Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences.

CNN ^

[jern]

Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.

[montag813]

Yeah!!! Let's throw a get out of jail free party!!!

[Peach]

I think their cases were commuted to life in prison. I have no problem with that, as long as they stay in prison until they die. That rarely happens.

[Catspaw]

Their sentences were commuted or do are they going to be resentenced?

[ConservativeMan55]

This is ridiculous!

[wardaddy]

God bless the Feds...they are so dear.

[Joe Boucher]

Nothing but Judicial activism. These liberal judges in Calif just don't want the death penalty. Screw the presiding judges and juries in these cases. Screw the American people that overwelmingly want the death sentance. Screw the victims of these peoples crimes.
Getting to where we are going to need another revolution to rid ourselves of these maggots in govt.

[Wolfie]

Don't blame California, this was a Federal court. Of course, I would think that the people of California are used to being ridden roughshod by the Feds by now.

[ConservativeMan55]

I bet they were doing it for "the children"

[TheDon]

How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?

[dogbyte12]

The gist of the ruling, which commuted the sentences to life without parole btw, was that these men had been sentenced to die by a judge, instead of by the jury.

From what I gather, the juries were not deciding punishment phase, and the court said that this violates the "jury of peers" thing.

I think it's an interesting legal issue actually. Only if the defendents prior to the fact demanded that the jury sentence them not a judge. I think a judge can properly do so, but there can be a legal argument that you should be allowed to let your peers determine your sentence.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I can understand those that oppose both abortion and the death sentence under the premise that all life is precious (I don't agree that ALL life is precious, but I understand). But those who advocate killing the innocent unborn and let the murderers free are undoubtedly willingly doing Satan's work.

[Peach]

I think commuted to life but even CNN seemed a little out of the loop and didn't seem to have a legal analyst on hand to help them out.

[Peach]

How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?

You mean like other prisoners? It works for me.

[Peach]

Ditto your #14 - truer words were never spoken.

[dogbyte12]

Ok, so the Supreme Court ruled in 2002, that juries must be the ones giving death out. Then didn't say if they meant this retroactively or not. By not stating, the supreme court created this issue. If the Supremes said, from this day forward, instead of leaving it ambiguous, there wouldn't have been the legal issue here.

[Peach]

The courts create nearly all the legal problems in this country with their deliberately ambiguous wording.

I saw it all the time in corporate America where I spent 60% of my day with in-house counsel. I'd recommend a change in verbiage and it didn't happen - must keep other attorneys in business you know. It's a self propogating business.

[Sub-Driver]

the 9th circuit..............figures

[yonif]

AP reports that they were overturned because they were sentenced by a judge and not a jury.

[xusafflyer]

This is why my wife and I believe anyone leaving Kalifornia is a fool for stopping in OR, WA, ID, NV, or AZ. You still live under the 9th Circus....

A shovel, shotgun and truck ride in the desert seem a lot more like justice than the rulings from the Liberal judges.

[gitmo]

The case stems from a 2002 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the high court found that juries, not judges, must render death sentences. But the Supreme Court left unclear whether the new rules should apply retroactively to inmates awaiting execution.

Anyone know where in the Constitution they found this requirement?

[TheDon]

The death penalty for all prisoners, eh? And the guards. Does that work for you too? How about those released on parole? Oh, I forgot, with a life sentence, the prisoner will never get paroled... Care to have one stay in your neighborhood?

[Joe Boucher]

Wolfie, I am sure you realize that the vast majority of elected officials in Calif are democrats since they control both houses and the govenorship and have for years.
I would bet that the vast majority of folks on the appeals court there were lawyers or judges from calif.
These were judges elected by calif. and retained over years.
If these murderers were doing their dirty deeds in Texas they would most likely be dead now. Why? Because the folks of Texas have been smart enough to elect more conservative jurists in the past.
Seems every ruling that comes out of the S.F. area court of appeals rubs against the American people or the constitution.
I am so very tired of Calif and its problems and the ones they give to the rest of the country I just wish they'd revert to Mexico and we'd be rid of them.

