« Is the big bad government afraid of lil' ole me? | Main | First execution in 2007 on tap in Oklahoma »
January 9, 2007
A little praise for Judge Posner
Regular readers know that I have complained a lot about some of Judge Richard Posner's sentencing rulings. But, to show I am as happy to share praise as I am to share criticisms, let me give a shout-out to Judge Posner for his work today in US v. Radomski, No. 05-3792 (7th Cir. Jan 9, 2007) (available here). Though not a sentencing opinion, Radomski closes with a paragraph that only a federal prosecutor couldn't love:
There is no great mystery about why the jury nevertheless voted to convict Radomski. He did conspire with Zawistowski to commit a criminal act, as well as trying to kick one of the policemen who arrested him. (Radomski is a former trainer of the Polish boxer Andrew Golota—the world's most colorful boxer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Golota.) And his accomplice was in all likelihood a drug dealer. But not having been charged with the crime he actually committed, Radomski is entitled to an acquittal.
January 9, 2007 at 03:28 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8350b061469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A little praise for Judge Posner:
Comments
Go Wikipedia!
Posner's ruling is also interesting in that it seems to be one more step in the direction of greater attention to the formalities of the indictment and the grand jury process, with the notable exception of this week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that sometimes multiple elements of a claim may be implied by a particularly potent word like "attempt".
Generally speaking civil pleading has been tending towards laxity (outside of securities fraud cases). Why the shift, I wonder.
Posner's decision, while right, in some ways is just the sort of think that exasperates common sense observers of the criminal justice system -- a guy whom even the appellate judge agrees that a jury of twelve probably believed was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime goes free because of a technical mistake by the prosecutor.
Now, of course, you can say that the prosecutor's mistake was hardly technical since it influenced the defense trial strategy (although in a civil case a reviewing court probably would have found an amendment by implication as the facts were presented without objection at trial), this is a lie in the grass situation to some extent.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jan 9, 2007 6:48:21 PM
Does it deserve praise because it ruled in favor of a criminal defendant?
Posted by: Anon | Jan 10, 2007 2:41:05 AM
