DontMakeMe
152p42,991 comments posted · 100 followers · following 46
4 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 0 replies · +3 points
10 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 0 replies · +2 points
Strands #52
“This is a puzzle”
🔵🟡🔵🔵
🔵🔵
14 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 1 reply · +11 points
17 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 0 replies · +4 points
Both the State of Oklahoma and the current Attorney General have resisted earlier efforts by Richard Glossip to attack his first-degree murder conviction and capital sentence. Last year, however, the State uncovered evidence — long suppressed in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) — revealing not only that the State’s one indispensable witness against Glossip lied on the stand, but that the prosecution knowingly elicited his false testimony and then failed to correct the record, in violation of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). In light of that troubling evidence of grave prosecutorial misconduct, the State initiated an extraordinary independent counsel investigation and, based on the evidence, made the difficult but necessary decision to confess error before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and waive any procedural obstacles to adjudication of the Brady and Napue issues.
Rather than accept the State’s confession, the OCCA rejected it in a remarkable and remarkably flawed decision. The OCCA dismissed the Brady and Napue violations by suggesting that Glossip somehow was aware of the withheld evidence during his trial and that the critical testimony was not actually “false” because the witness was “more than likely in denial of his mental health disorders.” JA991. On top of all that, the OCCA gave no weight to the State’s confession of prosecutorial misconduct and refused to even honor the State’s waiver of procedural obstacles. [...]
17 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 0 replies · +9 points
17 hours ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 1 reply · +5 points
"BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER"
1 day ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 0 replies · +3 points
1 day ago @ Crasstalk - Middlin' Days Open Thread · 10 replies · +3 points
Wordle 1,040 3/6
⬛🟨⬛🟩🟨
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
1 day ago @ Crasstalk - Kicking Off The Week O... · 0 replies · +2 points
More precisely, 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. Not sure how long that part will take, but I think it's usually quite short, just a few days, after an agency has promulgated the final rule.
1 day ago @ Crasstalk - Kicking Off The Week O... · 0 replies · +6 points