[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.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

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.

I can't say I really have a problem with this. I don't believe any who sentences have been commuted to life will ever get out. As far as the SCOTUS leaving open the question of "retroactive" or "from this day forward", I have to say right is right and wrong is wrong. I think its best that the jury sentence the convicted. If someone is on death row now, and were sentenced by a judge, I see no problem with them getting life without parole now. That's just my opinion.

[Sandy]

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.

The Supreme Court case, Ring v. Arizona (2002), was based on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), and Apprendi turned out to be not retroactive, according to U.S. v. Cotton (2002).

If Apprendi isn't retroactive, then it seems to me that Ring probably won't be retroactive either. But then again, "death is different", so it's hard to say.

Haven't read today's 9th Circuit decision yet. I did scan it though and noticed that Cotton wasn't even mentioned. Regardless, it should be an interesting read.