Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Loving FOIA Cert. Petition

Here is a link to the Loving v. DoD FOIA case cert. petition. The FOIA case seeks documents sent to the President in the process of approving or disapproving Loving's death sentence. Seth Watkins, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, did an excellent job briefing the executive privilege issue--that's not a plug, just a fact--assisted, as always in Loving's cases, by the unflappable Teresa Norris.

I have always thought the documents Loving was seeking were essentially the same as SJA recommendations to a CA, thus should be given to the defendant, but that's just me and a superficial analysis of the case. Here is the Supreme Court docket page for the case.
Posted by Mike "No Man" Navarre at 3:07 AM

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

What could you get that's not deliberative that you don't have already?

Tue Jun 02, 05:58:00 AM EDT
Mike "No Man" Navarre said...

PSR is deliberative, SJAR is deliberative, both go to the defense. Particularly in the MilJus system, I think the default is to give the recommendation to the defense. For example, say the case goes back on remand due to habeas after the President approves the death sentence, i.e. the Gray case. Post new sentencing hearing the accused is entitled to all new matters in the record. President's approval is in the record, all those recommendations are part of the record, why doesn't the accused get them? And if they aren't, how does the accused know some new evidence wasn;t raised in them that now affects the proceedings?

Maybe all that is bunk and I just feel like, why should the President be the only one with an undisclosed recommen dation on sentence?

Tue Jun 02, 08:48:00 AM EDT
Cossio said...

I don't understand why this accused who killed two taxicab drivers, and attempted to kill another, is entitled to every minutiae of communication concerning the approval of his death sentence. This all seems to be the last --- Well it is, it's just one more roadblock before the inevitable conclusion.

Tue Jun 02, 02:08:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...

What is "inevitable" is that this country will abolish the death penalty. Then, next, we will abolish LWOP, which is just as unconstitutional, and for the same reasons. We need to focus on rehabilitation.

Tue Jun 02, 02:41:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...

Anon 1441 makes a good point, though I am not sure if he or she is serious. We in the defense bar have an obligation to advocate for our clients, and reform the system.

Tue Jun 02, 05:33:00 PM EDT
Cossio said...

I don't think he/she/it is serious if they think the death penalty is unconstitutional.

I don't tend to take people seriously when they believe the framers of the constitution would ever believe such nonsense. If they only could see what ***** would misconstrue their words to mean that Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Health Care are counstitutional rights whereas the Right to Bear Arms and Freedom of Religion are not "rights".

Wed Jun 03, 01:18:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...

"we in the defense bar" need to rethink our lives.

Wed Jun 03, 01:23:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)