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.