Today, the State moved for rehearing and rehearing en banc (review by the entire court) in Besser v. Walsh.
What's interesting is this: the name of the Second Circuit decision is Besser v. Walsh. Besser had the lowest (earliest?) docket number, so I believe that is why it came first in the opinion.
However, the appeals actually were consolidated under the Phillips v. Artus docket number. The petition for rehearing has dropped out Besser entirely and uses the Phillips v. Artus case as the caption.
I can see two possible reasons for this: (1) the State is using the docket and caption that was actually assigned to the consolidated appeals (which seems like the right thing to do); and/or (2) they aren't seeking rehearing in the Besser v. Walsh case, so didn't need to include it.
Not particularly important, but this is the type of mundane stuff I only feel comfortable commenting on based on my involvement in the case.
UPDATE: Just to clarify, this petition for rehearing was filed by the Brooklyn DA's office. The Attorney General's office also could file their own separate petition.
Comments