Search for: "Kent Scheidegger"
Results 461 - 480
of 624
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2014, 7:56 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that on Monday the Court asked the U.S. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 3:54 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger argues that “an essential issue in the case was barely mentioned” during the argument. [read post]
22 May 2012, 7:09 am
Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences looks at three habeas cases relisted for next week. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 8:32 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger predicts that the appeals filed by Texas inmate Abel Ochoa, whose execution is scheduled for tonight at 6:00 p.m. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 3:49 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes the implications of the ruling for a capital case this term, McKinney v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 2:39 am
Commentary on yesterday’s decision in King comes from Laurence Tribe in The Boston Globe, Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times, Adam Zimmerman at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re at PrawfsBlawg, Jeremy Leaming at ACSblog, Richard Pierce at the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket, Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, Leland Beck at the Federal Regulations Advisor, Lisa Keen of the Keen News Service, Joan Krause at Hamilton and… [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 5:05 am
Kent Scheidegger at the Crime and Consequences Blog and Nick Wing at the Huffington Post both have coverage of Justice Thomas’s remarks during oral argument last week in Boyer v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 2:40 pm
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger noted that 13 of the inmates on death row have exhausted all appeals and could be executed immediately. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 6:19 am
Kimberly Bennett summarizes the Woodall decision at JURIST, while at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger praises the Court’s opinion, writing that “[f]ederal habeas remains a safety net in case the state courts completely fail to do their jobs and are clearly wrong, but in all debatable questions the state court decision stands. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 3:39 am
” And at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses the denial of review in the case of death-row inmate Joseph Duncan. [read post]
3 Nov 2007, 9:10 pm
"I wouldn't place any wagers on any [scheduled executions] being carried out," says Kent Scheidegger, who closely follows death penalty issues at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 3:47 am
Kent Scheidegger over at Crime and Consequences has a good, if slightly biased, post about the latter case. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 6:21 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Tuesday’s opinion in Fernandez v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 9:26 am
Our own Kent Scheidegger disagrees with the Graham decision and "extending it to homicides would be wrong squared. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 4:08 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the Supreme Court has adopted this year’s set of amendments to the federal rules of procedure. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 8:13 am
Calling the opinion "cryptic," Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences suggests that "a practical solution is for the judge to pass on the other issues when he knows the decision is clear but go ahead and rule on them when he knows the decision is in a gray zone where other judges may differ. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 4:03 am
Rizo comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequences. [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 3:59 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger offers his “initial impressions” of the oral argument, and concludes that “[w]ith this many splits among the Justices, there is no predicting the outcome. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 12:45 pm
JURIST also has coverage, while at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger noted that the case clarifies the Court’s 2007 ruling in Burton v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 5:13 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger reacts to the latter editorial, expressing surprise that “we would read the words ‘Donald Trump is right’ in a New York Times editorial about anything, but especially about one of the Left’s favorite jurists. [read post]
