Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences.

CNN ^

[jern]

Federal appeals court in San Francisco overturns an estimated 100 death sentences. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.

[montag813]

Yeah!!! Let's throw a get out of jail free party!!!

[Peach]

I think their cases were commuted to life in prison. I have no problem with that, as long as they stay in prison until they die. That rarely happens.

[Catspaw]

Their sentences were commuted or do are they going to be resentenced?

[ConservativeMan55]

This is ridiculous!

[wardaddy]

God bless the Feds...they are so dear.

[Joe Boucher]

Nothing but Judicial activism. These liberal judges in Calif just don't want the death penalty. Screw the presiding judges and juries in these cases. Screw the American people that overwelmingly want the death sentance. Screw the victims of these peoples crimes.
Getting to where we are going to need another revolution to rid ourselves of these maggots in govt.

[Wolfie]

Don't blame California, this was a Federal court. Of course, I would think that the people of California are used to being ridden roughshod by the Feds by now.

[ConservativeMan55]

I bet they were doing it for "the children"

[TheDon]

How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?

[dogbyte12]

The gist of the ruling, which commuted the sentences to life without parole btw, was that these men had been sentenced to die by a judge, instead of by the jury.

From what I gather, the juries were not deciding punishment phase, and the court said that this violates the "jury of peers" thing.

I think it's an interesting legal issue actually. Only if the defendents prior to the fact demanded that the jury sentence them not a judge. I think a judge can properly do so, but there can be a legal argument that you should be allowed to let your peers determine your sentence.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I can understand those that oppose both abortion and the death sentence under the premise that all life is precious (I don't agree that ALL life is precious, but I understand). But those who advocate killing the innocent unborn and let the murderers free are undoubtedly willingly doing Satan's work.

[Peach]

I think commuted to life but even CNN seemed a little out of the loop and didn't seem to have a legal analyst on hand to help them out.

[Peach]

How about the people they will kill while they serve their life sentences?

You mean like other prisoners? It works for me.

[Peach]

Ditto your #14 - truer words were never spoken.

[dogbyte12]

Ok, so the Supreme Court ruled in 2002, that juries must be the ones giving death out. Then didn't say if they meant this retroactively or not. By not stating, the supreme court created this issue. If the Supremes said, from this day forward, instead of leaving it ambiguous, there wouldn't have been the legal issue here.

[Peach]

The courts create nearly all the legal problems in this country with their deliberately ambiguous wording.

I saw it all the time in corporate America where I spent 60% of my day with in-house counsel. I'd recommend a change in verbiage and it didn't happen - must keep other attorneys in business you know. It's a self propogating business.

[Sub-Driver]

the 9th circuit..............figures