DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Procedure Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Procedure Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2004 Section 5: Criminal Procedure Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 5: Criminal Procedure" (2004). Supreme Court Preview. 185. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/185 Copyright c 2004 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview CRIMINAL PROCEDURE New Case: 04-104 U.S. v. Booker Synopsis and Question Presented 268 Transcript of Sentencing Hearing in U.S. v. Fanfan (04-105) 273 Justices Agree to Consider Sentencing Lyle Denniston 275 Justices, in Bitter 5-4 Split, Raise Doubts on Sentencing Guidelines Linda Greenhouse 277 High CourtRuling Sows Confusion Joan Biskupic 280 Long Term in Drug Case Fuels Debate on Sentencing Adam Liptak 283 Justice By the Numbers Joan Biskupic and Mary Pat Flaherty 286 New Case: 03-923 Illinois v. Caballes Synopsis and Question Presented 292 High Court Takes Police-Dog Case Joan Biskupic 297 Supreme Court to Hear La Salle County Drug Case Tom Collins 299 An Officer's Best Buddy Adriana Mateus 301 New Case: 03-674 Jama v. INS Synopsis and Question Presented 304 New Case: 03-583 Leocal v. Ashcroft Synopsis and Question Presented 310 Supreme Court Roundup: Justices Agree to Hear Two Deportation Cases Linda Greenhouse 312 265 Miami-Dade Case Goes to High Court Lisa Arthur 314 Immigration Case Creates Legal Stir Todd Nelson 315 U.S. Gains Strength On Deportations:Supreme Court Says Legal Aliens Who Commit Certain Crimes Can Be Held Before Hearingon Removal Tony Mauro 317 New Case: 03-931 Floridav. Nixon Synopsis and Question Presented 319 Man Gets New Trial in '84 Killing: Court Says Nixon Did Not Agree to Defense Strategy James L. Rosica 327 High Court to Review Slaying; Tallahassee case Tests Rules for Defense Lawyers Tallahassee Democrat Staff 329 The Defense Wishes to Rest: Lawyers Avoid 'Hassle' ofDeath Penalty Stephanie Saul 330 New Trial Revives Old Nightmares: Court's Decision Shocks Jurorsfrom 1985 Case James L. Rosica 332 New Case: 03-0878 Crawford v. Martinez Synopsis and Question Presented 334 New Case: 03-7434 Benitez v. Wallis Synopsis and Question Presented 335 High Court to Decide Fate of Refugee; DanielBenitez, a Mariel Refugee in Indefinite Detention, Wants the U.S. Supreme Court To Order His Release Alfonso Chardy 339 High Court to Consider Detention Case; Justices to Decide if U.S. Can Indefinitely Imprison Illegal Immigrants Charles Lane 342 Mariel Felons Remain Stuck in Legal Limbo Alfonso Chardy 344 266 New Case: 03-1039 Goughnour v. Payton Synopsis and Question Presented 347 California Death Penalty Law at Issue David G. Savage 354 Legal Pingpong and a Condemned Man Jerry Hicks 355 En Banc Ninth CircuitAgain Orders New Death Penalty Trialfor Killer MetNews Staff Writer 359 With a 6-5 Split, Ninth Circuit Treads FamiliarGround Jason Hoppin 361 267 U.S. v. Booker (04-104) Ruling Below: (U.S. v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508, 7th Cir. 2004) At sentencing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant: (1) had distributed 566 grams over and above the 92.5 grams found by the jury and (2) had obstructed justice. Defendant's appeal challenged the sentence on the ground that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines) violated the Sixth Amendment insofar as they permitted the judge to find facts that determined defendant's sentencing range. The court held: (1) the application of the Guidelines in defendant's case violated the Sixth Amendment because it limited defendant's right to have a jury determine, using the reasonable-doubt standard, how much cocaine base he possessed and whether he obstructed justice; (2) in cases where there were no enhancements-that is, no factual findings by a judge increasing a sentence-there was no constitutional violation in applying the Guidelines unless the Guidelines were invalid in their entirety; and (3) if the Guidelines were severable, the judge could use a sentencing jury; if not, he could choose any sentence between 10 years and life and, in making the latter determination, he was free to draw on the Guidelines for recommendations. Questions Presented: 1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the sentencing judge's determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. 2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," the following question is presented: whether, in a case in which the Guidelines would require the court to find a sentence-enhancing fact, the Sentencing Guidelines as a whole would be inapplicable, as a matter of severability analysis, such that the sentencing court must exercise its discretion to sentence the defendant within the maximum and minimum set by statute for the offense of conviction. