A man who threatened to rape his therapist, and then murdered her husband when she dropped him as a client, had his death sentence reversed yesterday, according to this Los Angeles Times story.

The story doesn’t bother to tell readers who appointed the judges who decided this case. That’s why you come to Patterico, right?

I’m sure it will come as a great shock that the decision was rendered by three Democrat-appointed judges.

The decision can be accessed here. It was written by Clinton appointee William A. Fletcher. Fletcher was joined by Carter appointee Dorothy Wright Nelson and Clinton appointee Raymond C. Fisher.

My point is not that the decision was necessarily wrong. I haven’t read it, and I don’t criticize judicial opinions that I haven’t read. My contention is simple: regardless of the validity of the decision, when judges overturn a death sentence, newspapers should tell their readers who those judges are. It makes me wonder why this tidbit didn’t make it into today’s story.

Romenesko says:

These days, Larry King seems more interested in celebrities and crime, diminishing not only his own reputation and influence, but that of CNN as well, says Joe Flint. King’s ratings have dropped as viewers switch to more aggressive cable talk shows. Flint writes: “The real trouble is that Mr. King often appears disengaged. He seems to do little research before sitting down with guests.”

As often as the guy has been engaged, I guess it stands to reason that he would sometimes appear disengaged.

P.S. Anyone who complains that Larry King doesn’t do enough research hasn’t followed Larry King’s career very closely. King has always boasted of his complete lack of research, and considers that to be his greatest strength.

It’s not, of course — it’s just a rationale for laziness. But it’s nothing new.