June 6, 2006
Any interest in a "Blakely at two" blog forum?
In light of the cert grant in Burton to address Blakely retroactivity, I am thinking it might be fun to convene a blog forum later this month on Blakely two years later.
By the time of Blakely's two-year anniversary (which is June 24, 2006), we ought to have a decision in Recuenco discussing whether Blakely errors can be subject to harmless-error analysis or instead are structural errors. In addition, this summer will be filled with briefing on both the Burton retroactivity issue and Blakely's fate for California in the Cunningham case. With all this on-going Blakely activity, I wold be especially interested to hear various opinions from various folks about the the state and fate of Blakely two years later.
If readers like this idea, let me know in the comments or via e-mail. And send me an e-mail if you would be interested in participating in such a "Blakely at two" blog forum. Thanks.
June 6, 2006 at 11:04 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Any interest in a "Blakely at two" blog forum?:
Doug, a blakely forum sounds like fun. I would particularly like to bounce around "second generation" Blakely issues. That is, issues that don't directly relate to the finding or not finding of ags. As a litigator, I am now trying to stretch Blakely into new territory. Like, whether, now that Blakely makes juries ag factfinders and juries are told they MUST find ags for the state if they are sufficiently proven, judges must find sufficiently proven mitigators. The law has been that judges had discretion to find or not find both ags and mits. I am now arguing that judge nullification of mits is as improper as jury nullification of ags.
I'm out of town on the 24th, if that is the appointed day. Back on the 25th.
Posted by: bruce cunningham | Jun 6, 2006 12:08:57 PM