A couple of interesting dissents filed today in a denial of rehearing en banc in United States v. Jenkins, case no. 06-50049 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008). I blogged about the panel decision in this post because the decision resolved an open issue on the standard of review to apply when reviewing an order dismissing an indictment for prosecutorial vindictiveness. My post referred readers to California Appellate Report for Professor Martin’s write-up of the merits. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by five other judges, dissents from the order denying rehearing en banc, and Chief Judge Kozinski writes a second — and very brief — dissent to highlight Judge O’Scannlain’s criticism of the…
-
-
Grammar Girl’s Top 10 Grammar Myths
Today is National Grammar Day, and Grammar Girl is commemorating it with a podcast of the “Top Ten Grammar Myths.” You can download it as an .mp3 file or go to her transcript instead (the latter includes links to her detailed discussions of the myths). I don’t think anyone is going to be surprised by her top grammar myth.
-
Would this have Worked for the California Supremes?
The WSJ.com Law Blog posts today about possible remedies for the problem of recusal of Supreme Court Justices due to stock ownership in one of the parties, noting that Chief Justice Robert’s recent recusal from a case resulted in a “problematic even-numbered panel” that rendered a 4-4 decision in Warner-Lambert Co., LLC v. Kent, case no. 06-1498 (Mar. 3, 2008). The Law Blog links to this post at The Volokh Conspiracy, where Professor Volokh floats the idea of requiring justices to sell stock in a party upon the granting of certiorari. The availability of designated justices may make this seem like a moot consideration for our own Supreme Court, but…
-
The Scope of Plurality En Banc Decisions
In a post from the weekend cleverly titled to include “Ninth Makes Up its Mind on Inability to Make Up its Mind,” Ninth Circuit Blog performs a great public service by providing resources to help understand the scope of “fractured” en banc cases decided by plurality opinion. Definitely worth a read, especially if you are relying on such authority and want to “nail down” its strength and limitations. Ninth Circuit Blog’s post concludes that there’s advantage to be had from ambiguity: Come to think of it, if the federal judiciary is increasingly hostile to the rights of criminal (and particularly, indigent) defendants, maybe plurality decisions are good things. After all,…