Here' the conclusion of Justice Stevens' dissent today in Uttecht v. Brown, a case that overruled a Ninth Circuit decision by Judge Kozinski:

Judge Kozinski's opinion for the Court of Appeals in this case is solidly grounded on the entire line of our cases recognizing the basic distinction dramatically illustrated by Justice Powell's opinion in Darden and by Justice Rehnquist's statement in Lockhart. He surely was entitled to assume that the law had not changed so dramatically in the years following his service as a law clerk to Chief Justice Burger that a majority of the present Court would not even mention that basic distinction, and would uphold the disqualification of a juror whose only failing was to harbor some slight reservation in imposing the most severe of sanctions.

(emphasis added)

  Does anyone know the relevance of Kozinski having been a law clerk to Chief Justice Burger?