.jpg)
Here is an amusing note below the WSJ article, that I am sure made the SG's office very happy.
Corrections & Amplifications
The Justice Department filed a motion with the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana asking the court to reconsider its decision after it was disclosed that the state failed to mention a relevant federal statute. This article about the court's possible reconsideration of the case incorrectly said the department filed a brief with the court before the court's opinion in June.
Posts
3 comments:
Dwight is to be commended for bringing this issue to the attention of the public in his initial blog post. (Most military justice practitioners were certainly aware the Art. 120 carried a max possible punishment of death for child rapists.) His actions are all the more laudable given the very real possibility that if the Court takes up the case and reverses itself (or issues any opinion that preserves the death penalty for child rapists only in the military), it may adversely impact one of his clients. BZ Dwight.
Correction & Amplificiation:
Mr. Stimson I am sure meant to say that there is a possibility that the decision, if changed, could affect one of CAAFlog's potential, future clients because no current CAAFlog client could possibly been sentenced to death under the revised, or the old, Art. 120. I know this because I am about 99.99999% sure no servicemember has been sentenced to death under the revised Art. 120 or the old Art. 120 in the last oh, 20, 30 years?
No Man, you are correct.
Post a Comment