Access to Justice

So the SCOTUS issued its opinion in Gamble v. United States this morning. 7-2 in favor of retaining the rule that the federal government can prosecute you for the same thing the state government prosecuted you for (and vice versa), without violating the rule against “Double Jeopardy”, because the state and federal governments are “separate sovereigns” Ugh.  We opined on the illusory nature of our double jeopardy “guarantee” before.  The decision in Gamble doesn’t help…
So, let’s take the occasion of Amanda Knox’s return to Italy to tell a different story based on the same evidence. This is the most important exercise in dealing with circumstantial evidence, which is great if it has only one plausible explanation, and worthless if it has more than one.  We recall seeing one of those lawyer type movies about just such an exercise at some point in our youth. We begin with the…
We have no idea why the SCOTUS would be so interested in this case. It’s habeas.  It’s pro se.  Still.  And it’s Brady.  And that means it’s a dangerous case for the SCOTUS to be looking at so closely. It’s been relisted 8 times.  How did this get by us for so long?  We have no idea. Why is the SCOTUS so interested? Who among the Justices is/are? We have no idea. It would…
The SCOTUS decides every case that is argued and submitted before the end of the term.  The end of the term is the end of this month. They’ve got a lot of work to do: We’re especially interested in two outcomes:  this case and this case.  But we’re not going to go on and on about it.  At least, not this morning.      …
Why, in the context of court proceedings, do we say “eyewitness” instead of just “witness”?  Feel free to speculate in the comments. We don’t care much for either type of evidence, unless it’s corroborated by something more solid – and by more solid, we don’t mean more “eyewitnesses” and “confessions”.  We mean things like phone records, cell tower pings, medical records.  Some contemporaneous record made by someone completely uninvolved with the controversy at hand. Of…
We hope the feds know what they are doing. Here’s a summary from the Buffalo News. “Ponzi-scheme” allegations don’t seem at all fair.  Here’s one definition: a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. Non-existent enterprise? Morgan (or related entities) has 92 properties, just in New York.  There are 48
It’s amusing, this “sovereignty” stuff with states and whatnot. So on Monday you have the SCOTUS overruling its previous decision that the constitution did not require one state’s courts to grant sovereign immunity to another state.  Now we know that the constitution does so require. That was the only question.  Not, dear reader, whether it’s a good idea for one state to extend sovereign immunity to another, which it usually does as a matter of…
It could come only from people who know next to nothing about epistemology, but that doesn’t stop it from being a Thing. The common formulation at present is that “climate change” is supported by “science”; that the safety and efficacy of all vaccinations are supported by “science”; and that dissent from these propositions is impermissible because “facts”, “evidence”, “logic” and “science” have formed a “consensus” that can be questioned only because of ignorance. Note that…