October 30, 2011
Big coming week for sentencing geeks (like me)
This new week has so many events for which I have marked my calender, I am getting a bit concerned I might have a sentencing geek break-down before the week is through. Of particular note (as I will discuss in a subsequent post), I have on lots of good authority that the US Sentencing Commission on Monday will be releasing its long-awaited (and apparently 600+ page long) report to Congress on federal mandatory minimums. And, the next day, November 1, marks the day the new guideline revisions go into effect and the new reduced crack guideline become officially retroactive.
Meanwhile, as well detailed in this new SCOTUSblog post, a number of important criminal justice cases are to be argued before SCOTUS this coming week. Here is the schedule via that post:
Monday, Oct 31:
Lafler v. Cooper (10-209) — claim of ineffective assistance of defense lawyer for advice to reject a plea offer and either plead guilty or go to trial (new question on remedy added by the Court)
Missouri v. Frye (10-444) — issues parallel to those in Lafler; the cases are being argued in tandem by order of the Court
Tuesday, Nov. 1:
Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788) — scope of immunity for government official who initiates a criminal case then testifies falsely to a grand jury
Minneci v. Pollard (10-1104) — right to sue for damages for constitutional violations by private employees working for the government under contract
Wednesday, Nov. 2:
Perry v. New Hampshire (10-8974) — challenge to use of questionable eyewitness identification as criminal evidence
Gonzalez v. Thaler (10-895) — timing for appeal in federal habeas case after state conviction has become final
October 30, 2011 at 07:15 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Big coming week for sentencing geeks (like me):
RE: Lafler v. Cooper and Frye: the idea that the Constitution can sanction the tossing of a criminal judgment resulting from a fair trial is Orwellian. Of course, that may not stop one of the libs from voting with the criminal.
Posted by: federalist | Oct 31, 2011 8:31:46 AM
And the idea that the Constitution can sanction a lawyer not conveying a plea offer to his client is equally Orwellian. Of course, that may not stop one of the conservs from voting with the prosecution.
Posted by: reader | Oct 31, 2011 11:31:16 AM
personaly i think this one was a nobrainer and should never have gotten this far! UNLESS of course the individual in question could have pointed so SOME LANGUAGE in his/her job description that REQURIES them to break the law!
"Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788) — scope of immunity for government official who initiates a criminal case then testifies falsely to a grand jury"
sorry purjury and fraud are not in any JOB DESCRIPTION i know of!
Posted by: rodsmith | Oct 31, 2011 1:45:56 PM
wow, a lot could turn on these six cases. every one of them -- with exception (one hopes) of Rehberg -- could have pretty broad implications for things that happen all the time in the criminal justice system...
Posted by: Anon | Oct 31, 2011 3:16:55 PM
A solution: Alkaline hydrolysis (☺ pun intended ☺).
Posted by: JAG | Nov 2, 2011 6:07:05 AM