johndoe30x1

johndoe30x1 t1_jdswjdl wrote

Well then I guess we better get rid of all the appellate courts and the Supreme Court if the law is the law and there is no interpretation of matters of law! Seriously though, advisory opinions, reference questions, etc. do exist in some jurisdictions and not in others. I wonder if Italy is one such jurisdiction

28

johndoe30x1 t1_j9kl3nn wrote

To clarify, his lawyer was not allowed to tell the jury that his client would face life without parole if he weren’t sentenced to death. That is, the jury was prohibited from knowing that the death penalty was not necessary to prevent the possibility of his release. The state Supreme Court in a separate case later ruled that juries can be told. The condemned man has simply won the right to argue that that should have been an option in his case. The state did not even yet rule against him—instead they had ruled he had no right to make that argument and get a ruling. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling across party lines has ruled that he can make his appeal.

197

johndoe30x1 t1_j3tcqno wrote

By that reasoning, Castillo never attempted a coup either, since he did have the emergency power to dismiss congress. Congress did not remove him through the normal impeachment process (which had already failed twice)

e: I think a better comparison would be Yeltsin. But Yeltsin of course didn’t go to prison, because he used tanks and soldiers to attack parliament and won

−4