Tuesday, November 14, 2006


Whether or not one "has" religion should/not affect sentence in this capital case? And does that California "Factor K" adequately allow jurors to consider all mitigating factors? (I.e., Skipper type mitigating evidence?) Exactly what did the jury understand "factor k" to mean? Even the prosecutor was "incorrect" about what he thought it meant, and said so in court; so the jury was understandably thus mislead and failed to give the jury instructions the very sum and substance the majority gave to it. Oh well. Justice Stevens dissenting, joined by the usual three on the left. And apparently, very unusual for SCOTUS to lead off with a 5-4 split. What does this mean, grasshopper?

No comments: