April 17, 2006
SCOTUS taking another
capital quirky case
Regular readers know I kvetch a lot about the excessive energy that the Supreme Court and others devote to death penalty (and other "small impact") cases when there are so many other sentencing issues that ought to garner attention (consider, for example, posts here and here and here and here). But it is hard to get off this topic when I learn, as detailed by SCOTUSblog here, that the Supreme Court on Monday announced it will give its very limited time and docket to Carey v. Musladin (05-785) to address the far-reaching and critically important question of "whether it is unconstitutional for a judge in a criminal trial to allow family members of a murder victim to wear buttons depicting the victim, when they are spectators in the courtroom."
[CORRECTION: This in-the-know commentor indicates that Musladin is not a capital case and reasonably suggests that this cert. grant serves as a judicial recognition of recent victim rights' concerns. Such good points reminds me why I am so thankful for the comments of thoughtful readers.]
Of course, as Orin Kerr details here, this case has already garnered a lot of judicial attention and covers all the usual cert-worthy bases. But stepping back from the doctrinal particular, and especially reflecting on the on-going national mess the Supreme Court has helped produced concerning lethal injection protocols, I continue to be greatly troubled by how the Court sets its criminal justice agenda.
Some related prior posts about the cert process:
- Roberts, the cert pool, and sentencing jurisprudence
- Justice Alito jumps into the pool
- The Chief goes swimming
- Pondering a (cert.) pool with much splashing about
- Cert. pool filling up with Blakely cases
April 17, 2006 at 04:50 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS taking another
capital quirky case:
Supervising DAG, California
This is not a capital case. The cert grant here is not very surprising given the recent federal statutes regarding victims and the Congressional interest in the role of victims in habeas proceedings.
Posted by: ward | Apr 17, 2006 5:06:50 PM