6/13/2008

10 Responses to “Kozinski Declares Mistrial, Recuses Self”

1. Hopefully this whole debacle will be the impetus for more than a few chuckles in late night comedy monologues.

   L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 6/13/2008 @ 2:40 pm

   
   

2. I’m sure that “Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me” will have a field day with this.

   aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/13/2008 @ 2:40 pm

   
   

3. Should he have recused himself? Compare the images posted on the Kozinski website to those from the videos the government claims are criminally obscene, to judge on any possible conflict of interests or lack of partiality for yourself:

   USA vs. Ira Isaacs images

   USLaw.com (463556) — 6/13/2008 @ 5:18 pm

   
   

4. Compare the images posted on the Kozinski website to those from the videos the government claims are criminally obscene,

   It’s kinda hard to draw a comparison between such varying images. However I think it’s safe to say that the videos the government claims are criminally insane do have one common characteristic — More Pooh.

   Thus, the government is probably coming after Amazon.com next:

   http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Pooh-Cookie-Cutters-Adventures/dp/1570822611

   Winnie (0ef625) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:11 pm

   
   

5. Heh! Not only was the jury sworn but evidence had started. I look forward to the Ninth Circuit opinion on the double jeopardy appeal by the defendant. “We find that there was ‘a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial’ because our Chief Judge is a moron”.

   nk (4bb2be) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:16 pm

   
   

6. “Reasoned discourse” from nk on 9th Circuit proceedings.
   Well, as reasoned as most of their proceedings desearve.

   Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:50 pm

   
   

7. Hi, AD. Double Jeopardy is not a small Constitutional right. And it has attached in this case. And the test is exactly how I said it above.

   nk (4bb2be) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:14 pm

   
   

8. Yeh, I know.
   But, then again, the DJ clause has been so contorted that it almost has become meaningless, hasn’t it?
   Just why hasn’t that portion of the Con been extended to the States through the 14th? Allowing the Feds, and the States, each a bite at the same apple on an individual just smells.

   Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:37 pm

   
   

9. Did he say “recuses” or “abuses”?

   Icy Truth (3d3dd7) — 6/14/2008 @ 1:07 am

   
   

10. Another Drew — 6/13/2008 @ 9:37 pm writes:

    Just why hasn’t that portion of the Con been extended to the States through the 14th? Allowing the Feds, and the States, each a bite at the same apple on an individual just smells.

    Didn’t SCOTUS incorporate the DJ clause against the states in Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969)?

    Or are you objecting to dual sovereignty doctrine?

    Occasional Reader (75bc93) — 6/14/2008 @ 7:49 am