Search the Lounge

Categories

« CFP - Women in the Boardroom: The Social and Business Arguments that Challenge Executive Board Homogeneity | Main | Pitt Seeking Visitor in Legal Analysis and Writing »

September 26, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Stan Adelman

Spot-on, Eric. And I particularly like your use of the word "gibberish", which succinctly sums up this area of Double Jeopardy law. Maybe they granted cert to try to bring some overarching rationality to bear here. If so, then they mightn't have chosen the best case to do so. How does "cert. dismissed as improvidently granted" sound?

RQA

Looking at the First Circuit decision (Slip Op., 16-17), it seems to me the court addressed precisely this issue: the court said that, although in theory the verdicts could be consistent because of the independent elements of the Travel Act and conspiracy charges, in fact -- given how the actual charges were presented -- there was inevitable overlap with the federal program bribery charge and thus inconsistency. Indeed, the court's analysis explicitly addresses the argument that the bribery count is a predicate and explains why, despite the kind of argument made in this post, there's nonetheless inconsistency in the verdicts. I can't say whether the court was right or wrong about that, but it's hardly a buried issue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad