<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court protects trial judges on juror dismissal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-protects-trial-judges-on-juror-dismissal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-protects-trial-judges-on-juror-dismissal/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kent Scheidegger</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-protects-trial-judges-on-juror-dismissal/comment-page-1/#comment-11291</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent Scheidegger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-protects-trial-judges-on-juror-dismissal/#comment-11291</guid>
		<description>In footnote 1 of the dissent, Justice Stevens writes, &quot;The Court opens its opinion with a graphic description of the underlying facts of respondent’s crime, perhaps in an attempt to startle the reader or muster moral support for its decision.&quot;

This is a very strange statement.  The &quot;graphic&quot; description consists of, &quot;Respondent Cal Coburn Brown robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered one woman in Washington. Two days later, he robbed, raped, tortured, and attempted to murder a second woman in California.&quot;

Either Justice Stevens has a very different idea of what constitutes &quot;graphic&quot; than I do (and, I believe, most people do), or else he is referring to a description in a draft of the opinion that was later deleted, and he didn&#039;t amend his dissent to match.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In footnote 1 of the dissent, Justice Stevens writes, &#8220;The Court opens its opinion with a graphic description of the underlying facts of respondent’s crime, perhaps in an attempt to startle the reader or muster moral support for its decision.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is a very strange statement.  The &#8220;graphic&#8221; description consists of, &#8220;Respondent Cal Coburn Brown robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered one woman in Washington. Two days later, he robbed, raped, tortured, and attempted to murder a second woman in California.&#8221;</p>
<p>Either Justice Stevens has a very different idea of what constitutes &#8220;graphic&#8221; than I do (and, I believe, most people do), or else he is referring to a description in a draft of the opinion that was later deleted, and he didn&#8217;t amend his dissent to match.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.298 seconds -->
