Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Crime and Consequences

Criminal Law

: Crime and Consequences

Nailed

By Kent Scheidegger et al.

In the question presented in the petition for writ of certiorari in Bell v. Kelly, argued today in the U.S. Supreme Court, Richard Bress of Latham and Watkins referred to the claim in federal court as being "predicated on evidence of prejudice the state court refused to consider...." Right out of the gate in today's argument, Justice Alito wanted to know exactly what evidence the state court refused to consider. There isn't any. Bress misrepresented the case to the Supreme Court and blew his credibility. That isn't just bad advocacy, it is abysmal. And no, death is not different. Big name firms that want to do these capital cases should take care that they do not stain their own reputations in the process.

Full post as published by Crime and Consequences on November 12, 2008 (boomark / email).