Some readers have pointed some interesting things out to me, so I thought I'd follow up on some recent posts in a single post here. And my new policy is that, unless a reader specifically asks me to use their name in a post (or I specifically ask him or her), I have decided just to identify reader input using the reader's initials.
Updates:
First, reader AF pointed out to me that one of the big developments from the Michigan v. Bryant argument the other day is a potential shift to a declarant-viewpoint-centered approach under Davis. Davis sent mixed messages in this regard. The Davis test itself seems to suggest an intent-of-the-interrogator focus. However, in Davis, there was a footnote that said that the ultimate decision on whether or not a statement is testimonial must focus on the substance of the statement itself, which suggests a more declarant-focused test. Some judges seemed to indicate at oral argument that they wouldn't be against shifting the focus to the intent of the declarant in making the statement. As AF mentioned in the e-mail, the only way for this to work, though, would be for it to be an objective test.
Second, reader AL pointed out something really amazing about the habeas grant out of Wisconsin that I posted about yesterday. The habeas grant was issued less than three months after the petition was filed. I have truly never seen anything like this decided that quickly.
Comments