There were several major criminal law stories this week, none of them especially cheery. Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had his sentencing hearing. The result was not in doubt, as a jury had already returned a death verdict. But the judge spoke, several victims spoke – and the defendant spoke, offering an apology that seemed sincere to some and rang hollow to others. CNN’s extensive coverage of the story is here. Obviously, apologies are better suited for things like hurting another person’s feelings than for things like killing and maiming innocent victims, but I for one am glad that Tsarnaev showed the decency and humanity to express regret. In other news: Speaking of apologies, can a judge require one as part of a criminal sentence? Or does that violate the defendant’s First Amendment rights? UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh discusses the issue and a recent case on point here. South Carolina has no hate crime statute. Considerable attention remains focused on Charleston, South Carolina, where a white supremacist gunned down nine black churchgoers. In most states, the shooting would likely qualify as a hate crime, but South Carolina is one of only a few states that have no hate crime laws. The Huffington Post reports on efforts to change that here, while the New York Times reports that the shooter is likely to face federal hate crime charges here. New report on capital cases that were dismissed or that resulted in acquittals. The Center for Death Penalty Litigation in Durham, which [...]
Faculty Coordinators
