« "Conservatives must police bottom line on criminal justice" | Main | "Money is gone, but Proposition 36's drug-treatment mandate remains" »

February 22, 2011

SCOTUS apparently still not interested in reconsidering Almendarez-Torres

A helpful reader highlighted to me that among the cases in which the Supreme Court denied cert this morning were Ayala-Segoviano v. United States, 10-5296, and Vazquez v. United States, 10-6117.  Those case are notable for Sixth Amendment fans because, as noted in this prior post, (1) the Justices had  called for a response from the government with respect to these two petitions, which urged reconsideration of the Almendarez-Torres prior conviction exception to Apprendi, and (2) the Court had thrice relisted these cases from its January cert conferences.

Based on the relists, the folks at SCOTUSblog were speculating that a cert grant was possible or that there might be at least a dissent from the denial of cert in the works.  But now it appears that the relists were just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing: both cases resulted in one-line cert denieds today and nothing more.  And so it goes.

February 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e5f66f2c0970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS apparently still not interested in reconsidering Almendarez-Torres:

Comments

"Alas, the power of denial is strong among legislators and the self-interested, evidence-be-damned law enforcement lobby."

We are broke because of the prosecutor's and LE enforcement's lobby (anything to make prosecution of individuals easier, i.e., obstruction of justice (whose justice), lying to a federal agent (not under oath), resisting arrest (even unlawful arrest), warrantless searches (and evidence tampering), etc. I have seen numerous questionable police shootings of innocent people swept under the rug by the "blue front" and refusal by prosecutors to prosecute.

Public education (indoctrination) makes this easy as we all know, police officers never lie and politicians have every constituent's interest in mind, (not tax-payer supported unions whose money goes to the politicians they can buy, to define what is legal).

Posted by: albeed | Feb 22, 2011 10:41:24 PM

Above comment somehow was tied to the wrong article

Posted by: albeed | Feb 22, 2011 10:43:29 PM

Why is it that defense lawyers seem to want Almendarez-Torres to be overruled? Do rationale defense lawyers really want prosecutors to be able to put in front of a jury evidence of prior convictions?

Posted by: anon. | Mar 5, 2011 5:18:25 PM

Why is it that defense lawyers seem to want Almendarez-Torres to be overruled? Do rationale defense lawyers really want prosecutors to be able to put in front of a jury evidence of prior convictions?

Posted by: thomas sabo sale | Nov 10, 2011 1:17:23 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB