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 that the governor
should hold off until everything could go through the courts, but they
couldn't tell him to do so. Another one felt that the Vienna Convention
was violated, but didn't have the papers and such to know.
I think that a temporary stay should have been given to make time for
all the questions to be answered. Because the State of Virginia went
ahead and executed this man, now even if his rights were violated, it's
too late.
Sue
> 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 dissent (or are dissents) in capital cases a stay of
> execution would result. That do you think? :) LDMF.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
