Alito’s First Death Decision

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. anonymous says:

    Definitely one of the more irrelevant posts I’ve read in a while. I am dumber for having read it. Care to explain, or even to build the foundation for making the case, that this factoid was “uncomfortable” and why?

  2. default says:

    I’m with anonymous. Who cares that Alito didn’t mention that he was reversing a death sentence? I’d be happy to see opinions like these (habeas opinions especially) contain no facts at all. What difference should the heinous nature of the crime make to whether S.C.’s laws of evidence are constitutional?

  3. arthur says:

    One reason to omit mention of a death penalty is to make it clear that the precedent is not limited to death penalty cases. Sometimes, prosecutors avoid application of death penalty penalty precedent in a non-capital case on the argument that “death is different.” Alito would have seen both sides of these arguments at the Circuit Court.

  4. …and to further speculate (I’m not an SC lawyer), in the first case, the post-conviction review (which I believe is standard in SC unless waived and is what led to the second trial)came only after the affirmation of the sentence by the SC Supreme Court and the denial of cert. by the US Supreme Court. In other words, he got the post-conviction review because it was a death penalty case. Following the second trial, the Court granted cert. on an evidentiary issue that was not related to the sentence imposed so the imposition of the death penalty was not relavant to the timeline laid out.

    ….or maybe it’s a coded message to his Religous Right supporters, once again thanking them for their efforts and re-iterating his promise to do away with co-education.