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee V. FREDDIE J. BOOKER, Appellant United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Decided July 9, 2004 [Excerpt; some footnotes and citations omitted] POSNER, Circuit Judge: A jury found the defendant guilty of statute prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 possessing with intent to distribute at least years in prison and a maximum sentence of 50 grams of cocaine base, for which the life. At sentencing, the judge found by a 268 preponderance of the evidence that the the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant had distributed 566 grams over defendant." "In other words, the relevant and above the 92.5 grams that the jury had 'statutory maximum' is not the maximum to have found. [...J Under the federal sentence a judge may impose after finding sentencing guidelines, the additional additional facts, but the maximum he may quantity finding increased the defendant's impose without any additional findings. base offense level from 32 to 36, [with t]he When a judge inflicts punishment that the effect, together with that of the enhancement jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury that the guidelines prescribe for obstruction has not found all the facts 'which the law of justice, was to place the defendant in a makes essential to the punishment,' and the sentencing range of 360 months to life. The judge exceeds his proper authority." judge sentenced him to the bottom of the "Without" is italicized in the original; we range. The appeal challenges the sentence have italicized "relevant" to underscore the on the ground that the sentencing guidelines difference between the maximum sentence violate the Sixth Amendment insofar as they in the statute, and the maximum sentence- permit the judge to find facts (other than what the Supreme Court regards as the facts relating to a defendant's criminal "relevant statutory maximum"-that the history) that determine the defendant's judge can impose without making his own sentencing range. [...] findings, above and beyond what the jury found or the defendant admitted or, as here, We have expedited our decision in an effort did not contest. to provide some guidance to the district judges (and our own court's staff), who are The maximum sentence that the district faced with an avalanche of motions for judge could have imposed in this case resentencing in the light of Blakely v. (without an upward departure), had he not Washington, which has cast a long shadow made any findings concerning quantity of over the federal sentencing guidelines. We drugs or obstruction of justice, would have cannot of course provide definitive been 262 months, given the defendant's base guidance; only the Court and Congress can offense level of 32 (32 is the base offense do that; our hope is that an early opinion level when the defendant possessed at least will help speed the issue to a definitive 50 grams but less than 150 grams of crack), resolution. and the defendant's criminal history. True, that maximum is imposed not by the words of a federal statute, but by the sentencing guidelines. Provisions of the guidelines The Supreme Court had already held that establish a "standard range" for possessing "other than the fact of a prior conviction, with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of any fact that increases the penalty for a cocaine base, and other provisions of the crime beyond the prescribed statutory guidelines establish aggravating factors that maximum must be submitted to a jury, and if found by the judge jack up the range. The proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In pattern is the same as that in the Washington Blakely it let the other shoe drop and held statute, and it is hard to believe that the fact over pointed dissents that "the 'statutory that the guidelines are promulgated by the maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the U.S. Sentencing Commission rather than by maximum sentence a judge may impose a legislature can make a difference. The solely on the basis of the facts reflected in Commission is exercising power delegated 269 to it by Congress, and if a legislature cannot the guidelines are thus that they require the evade what the Supreme Court deems the sentencing judge to make findings of fact commands of the Constitution by a (and to do so under the wrong standard of multistage sentencing scheme neither, it proof), and that the judge's findings largely seems plain, can a regulatory agency. [ ...] determine the sentence, given the limits on upward and downward departures.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transforming the Culture of Power an Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States
    GETTY/CHRIS KLEPONIS Transforming the Culture of Power An Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States By Jocelyn Frye, Shilpa Phadke, Robin Bleiweis, Maggie Jo Buchanan, Danielle Corley, and Osub Ahmed October 2019 with Rebecca Cokley, Laura Durso, and Chelsea Parsons WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Transforming the Culture of Power An Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States By Jocelyn Frye, Shilpa Phadke, Robin Bleiweis, Maggie Jo Buchanan, Danielle Corley, and Osub Ahmed October 2019 with Rebecca Cokley, Laura Durso, and Chelsea Parsons Contents 1 Introduction and summary 6 Overview of GBV 28 Working toward solutions 35 Moving forward and going further 44 Conclusion 45 Acknowledgements 45 About the authors 48 Appendix: Resource page 57 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: CAP uses “Black” and “African American” interchangeably throughout many of our products. We chose to capitalize “Black” in order to reflect that we are discussing a group of people and to be consistent with the capitalization of “African American.” “The power belongs to the person who is right. The power is the truth, and sooner or later, the truth will come to light.”1 – Maricruz Ladino, farmworker and survivor of GBV In 2006, Maricruz Ladino, a farmworker at a California lettuce-packing plant, was repeat- edly harassed by her supervisor. She rebuffed his lewd requests and comments, but he was unrelenting. Eventually, as they were heading back from a day’s work in the fields, he took her to another location and raped her. She was afraid to come forward, but after several months, she finally mustered the courage to complain about what had happened.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans
