Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"NY appeals judges squabble over lawyer's sentence"

"NY appeals judges squabble over lawyer's sentence": The Associated Press has a report that begins, "Federal appeals judges in New York are bickering as they pressure a lower court judge to toughen the sentence of a lawyer convicted of terrorism charges. The judges decided not to have the entire federal appeals court in Manhattan hear the appeal of lawyer Lynne Stewart's sentence of a little over two years in prison. But they took the unusual step of writing opinions critical of each other in announcing that decision Tuesday."

You can access today's order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the accompanying concurring and dissenting opinions, at this link.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler issued an interesting concurring opinion in which she writes, with regard to judges who issue opinions concurring in or dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, that "the case is not before them, and what they may say about it has as much force of law as if those views were published in a letter to the editor of their favorite local newspaper." Judge Pooler further observes, "By employing the simple tactic of calling for an en banc poll, active judges provide themselves with an opportunity to opine on a case that was never before them. This amounts to an exercise in free speech rather than an exercise of any judicial function."

Full post as published by How Appealing on February 23, 2010 (boomark / email).