Controversial Weinstein Ruling Overturned:
Last year, I had a series of very critical posts about Judge Jack Weinstein's opinion United States v. Polizzi, in which Judge Weinstein gave the defendant a new trial in light of his own prior decision not to instruct the jury about the mandatory minimum sentences that would be applied. Today the Second Circuit reversed Judge Weinstein on this issue in an opinion by Judge Katzmann:
[W]e do not conclude, as the government urges, that a district court may never instruct the jury on an applicable mandatory minimum sentence. Rather, without deciding whether it would have been within the district court's discretion to instruct the jury on the applicable mandatory minimum sentence in this case, we find that the district court acted beyond its proper discretion when it ordered a new trial at which the jury would be instructed on the applicable mandatory minimum. The court submitted the case to the jury without instructing the jury on the mandatory minimum sentence, a course that was certainly within its discretion and the jury rendered a verdict upon the error-free trial. Absent a strong justification for redoing a properly conducted trial, the interests of finality, as well as respect for the jury's verdict, counsel against requiring retrial.
Thanks to Howard for the link.
It is clear that Judge Weinstein is not even trying to apply the law as a district judge is required to do, but is trying to make political points. No reasonable person could believe that his decision complied with the law. He is just sabotaging the judicial process. My question is, how is he different from John Yoo? Should he be impeached? Disbarred? Criminally tried? Or if your illegal actions are the kind that lefty law professors agree with, is that a defense?
4.24.2009 5:43pm
It is clear that Judge Weinstein is not even trying to apply the law ... but is trying to make political points. ... how is he different from John Yoo?

One difference is that Weinstein likely succeeded in making his political point. (Not strictly relevant to your point, but perhaps noteworthy, anyway.)
4.24.2009 5:53pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
So what do you think of the ruling the 2nd DID hand down, reversing only one of the counts because they claim each item does not count as a seperate violation?
4.24.2009 8:24pm
air jordan shoes:
The improved carrier case according to claim 1 in which the air jordan shoes invention further comprises padding means along the interior of each of said compartment means for michael jordan shoes further enveloping said articles respectively for added rigid restraint of said articles within each of said compartment means.
4.27.2009 1:52am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.