    July 2006 The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans Paying the Price The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans July 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written by Paul Brown, Consumer Advocate with the U.S. PIRG Education Fund. © 2006, U.S. PIRG Education Fund Cover photo: V. Leach - FOTOLIA. This report would not have been possible without the insights and assistance of Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund; Alison Cassady, Research Director for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund; and all of the PIRG staff and volunteers who conducted the pharmacy store surveys. For a copy of this report, visit our website or send a check for $20 made payable to U.S. PIRG Education Fund at the following address: U.S. PIRG Education Fund 218 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707 www.uspirg.org U.S. PIRG Education Fund is the research and policy center for U.S. PIRG, the federal lobbying office for the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). The state PIRGs are a network of independent, state-based, citizen-funded organizations that advocate for a clean environment, a fair and sustainable economy, and a responsive and democratic government. Paying the Price 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND: THE HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS..........................................................6 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES ARE RISING .............................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • District Clerk
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,.p.l I r r " 28 2 5 1.0 :: 11111 . _ 11111 . 3 2 I IIIII~~ n~M1. 11111 - . 3 6 Ik\ 11111 . BOO 4 0 Ii'-2. 001,I~. • 0 I• I :ij'",li IIIII~~ 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 150mm ->-----~-..... 6" UNI,TED STATES COURT. DIRECTORY Sf March 1, 1986 U.S. DepFrtment of Justice Natlonallnstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originallng it. Points of view or opinions staled in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~l:lted material has been granted by • • Publlc DOmaln Lnllted States Court Directory to the National Criminal JUstice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ " ) sion of the epp.y.ri:ght owner. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 I 053 03 • UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Washington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division Office of the Chief (633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (763-1865) • • The information in this Directory is current as of March I, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court ...................................................................................................................... • United
    [Show full text]
  • The New York Times 2014 Innovation Report
    Innovation March 24, 2014 Executive Summary Innovation March 24, 2014 2 Executive Summary Introduction and Flipboard often get more traffic from Times journalism than we do. The New York Times is winning at journalism. Of all In contrast, over the last year The Times has the challenges facing a media company in the digi- watched readership fall significantly. Not only is the tal age, producing great journalism is the hardest. audience on our website shrinking but our audience Our daily report is deep, broad, smart and engaging on our smartphone apps has dipped, an extremely — and we’ve got a huge lead over the competition. worrying sign on a growing platform. At the same time, we are falling behind in a sec- Our core mission remains producing the world’s ond critical area: the art and science of getting our best journalism. But with the endless upheaval journalism to readers. We have always cared about in technology, reader habits and the entire busi- the reach and impact of our work, but we haven’t ness model, The Times needs to pursue smart new done enough to crack that code in the digital era. strategies for growing our audience. The urgency is This is where our competitors are pushing ahead only growing because digital media is getting more of us. The Washington Post and The Wall Street crowded, better funded and far more innovative. Journal have announced aggressive moves in re- The first section of this report explores in detail cent months to remake themselves for this age. First the need for the newsroom to take the lead in get- Look Media and Vox Media are creating newsrooms ting more readers to spend more time reading more custom-built for digital.
