What Will Justice Robinson Do In Peeler? (Or Is The Death Penalty Really Dead In Connecticut?)
Posted: September 29, 2015 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: death penalty, public act 12-5 2 CommentsWhen the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its recent 4-3 decision in State v. Santiago striking down the death penalty in Connecticut, most people thought that was the end of the story–whether they agreed with the decision or not.
I’m not so sure.
When Felons Run For Public Office, Ctd.
Posted: September 18, 2015 Filed under: General Law | Tags: felon, ganim Leave a commentWell, by a narrow margin voters in the Bridgeport Democratic primary have chosen their former mayor, convicted felon Joseph P. Ganim, to represent them as their candidate in the mayoral election in November. Unbelievable.
I wrote a post last March discussing the Connecticut law that allows felons to run for public office, but only if they have made “payment of all fines in conjunction with the conviction and once such person has been discharged from confinement, and, if applicable, parole.” I asked in that post whether Mr. Ganim had, in fact, paid all fines.
A Death Penalty Hypothetical, Ctd.
Posted: September 6, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentLast week The CT Mirror ran my prior post, “A Death Penalty Hypothetical For The Connecticut Supreme Court, as an op-ed. It generated a comment from a person identified as “David Rosen.” I assume this to be the always thoughtful attorney David Rosen from New Haven. He makes a good point, to which I would like to respond. Let me first restate the hypothetical I posed:
ACLU Files Motion To Hold Kentucky Clerk In Contempt
Posted: September 2, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentKim Davis is the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk (an elected position) who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she says doing so offends her religious beliefs. On August 12, 2015, a federal court granted certain plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction ordering Davis to comply with the law of the land and issue licenses to such couples. She continues to argue that she has the right to flout the law because of her religious beliefs.
Appealingly Brief! 