Not to overdo it, but I am still going nuts over the Friedman decision from last week. Although there are some reasons to curb the enthusiasm over the decision, I don't think it can be denied that this was an earth-shaking decision in habeasland.
I look at this decision as a once-in-a-blue-moon PPL* intersection in habeasland.
What is PPL? P=pop culture; P=politics; L=law -- three of my favorite things. I am going with PPL as it sounds a little like GTL - gym/tan/laundry - which is the greatest thing to come out of the "Jersey Shore."
On the political side, there is the Kathleen Rice candidacy for Attorney General. She took the bold and fair step of ordering a new investigation of the case. And she did it quickly. The political question: would she have taken this step if not for the election?
On the pop culture side, there is the movie that led to the court case: Capturing the Friedman's. I actually can't remember if I have discussed the movie around here. It's a really great documentary. Critically acclaimed. Winner of the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. Here's the trailer:
Question: How much effect did this affecting movie have on the judges?
Finally, on the law side, there is the nagging question in my mind of whether the judges should have delved into the innocence question. It is safe to say that this was highly, highly unusual. We may see something like this in a concurring opinion, or maybe a dissent. But the majority opinion from a circuit court? Exceedingly rare, if not one-of-a-kind. I discussed this on the day the opinion came out. I am not saying that I wouldn't want a court to do this. But the question remains: did the court overstep proper judicial opinion-making boundaries in discussing their opinion of petitioner's innocence and pushing the DA to reinvestigate the case?
While the first two questions are fascinating, I don't know if I could offer an answer to them. On the other hand, I have some thoughts on the third, but I am going to let it stew in my mind a little longer and come back to it in a little bit. As you may expect, I am coming around to believing that I am comfortable with what the court did. But it's a tricky question. Which is why I am still working through my thoughts on it.
Overall, I am still just totally blown away by this opinion.
[UPDATED - Links added]
Comments