Search for: "Kent Scheidegger"
Results 561 - 580
of 622
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2017, 3:45 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger surveys the criminal cases awaiting decision at the court. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 6:19 am
The Associated Press (via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) has the full story, and the stay was noted by Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy and by Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequences. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 4:07 am
”At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger wonders why it took the court so long to deny cert without comment in two cases alleging racial disparities in the administration of Oklahoma’s capital-sentencing scheme, noting that one of the cases “was distributed for conference twenty-six times. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 6:34 am
Although most coverage of the two cases focused on the Court’s treatment of the Ninth Circuit, Kent Scheidegger of Crime & Consequences looks at the broader picture, describing Harrington as “a landmark decision in the law of federal habeas corpus. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 7:18 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger summarizes the criminal cases in that sitting. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 8:56 am
Finally, at Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger suggests that the reasoning behind the grant in the habeas case Wood v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:31 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that in Royal v. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 4:30 am
” Briefly: At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger criticizes an editorial in the Los Angeles Times that he says “blatantly misrepresented” a Supreme Court opinion in a 1998 death penalty case; he argues that the editorial “defamed the Court and, even worse, misled its readers on a vitally important public issue they will be voting on shortly. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 4:16 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger weighs in on the debate over whether video cameras should be permitted in the Supreme Court courtroom, suggesting that the court “should not stream its arguments live but instead should make them available on video largely the same way it presently does in audio. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:09 am
” Commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences and Ilya Somin for The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, who remarks that “the legal battle over Trump’s travel ban is far from over. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 3:55 am
” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that “[i]f the status of the ‘dreamers’ is fixed by statute” in the meantime, “then this will be one more case for the mootness bin. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
” Briefly: At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Monday’s argument in McWilliams v. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 4:20 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that “[w]henever the Supreme Court makes a significant change in the law — as it did last week when it overruled its prior approval of nonunanimous juries in state criminal cases” in Ramos v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 3:27 am
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger writes that “[a] broad attack on supervised release revocations would indeed be a grave concern,” and that although “[t]he direct effects of [yester]day’s decision are not severe, … future developments warrant monitoring. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:52 am
” At the blog Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger describes the argument in Greene – involving a question of timing under the federal habeas statute – as “[going] well for the State. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am
At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger laments that in Banister the court “took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 9:05 am
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 6:05 am
United States, where a defendant was convicted of violating Sarbanes-Oxley’s ‘anti-shredding’ prohibition by throwing illegally caught fish off his boat”; Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who summarizes the case as one in which, “[i]n a nutshell, the Court concludes that the federal prosecutors exceeded the power the statute gave them . . . and thus there is no need to decide whether Congress exceeded the power the Constitution’s treaty and… [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 4:36 am
” Additional coverage of the decision comes from Dan Sullivan and others in the Tampa Bay Times; commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 8:36 am
However, Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences laments the lack of objective standards for determining threshold levels of attorney negligence, and he urges the Court to issue a clearer test for the issue next Term. [read post]
