Search for: "Don Blakely"
Results 781 - 800
of 805
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2007, 11:50 pm
So don't think those law review notes necessarily entail merely spilled ink. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:50 am
Supreme Court simply don't work.P.S. - One final point. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 12:06 pm
The faculty of sitting and retired judges included Judges Stanford Blake, Kevin Emas and Sam Slom, among others from Miami-Dade County. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 10:32 am
If they do (or don't), what will be the political fallout in "purple" states like Florida and Ohio? [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 6:19 am
Going into the Emerald Bowl game between UCLA and Florida State, our prognostication record based on predictions published previously here at LawPundit is 11-3 in picking winners and 8-3 against the spread (three of the games had no spread that we were able to find online).Update. [read post]
4 Dec 2006, 6:28 am
"Don't be desperate. [read post]
1 Dec 2006, 8:43 am
You don't like that? [read post]
19 Nov 2006, 8:49 am
(2) If Blakely is a new rule, does its requirement that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum be proved beyond a reasonable doubt apply retroactively?] [read post]
7 Nov 2006, 9:19 am
But, the Chief went on, "don't you have to address AEDPA before we get to that? [read post]
15 Oct 2006, 7:39 am
The court rejects this, because the elements of a conspiracy don't require a given amount of drugs, and notes that Apprendi and Blakely don't apply because the defendant's sentence wasn't upped below a statutory maximum or normal guideline. [read post]
13 Oct 2006, 5:57 pm
(By cousins, I don't mean blood relatives, but "cousins" in the way that Martians are our cousins.) [read post]
13 Oct 2006, 12:46 pm
It sets out the problem of Blakely and belated appeals very nicely. [read post]
10 Oct 2006, 2:07 pm
The government argued that there are 70-80,000 indictments a year; prosecutors do get indictments wrong; we should count on district court judges to get it right; and even when they don't, it doesn't matter so long as a conviction results. [read post]
4 Oct 2006, 1:56 pm
I don't know if Burton is a horrible vehicle to decide the Blakely questions involved. [read post]
11 Sep 2006, 12:17 pm
(And don't forget that Burton involves consecutive sentences too.)And a final question: might Blakely retroactivity, to the extent it depends on Blakely having announced a new substantive rule, depend upon the law of the jurisdiction in which retroactivity is sought? [read post]
9 Sep 2006, 4:55 pm
The items don't disappear or get cleaned out just because they're "read. [read post]
4 Aug 2006, 8:40 am
It's especially unfortunate we don't have an explication in light of the meat of Judge Vaidik's dissent which, unassailably in my view, says:Blakely is concerned with the enhancement of a defendant's sentence based on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). [read post]
25 Jun 2006, 6:42 pm
And if they don't, what happens with Johnson will be worth watching because, as discussed in this post, I don't believe that state courts are bound in their retroactivity analysis by SCOTUS decisions. [read post]
14 Jun 2006, 3:17 am
The links for yesterday's oral arguments at the court are already up, so even if they don't, it appears the archive will be available quickly. [read post]
6 Oct 2005, 8:17 pm
Smylie, I discovered quite accidentally, is not the only Indiana Blakely case looking for cert. [read post]
