This week’s Case of the Week is on vacation while the Brethren – and Justice Ginsburg – are on Holiday. Should the Court take on any emergency cases, your trusty correspondent will return before the Court reopens in January. If not, Happy Holidays.
By Nan
“’Just because it is, doesn’t mean it should be.’” Lady Sarah Ashley in
As a longtime fan of Nicole Kidman I was greatly looking forward to the spectacle that is Baz Lurhman’s
There are echoes of what might have been in the trek across the outback. Lady Sarah and the Drover put together a ragtag group that includes Nullah, Nullah’s grandmother, an alcoholic accountant, and Chinese cook. A genuinely thrilling undertaking for them all, the drove illustrates the beauty and danger of
Kidman is cringingly stiff at the beginning of the film, but warms up as her character falls in love with both Drover and Nullah. Jackman is more memorable in that he plays essentially the perfect man—one who cries beautifully, rescues children and cracks his whip with equal élan.
The old-fashioned sentimentality of the movie would be more enjoyable if it wasn’t dotted with sadness every 30 minutes, or if Lurhman had focused on one of the three stories running through the film—preferably to Jackman sudsing himself up and giving himself a sponge bath in the outback— we would have had an enjoyable Christmas movie. But instead he tried for epic tragedy to be spread amongst his epic cheese. And cheese + tears aren’t very festive.
Obama, you better not have made a fool of me this year. I bought all your audacity of hope, change we can believe in, army of teachers, etc. rhetorical political crap. I emailed everyone I knew trying to convince them you weren't just another Bill Clinton. Don't make me regret it.
Case of the Week
“15 Years Isn’t Long Enough To Figure Out If A Trial Was Fair”
By James Gladstone
Volume 1 Part 1
My name is
This week’s Case is an easy one to select as the Court issued but one published opinion, it being Hedgpeth v Pulido, 555
Hedgpeth presents two oddities in that it is a PER CURIAM decision, but with a dissenting opinion.
“Per curiam” is Latin for “the Court as a whole” and is usually a brief and unanimous decision involving a case in which there is little to argue about. It is unsigned – so the actual author of the text takes no bow for a job well (or poorly) done.
But sometimes there is a dissenting opinion attached to which authorship is claimed (don’t ask how can a decision be one by the Court as a whole when everyone does not agree?). One not versed in the law might have reason to remember a case called Bush v Gore in which their were multiple signed opinions but no one signed on to claim authorship of the decisive opinion itself – and of course, there is little wonder why.
But I digress.
Hedgpeth is an example of why nine lawyers should never be put in charge of anything that requires a simple explanation.
Mr. Hedgpeth himself is the California Warden who is holding one Michael Pulido in custody. Pulido was convicted of murder – in fact felony murder – which is normally proven by showing that a murder occurred while the perpetrator was performing a felony. This often happens, as all Law and Order fans know, when a couple of robbers are interrupted and one murders a victim – the non-shooter is responsible under the felony murder doctrine.
Well, in this case, then 16 year old Michael Pulido was convicted of robbing a gas station during which the attendant, the unfortunate Ramon Flores, was shot dead. Pulido said he had no idea what his uncle was up to until he heard a shot, went in the station, appraised the situation, and then was ordered by his armed Uncle (Michael Aragon) to empty the cash register. The Uncle – surprise-surprise – said it was Pulido who did the dirty. The Police apparently agreed because Uncle Mike has never been charged with anything in connection with the case.
Now usually this is the type of thing juries are hired to iron out. The question for the jury should be not only who pulled the trigger but
Well, sort of. At the trial it seems the judge made a mistake (or two). He told the jury that even if they did not find that Pulido was the shooter, they could convict him of felony-murder if they found he was in cahoots with his Uncle on the robbery ahead of time or if they found he made the plan to rob the cash register after the murder. The judge not only verbally told the jury this, but
regarding the law of felony-murder, but incorrectly used the word ‘either’ instead of ‘and’.
Well, little Michael was convicted of felony murder after the jury said they could not determine he was the shooter. Their finding of guilt did not say whether Michael knew of the robbery ahead of time. They just determined he committed the robbery either before or after the murder. Everyone involved admits that under
So this is when we get a bunch of lawyers involved. The unnamed Per Curiam court says the lower court must now reconsider its ruling that Pulido deserves a new trial by determining whether the faulty instructions were “harmless error” - thereby holding it error for the lower Courts to just automatically give Pulido a new trial.
The plain meaning to anyone but a lawyer is that the six conservative members of the Supreme Court would really, really, really like to find a way to keep Pulido in jail for the rest of his life without a chance for parole (his original sentence) but just couldn’t find a way to do so without deciding that if you have a jury of 12 and six think you did something wrong and six think you did something else wrong, then that counts as unanimous.
The lessons?
1. Don’t go for a ride with your uncle when you need to stop for gas.
And if you do, expect the police to believe your uncle’s version.
2. Don’t expect that an unfair trial will get fixed anytime soon – even if any sane person concludes it is unfair.
3. Do expect the
