dI/AAAAAAAAAAM/VcE-hCk5D2s/s1600-h/file_stamp.png"><img dragover="true" style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BTCulzOzLU4/R_ZZ4jVt9dI/AAAAAAAAAAM/VcE-hCk5D2s/s400/file_stamp.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5185430849057584594" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">What do you think? Does anybody care whether an opinion was filed at 8:48 a.m. on April 1st?</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-56533251579481828882008-04-01T21:38:00.003-04:002008-04-01T21:54:43.519-04:00Supreme Court & Court of Appeals Judges Resign!??!<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">After issuing a spate of opinions today, all of the Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges resigned en masse without comment.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">After making some calls, I have learned that part of the deal to get Tom Crean to leave Marquette for Indiana was jobs for his assistant coaches. The assistant coaches will fill all the spots available on the Court of Appeals. There are 15 of those, so some trainers will take up the additional empty slots.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Because some of the Marquette players want to follow Crean and will have to sit out a year to do so, they will be taking Supreme Court seats. If there are still openings on the Supreme Court to fill, some student managers have agreed to transfer to IU and serve on the Supreme Court as additional work-study.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">There's a rumor that if Northwestern wants a new coach, the 7th Circuit is similarly willing make room.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-50562820754378254462007-12-09T00:03:00.000-05:002007-12-09T00:09:03.825-05:00The Sunday Pickle<pre style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >For the Spam We Are about to Receive . . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">Flop.<br /><br />Sometimes better, sometimes worse.<br />Energy Department estimates show a mass-produced fuel-cell engine<br />Would cost about four.<br /><br />From being a source of energy production and into<br />The realm of fuel for transportation.<br />When dealing with highly contested resources,<br />Distributing the locking is key.<br /><br />These wall or desk calendars are functional and beautiful to display at home.<br />In Cat I created two separate types, but now I am rethinking that choice.<br /><br />It will be sold in New.<br /><br />A Muslim has been elected to serve in the U.<br />The rituals of Hajj are complex, the schedule very demanding.<br /><br />Located inside the mosque is the Ka'aba, a cube-shaped building.<br />You can then create custom text templates that use models created<br />In your designer to generate source code and other files.<br /><br />They also discuss the differences between use-cases,<br />User journeys, and features.<br /><br />Free for personal use. The Hajj has been performed by Muslims.<br />But non-Muslims are not issued visas for.<br /><br />Sometimes better, sometimes worse.<br />Unfortunately it's not that simple.<br />For low-activity sites, and those using shared hosting,<br />SmarterPing will keep sites running smoothly and quickly.<br /><br />These fingerprints can be used to ensure that your file is uncorrupted.<br /><br />It's been a long day.</span></pre>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-15764118753703675562007-12-08T22:37:00.000-05:002007-12-08T23:39:41.107-05:00One Arizona Justice Gets It: Blakely & Unenumerated Aggravators<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Long, long ago, when wishing still helped, and </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> was new and full of promise (as well as threat), I picked up on the astonishing, but correct, observation by the Vera Institute in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/250_477.pdf">this September 2004 piece</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> that </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> should / could mean the end of using aggravating circumstances not specifically defined by a statute. (See </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2004/10/aggravators-common-law-crimes.html">this post</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> on aggravating circumstances and common law crimes.) And I included this as one of the </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://incourts.blogspot.com/2004/10/smylie-12-questions.html">12 questions</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> that I thought Smylie should address. (It didn't.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I don't believe I have seen the issue discussed in an opinion before.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Well, on December 3rd, the Arizona Supreme Court issued </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2007/CR060435PR.pdf">State v. Price</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, Case No. CR-06-0435-PR. The majority opinion reverses a sentence because of Sixth Amendment problems created by </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;">'s application to Arizona's sentencing system.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Justice Hurwitz wrote a concurrence in <span style="font-style: italic;">Price</span> that addresses precisely this issue:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Price raised only Sixth Amendment arguments on appeal and the Court’s opinion thus appropriately turns only on the denial of a right to jury trial. But even when a jury trial is afforded, a serious Fourteenth Amendment due process problem is presented if the “catch-all” is the only factor that makes a defendant eligible for a sentence beyond the presumptive term.<br /><br />. . . .<br /><br />A defendant has no notice, in advance of the conduct that exposes him to jeopardy for the “aggravated crime,” of precisely what is proscribed under the critical “catch-all” element. It is as if the criminal code had one punishment for theft, and another for aggravated theft, the former consisting of theft simpliciter and the latter consisting of the elements of the theft plus “anything else the court or the state may someday later find relevant.”<br /></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Slip op. at ¶¶26-29. (The Arizona Supreme Court numbers paragraphs, which has to be the future to accomodate web citation.) Because Price did not raise the 14th Amendment Due Process problem, Justice Hurwitz is "content to leave final resolution of this conundrum to another day." </span><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br />Doug Berman calls the "conundrum" "another tough </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> nut" in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/12/thoughtful-blak.html">his post on <span style="font-style: italic;">Price</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">. I don't think it is either a conundrum or a tough nut. It's just an issue that no one has raised. The focus has been entirely on Blakely's Sixth Amendment implications. Even Price didn't raise the issue in his appeal. And he obviously had at least one justice waiting to return serve.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">With the April 2005 amendments to Indiana's sentencing statutes and their evisceration of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Blakely</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> in Indiana well behind now, one might think that this issue is of purely academic interest among Hoosiers. It's just possible, though, that the 14th amendment common law crime claims that were not raised in direct appeals would provide some fertile post-conviction ineffective assistance claims.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">Thanks to Doug Berman's work and his </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/blakely_in_the_states/">Blakely in the States</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> mashup on </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/">Sentencing Law & Policy</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> for making it so easy to catch up and keep up.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224331.post-19260597449049427042007-12-07T16:46:00.000-05:002007-12-08T23:39:07.800-05:00Question Presented in Edwards<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Here's the question presented from </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/12-07-orders.pdf">the order granting cert.</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> in <span style="font-style: italic;">Edwards</span>:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">May States adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?</span></blockquote><a href="javascript:void(0)" tabindex="10" onclick="return false;"><span></span></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0