Monday Morning Jumpstart: President’s Day Edition
Posted on
February 18, 2008 by
Gideon
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It has been rather busy here in Gideonland, but early this week I may finally be caught up with work and ready to resume my blogging duties. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been paying attention, though. These are stories that I read and I think are worth sharing. Enjoy the day off, if you have it, if not, I’m sorry. Get a state job.
- It took several years and three (at least) courts to finally sort out that “I plead the 5th” is a valid invocation of a Miranda right.
- Norm Pattis forgoes closing statements and wonders whether lawyers actually make a difference during trial.
- The CrimePsych blog brings us a limited time link to international homicide studies.
- The AZ Supreme Court ruled that jury trials are required for convictions that could lead to sex offender registration.
- Scott rightly complains about the weak “out” that an issue has not been preserved for appellate review.
- The WSJ Law Blog brings horror stories of document review and reminds me of how happy I am that I didn’t go to BigLaw.
- Sex Crimes wonders if an originalist view would not be fatal to the petitioner in Louisiana v. Kennedy.
- The Underblawg is a little disppointed with the law.
- There is a new blawg on juries on the scene: Juries.
- Dan Solove at Co-op has made his book “The Future of Reputations” available for free download under a CC License. Good for him. I’ll go read it now.
Loading ...
Gideon, please go back and re-read Anderson v. Terhune. The issue is not really whether “I plead the Fifth” is a valid invocation of his right to be silent–but whether the guy re-initiated questioning, thus breaking the chain of causation, which would suppress the confession as a fruit of the poisonous tree. That the case was subject to the AEDPA standard is another issue as well.
Your post is overly snarky, and it seems, misinformed. This case is a lot closer than you seem to think it is, and I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took it up. The majority in that case did not do well to ignore the issue raised by Judge Bea, as that makes the case more certworthy (the Ninth has blown off important issues in other AEDPA cases). We’ll, of course, see what happens, but I think you blew it on this one.