[Roscoe]

Anyone know where in the Constitution they found this requirement?

Maybe over by the "sodomy is a constitutional right" provision.

[VRWC_minion]

We have a right to a jury trial.

[CanisRex]

SCOTUS Delenda Est!

I'd rather change it than destroy it. Considering it is one of the pillars of our wonderful republic.

[CanisRex]

SCOTUS Delenda Est!

I'd rather change it than destroy it. Considering it is one of the pillars of our wonderful republic.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Ok, so the Supreme Court ruled in 2002, that juries must be the ones giving death out. Then didn't say if they meant this retroactively or not. By not stating, the supreme court created this issue. If the Supremes said, from this day forward, instead of leaving it ambiguous, there wouldn't have been the legal issue here.

I can't say I really have a problem with this. I don't believe any who sentences have been commuted to life will ever get out. As far as the SCOTUS leaving open the question of "retroactive" or "from this day forward", I have to say right is right and wrong is wrong. I think its best that the jury sentence the convicted. If someone is on death row now, and were sentenced by a judge, I see no problem with them getting life without parole now. That's just my opinion.

[telebob]

It's the 9th Circuit. It will be overturned...

[Peach]

I don't know what your problem is, Don, but you seem to be inordinately angry because I said, if prisoners kill other prisoners, it wouldn't particularly bother me.

How that translated into your little tirade, I'll never know. But take it elsewhere.

[Ed_in_NJ]

If this doesn't get reversed, these killers have the rest of their 'natural' lives to get pardoned by another corrupt POTUS.

[RicocheT]

"A federal appeals court threw out ... because the inmates were sent to death row by judges instead of juries..."

Reverse "by judges instead of juries" and the activist justices would still have messed with the convictions. The federal courts are hostage to the Klintoon appointees now and won't get back to the law as written for decades.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Too bad we can't overturn judicial appointments and confirmations just as easy!

[RetiredArmy]

Liberal, Socialist, Democrat: One and the same. Save a whale, commute a convicted murderer, free a murderer, free a sex offender, worship Stalin, kill an unborn baby.

Yup. All fits their definition.

[Natural Law]

More Judicial abuses from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, the most over-turned court in America.

[TheDon]

Oh, you misread my post. There is no anger there at all, just surprise at your poorly thought out position. From your response, I can see my attempt to enlighten you has been wasted. How unfortunate.

[mrustow]

I thought retroactive lawmaking was unconstitutional in these United States.

[Peach]

You wrote: How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?

I wrote: You mean like other prisoners? It works for me.

You then wrote some stuff about death for all prisoners and how would I like to have a paroled prisoner living next door.

If I was unenlighted by your post, it was perhaps because it was not an articulate post.

You thought my position was poorly thought out. My position is pretty clear: As I said in my first post on this topic, I would not have a problem keeping these guys in prison for life, but we all know it doesn't work that way, unfortunately. I don't know which part of that you don't understand or think is poorly thought out, but then I haven't understood a thing you've posted to me since this thread began. So either I'm dumb or you are not articulate. I know which one I'm voting for! -):

[Catspaw]

I haven't slogged through all 90 pages of Summerlin v. Stewart, but the link to the case at the 9th circuit is below:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement

[TheDon]

"I'm dumb"

From the mouth of babes.

[Peach]

And you I see are as rude, crude and clueless as your screen name.

[Michael.SF.]

Nice tag line.

[Peach]

Thank you!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I guess it's impossible to reconstitute the jury and resentence these scum dogs.

[TheDon]

And you engage in a great deal of projection. ;^)

[mdittmar]

"In Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that a jury, rather than a judge, must make a finding of "aggravating factors" where those factors underlie a judge's choice to impose the death penalty rather than a lesser punishment."

[evad]

the prisoner will never get paroled...

Yeah...and he'll NEVER escape.
That NEVER happens.