"Any possibility of unfair prejudice was ameliorated when the district court explicitly instructed the Rhode Island jury not to hold Alcantara's wearing of a Yankees hat against him."

That was the First Circuit explaining why a New England jury could be fair in deciding whether a Yankee fan was guilty:

Alcantara's second claim of evidentiary error runs along
similar  lines.    He  argues  that  a  handful  of  references  to  his 
wearing a New York Yankees baseball cap prejudiced the jury (which
he assumes to have been composed of Boston Red Sox fans) against
him.  As an initial matter, all but two of the cited references
occurred  during  defense  counsel's  cross-examination.    In  any 
event,  this  testimony,  like  the  references  to  luxury  vehicles 
discussed  above,  was  relevant  to  the  witnesses'  knowledge  of 
Alcantara and his appearance.  Any possibility of unfair prejudice
was ameliorated when the district court explicitly instructed the
Rhode Island jury not to hold Alcantara's wearing of a Yankees hat
against him.

Should prosecutors experience one day in prison before taking the job?

These Maryland legislators did just that. They should be praised. They wanted to see what prison life was like so that they were more informed about the criminal justice laws they were proposing and voting on. Prosecutors routinely throw out numbers like 5 years, 10 years, or more, without even knowing what one day is like in prison.  Perhaps they should.

From the WP:

The conditions inside the facility were reminiscent of a prison movie: stale air, dim hallways, only the bare necessities. The prisoners described getting about an hour and a half of physical recreation per day, but, depending on where you fell in the lineup for the yard, that could be cut to 45 minutes. Prisoners are allowed outside recreation only four months of the year: June through September. The rest of the year, they are told, is too cold to go outside. Because of lengthy construction projects, some inmates had not been outside for recreation time in more than a year.

On a day when outside temperatures reached 100 degrees, we quickly realized that cellblocks in most state correctional facilities are not air conditioned. It’s so hot that inmates sleep on the floor with their feet in toilet water. Rats infested the food and gnawed through walls.

Jeb exclamation point!

Funny video of Jeb from the Emmys here.

Meantime, all the actors playing lawyers in OJ won.  And Marcia Clark actually attended.

Should William Pryor and Julie Carnes have recused from Matchett?

Judge Pryor, joined by Carnes, starts his order respecting the denial of rehearing this way (background here):

A majority of the Court has voted not to rehear en banc our decision in this appeal, United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), which held that the advisory sentencing guidelines cannot be challenged as void for vagueness. As members of the panel (and coincidentally the only members of this Court to have served on the United States Sentencing Commission), we write to explain why we agree with that decision.
We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that Matchett is correct because the vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that regulate the primary conduct of private citizens. Advisory sentencing guidelines regulate judges, not private individuals; they guide judicial discretion within a statutory range. Advisory sentencing guidelines do not define crimes or fix punishments. Second, we explain that Matchett is not worthy of en banc rehearing.

 But as members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, should they have recused? Andrew Hessick argues in this post that they should have:

Judge Pryor does not have a personal interest at stake in the case, but he does have an interest in his capacity as a member of the Commission. Holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to sentencing guidelines protects his work on the Commission from future challenges of that sort.
His participation in the decision also raises separation of powers concerns. The sentencing guidelines are legislative in nature. A judge who both sits on the Commission and rules on the Commission’s guidelines acts as both judge and legislator. Of course, judges sit on committees that create all sorts of rules―evidence, civil procedure, etc. But those committees prescribe rules for the administration of the courts. Sentencing guidelines are different. They prescribe terms of imprisonment. Anxiety about deprivations of liberty at the hands of the government is a major reason the Constitution separates powers.

"But just to reassure my colleague, I note that I do not now nor have I ever lived in fear that the Sentencing Commission might issue a “nonsensical guideline about ‘cheese.’”

That was Judge Rosenbaum, referring to Judge Pryor's opinion respecting the denial of en banc review in the big Matchett case. (She says this footnote referring to that sentence: "Now, that is a sentence I never imagined I would write in an opinion.")

Lots to digest in the 88 pages of opinions, but Rosenbaum vs. Pryor is fun to read.  And, of course, Martin's dissent is full of good stuff too.  But back to Rosenbaum.  Here's her footnote 3:

In fact, I would be surprised if the Sentencing Commission had reason to issue a
guideline about cheese at all. After all, the moon does not fall within the Sentencing
Commission’s jurisdiction. See Robert Nemiroff & Jerry Bonnell, Hubble Resolves Expiration Date for Green Cheese Moon, ASTRONOMY PICTURE OF THE DAY (Apr. 1, 2002), http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod_e/ap020401.html (“The popular ‘Moon is made of Green Cheese’ myth can be traced back almost 500 years. It has been used historically in context to indicate a claim so clearly false that no one . . . will believe it.”); see also Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies art. I, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410 (“The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.”).

More to follow.