Habeas Corpus – The California Blog of Appeal

I have discovered several hacked posts on my blog, and there are doubtless many more. I am in the process of reviewing posts and taking out material inserted by the hacker(s).

In the meantime, posts should be read with caution. If you see odd links to other law firms, products, or services, or any other indication that you are reading a hacked post, I would appreciate it very much if you would send me the link to the suspected hacked post. You can email links to me at gregATgregmaylaw.com.

All content on this blog is provided solely for purposes of information and commentary. Posts are not updated to reflect later changes in the law, and may be outdated. No content on this blog constitutes legal advice, and content should neither be construed as or relied upon as such. Content on this blog does not substitute for consultation with an attorney. For legal advice, consult an attorney. Links to external content do not constitute endorsements of the publishers or content.

Death Penalty, Habeas Corpus, Writ Practice

Death Penalty Odyssey Likely to Fuel Debate

December 5, 2007

NOTE: This is a re-post of an earlier post that I unwittingly published with the exact same blog title as the below-referenced Decision of the Day post. In a post entitled A “Wholly Discomforting” End To Twenty-Two Years of Death Penalty Appeals, Robert Loblaw at Decision of the Day notes yesterday’s 159-page decision in Cooper v. Brown, case no. 05-99004 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2007) and comments on how it is likely to fuel debate on the death penalty. I think I remember hearing about this case on the news the last time Cooper’s execution was stayed, but I sure don’t remember the “discomforting” facts DoD excerpts from the concurring…

Read More

Greg May
Federal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Writ Practice

Looking for Help re Anonymous Habeas Case

November 28, 2007

Howard Bashman at How Appealing is looking for an explanation why the habeas petitioner in yesterday’s Doe v. Woodford, case no. 06-16054 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007) opinion was kept anonymous despite the facts that (1) it appears to be a substitute opinion for an earlier opinion under the same case number, in which the petitioner was identified and (2) the PACER records for the case continue to identify the petitioner by name. The opinion itself is silent on the reason for anonymity. Anyway, Bashman would appreciate it if you can e-mail him with any information that may help explain the anonymity of the habeas petitioner in yesterday’s opinion.

Read More

Greg May