Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie:
I dunno. That is a question for Dr. L. or Ed. Where are you guys. :)
Sue
Hi Sue
That that could be used as a precedent, couldn't it for insisting on a unanimous
decision?
jackief
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. wrote:
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue, thank you for posting this case on procedural default, where the
high Court felt that the issue of the Vienna Treaty had not been
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a Per Curiam decision, dated last Tuesday, but only released
through Project Hermes today, the Court denied the several
motions by convicted murderer Breard and Paraguay seeking a
stay of Breard's execution pending the outcome of a proceeding
before
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue, thank you for posting this case on procedural default, where the
high Court felt that the issue of the Vienna Treaty had not been
preserved because not raised in the lower courts (check me out). I vote
that if there is a
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Dr. L.
That was what I wanted to ask you. If one or more of the Justices
dissents, isn't a stay granted. Obviously not. :(
This man *was* executed. But from what I could get out of this, (and it
isn't easy for me:), is that one justice thought