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals
    Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CASE NO. 09-2473 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (District Court #1:07-cv-356) APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF MICHAEL NEWDOW ROSANNA FOX Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Plaintiffs PO BOX 233345 12 ELDORADO CIRCLE SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 NASHUA, NH 03062 (916) 424-2356 (603) 318-8479 [email protected] [email protected] Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3 I. “God” means “God” ...........................................................................4 II. The “Power, Prestige and Financial Support of Government” Has Real Consequences............................................14 III. The Organizations Which Have Involved Themselves in this Case Demonstrate that the Case is About (Christian) Monotheism........................................................................................15 IV. Congress’ 2002 Reaffirmation of the Pledge was a Sham
    [Show full text]
  • Law As Source: How the Legal System Facilitates Investigative Journalism
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Law as Source: How the Legal System Facilitates Investigative Journalism Roy Shapir Legal scholarshave long recognized that the media plays a key role in assuring the proper functioning of political and business markets Yet we have understudied the role of law in assuring effective media scrutiny. This Article develops a theory of law as source. The basicpremise is that the law not only regulates what the media can or cannot say, but also facilitates media scrutiny by producing information. Specifically, law enforcement actions, such as litigationor regulatory investigations, extract information on the behaviorofpowerfulplayers in business or government. Journalists can then translate the information into biting investigative reports and diffuse them widely, thereby shapingplayers' reputationsand norms. Levels of accountabilityin society are therefore not simply a function of the effectiveness of the courts as a watchdog or the media as a watchdog but rather a function of the interactions between the two watchdogs. This Article approaches, from multiple angles, the questions of how and how much the media relies on legal sources. I analyze the content of projects that won investigative reportingprizes in the past two decades; interview forty veteran reporters; scour a reporters-onlydatabase of tip sheets and how-to manuals; go over * IDC Law School. I thank participants in the Information in Litigation Roundtable at Washington & Lee, the Annual Corporate and Securities Litigation Workshop at UCLA, several conferences at IDC, the American Law and Economics Association annual conference at Boston University, and the Crisis in the Theory of the Firm conference and the Annual Reputation Symposium at Oxford University, as well as Jonathan Glater, James Hamilton, Andrew Tuch, and Verity Winship for helpful comments and discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 63 | Issue 3 Article 3 3-2012 Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Wasby, Why Sit En Banc?, 63 Hastings L.J. 747 (2012). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol63/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Wasby_63-HLJ-747 (Do Not Delete) 3/26/2012 5:28 PM Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby* U.S. courts of appeals seldom provide reasons for granting or denying rehearing en banc. The most likely reason for rehearing en banc is that other judges believe the three-judge panel deciding the case had erred, although rehearing is not sought each time judges disagree with a panel. The formal bases for rehearing a case en banc include the three desiderata of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35—conflict with circuit precedent (intracircuit conflict), conflict with Supreme Court rulings, and presence of an issue of “exceptional importance”—and courts’ rules and general orders. Judges introduce other considerations, such as an intercircuit conflict, institutional concerns about resources necessary to hear a case en banc, and whether a case should proceed directly to the Supreme Court. This Article presents a detailed description of reasons judges offer each other as they seek to have a case taken en banc or argue against such rehearing after a three-judge panel has filed its decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, July 16, 2021
    The Complex and Courageous Campaign for Women's Suffrage and Parity in Our Democracy: Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment 21-103 Friday, July 16, 2021 presented by The South Carolina Bar -Continuing Legal Education Division And American Bar Association Judicial Division SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE Course No. 217670 1 Table of Contents Agenda ...................................................................................................................................................3 Speaker Biographies .............................................................................................................................4 A Historical Overview of Women’s Suffrage ....................................................................................15 Professor Marjorie Spruill Race, Class, and Gender in Suffrage Movement ...............................................................................16 Professor Marjorie Sruill, Professor Paula Monopoli, Professor Tracy Thomas Benched: The Right to Vote and the Right to Rule ..........................................................................28 The Honorable J. Michelle Childs, The Honorable Jean H. Toal, The Honorable Bernette Johnson, The Honorable Eva Guzman The Military and Women: One Hundred Years of Changes Through the Rule of Law, Service and Sacrifice .........................................................................................................................................29 The Honorable James Lockemy, Lt. Col. Tally Parham
