« "Majority of Leading Criminologists Find Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder" | Main | Lawyer for Plaxico Burress making much of sweet plea deal given to other NFL receiver »
June 17, 2009
Lots of interesting discussion in Second Circuit's refusal to go en banc in federal capital case
The Second Circuit in a brief order today in US v. Fell, No. 06-2882 (2d Cir. June 17, 2009) (available here), denies en banc review of a federal death sentence. That simple decision generates a 35-page concurrence from Judge Raggi and a 24-page dissent from Judge Calabresi (and two other small dissents).
The work by Judges Raggi and Calabresi cover a wide array of important and interesting issues ranging from capital jury selection to prosecutorial discretion. Because I am on the road, I do not have time to comment on their debate beyond calling it a must-read for all sentencing fans. (Also, SCOTUS fans might also take note of the fact it appears that Judge Sotomayor opted not to join any of these opinions commenting on the denial of en banc review in Fell.)
June 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20115702a2fc7970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of interesting discussion in Second Circuit's refusal to go en banc in federal capital case:
» USCA2 Capital Case from Crime and Consequences Blog
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has finally denied rehearing en banc in United States v. Fell. I was wondering what was taking them so long. Now we know. Judge Calabresi dissents with a bizarre theory that... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 17, 2009 5:13:57 PM
Comments
Yet another 2nd circuit product I am unable to read due to the pdf not being formatted for text to speech. I wonder if that is a violation of the ADA.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jun 17, 2009 1:03:39 PM
you can format pdf for text to speech? How do you do that?
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2009 3:46:02 PM
The only thing I did not like about Judge Calabresi's dissent was that he did not cite my article, When the Federal Death Penalty Is “Cruel and Unusual,” 74 U. CIN. L. REV. 819 (2006), in which I argue that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendmant to apply the federal death penalty to a crime that occurred in any State that does not authorize capital punishment.
Posted by: Michael J.Z. Mannheimer | Jun 19, 2009 9:46:04 PM
That's right, Michael, because some judge doesn't cite your moonbat article, you get bent.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 21, 2009 6:08:47 PM
It really is a great idea.I will have a trial of this idea as soon as I got the pattern.Thank you for constantly posting of so many useful tips.They are such a great help to me.Thank you very much!
Posted by: supra shoes | Oct 28, 2010 6:05:43 AM
