That’s the title given by the Los Angeles Daily Journal to my article, which it published in its November 19, 2007 issue, regarding U.S. v. Larson, the en banc Ninth Circuit’s confusing “resolution” of the perceived split of authority on the standard of review in Confrontation Clause challenges based on limitations on cross-examination. The article (PDF link) grew out of this blog post giving my initial impressions about the case on the day it was published. I followed up that post with another providing links to some other blog coverage of the case.
Welcome to all those visiting this blog for the first time after reading my article in the November 21 Los Angeles Daily Journal! Click and scroll around, check out some of the links in the blogroll, and come back again. Better yet, subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed.
My regular readers of more than a few months’ duration have seen my posts about the subject of that article — last August’s en banc decision in U.S. v. Larson, in which the Ninth Circuit resolved a 3-way intra-circuit split on the standard of review for Confrontation Clause challenges based on limits placed on cross-examination — here and here. The article in the Daily Journal is behind their subscription wall online, so grab yourself a hard copy of the newspaper or check back here after Thanksgiving weekend, by which time I should be able to get a copy posted here.
I plan to keep this post at the top of the blog at least through the Monday or Tuesday after Thanksgiving. Until then, all new posts will appear below this one, so be sure to scroll down on return visits.
Here’s wishing old and new readers alike — and everyone else, for that matter — a happy and meaningful Thanksgiving holiday.
A few days ago, I blogged about the odd reasoning behind the en banc Ninth Circuit’s purported resolution in United States v. Larson of a 3-way intra-circuit split over the applicable standard of review in Confrontation Clause cases. Here’s some other blog coverage.
While my post concentrated on the intra-circuit split, Split Circuits gives you coverage of the split among the federal circuits on the same issue.
California Appellate Report comments on the odd 4-4-7 split vote of the en banc panel that results in one of the 4-judge opinions being the opinion of the court.
Larson is Ninth Circuit Blog’s Case o’ the Week, where the federal defenders’ blog digs into the substantive aspects of the case and notes that despite the intent of en banc review to clarify important issues, this case will be “all things to all people” and the poster, Steve Kalar, also responds to my comment.
UPDATE (8/3/07): University of Michigan Law School Professor Richard Friedman addresses the standard of review issue in depth, along with some of the substance. It’s the most comprehensive post about the case that I’ve run across.