    [Show full text]
  • Career News - May 10, 2016
    Career News - May 10, 2016 May 10, 2016 Fall OCI for Class of 2018 Below is a calendar with several of the upcoming important dates -- -please mark your calendars accordingly. The OCI and Resume Collection sessions are as follows: OCI Sessions: August 1-5 & 8-9** Interview Location: UC Davis Hyatt Place Hotel (Aug 1-5) Interview Location: King Hall (Aug 8-9) Alumni Directory August 15 Interview Location: King Hall Job Search Resources August 29 - September 2 Symplicity Interview Location: King Hall Career News Archives September 6-9 Interview Location: King Hall Archive of Recorded Off-Campus Session: CSO Presentations August 4** Interview Location: Sofitel Hotel in Redwood City Walk-In Hours: Resume Collection Sessions: 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, July Resume Collection Monday - Thursday; August Resume Collection 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday BIDDING opens (all sessions) - JUNE 10 3Ls: 12 PM - 1 PM, Tuesday - Thursday (with Lisa Carlock); Beginning June 10 at 12:01am you will be able to view the initial list 12 PM - 1 PM, Monday and of employers (for all sessions). Friday (with Shannon Kahn). You may also start bidding (applying) for employers (for all 3Ls may also access general sessions). walk-ins. All bidding goes through Symplicity. Need more than a few Bidding deadlines vary by session. Each session has its own minutes? deadline. Call 530.752.6574 to schedule an appointment. The first bidding deadline is July 14 at 11:00pm. You are only able to view employers who are recruiting for your class year. OCI Questions: Please contact Kim Thomas at 530.754.5719 or [email protected] with questions pertaining to Symplicity, OCI, Off-Campus or Resume Collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Pulitzer Prize Winners and Finalists
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]
  • Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific Stephen L
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 45 | Issue 3 Article 3 September 2015 Judging and Administration for Far-Off lP aces: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific Stephen L. Wasby University at Albany - SUNY Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Wasby, Judging and Administration for Far-Off Places: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific, 45 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 193 (2015). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol45/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wasby: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific ARTICLE JUDGING AND ADMINISTRATION FOR FAR-OFF PLACES: TRIAL, APPELLATE, AND COMMITTEE WORK IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC STEPHEN L. WASBY* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................ 194 R A. How the Article Proceeds........................... 196 R B. The Pacific Islands Committee ...................... 197 R II. Guam: Court Structure and Appellate Jurisdiction ........ 200 R A. Guam Appellate Jurisdiction Challenged ............. 202 R III. Judge Goodwin in Guam ............................... 205 R A. Goodwin in Guam, 1994 ........................... 205 R 1. Law Clerk Assistance .......................... 207 R B. Guam, 1995 ....................................... 210 R C. Guam, 1996 ....................................... 212 R 1. A Sidebar: Local Lawyering .................... 216 R D. Review by the Ninth Circuit ........................ 218 R * Professor of Political Science Emeritus, University at Albany - SUNY, residing in Eastham, Mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Richard H. Chambers and His Pasadena Courthouse Caleb Langston
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 19, NUMBERS 1 & 2 2006 Western Legal History is published semiannually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, 125 S. Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California 91105, (626) 795-0266/fax (626) 229-7476. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts- particularly the federal courts-in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the NJCHS as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all, Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100-$249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing (nonmembers of the bench and bar, lawyers in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions), $25-$49. Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder, $3,000 or more; Patron, $1,000-$2,999; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250--$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other society publications and programs, please write or telephone the editor. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Editor Western Legal History 125 S. Grand Avenue Pasadena, California 91105 Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of endnotes. Copyright C2006, Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society ISSN 0896-2189 The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, and recommendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]