In yesterday's post about the Fifth Circuit's denial of Paul Minor's renewed motion for release pending appeal, I stated that "[t]he Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Paul Minor's request for bond pending appeal, then also denied his request for a brief furlough to visit his wife."
As Alan Lange of Y'all Politics has pointed out, that is not correct. The Fifth Circuit denied Minor's first request for release on bond pending appeal, and then more recently, denied a renewed motion for release on bond based on the circumstances of Mrs. Minor's illness.
Y'all Politics' post on the issue is here:
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/15577/#43620
I wish the Court had granted the motion; it seems to me that the original offense for which Minor's bond was revoked in the District Court -- using alcoholic beverages -- has long sense been adequately punished. Serious issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal courts have been raised, and although questioning during appellate argument is not an indicator of the ultimate result of any case, it appears that, at least, the judges on the Fifth Circuit panel are concerned about this question.
However, my statement about what the Fifth Circuit denied was erroneous. I regret the error and stand corrected.
Van Allen, Rest in Peace
11 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment