Wednesday, August 30, 2017

"We hold that neither robbery, armed robbery, nor use of a firearm in the commission of a felony under Florida law is categorically a 'violent felony.'"

"We hold that neither robbery, armed robbery, nor use of a firearm in the commission of a felony under Florida law is categorically a 'violent felony.'"  That was the 9th Circuit, acknowledging a split with the 6-5 en banc 11th Circuit case that the blog discussed last week.  HT: How Appealing.

I'm starting to think it would be more fun to practice out in California.

What do you all think about a judicial law clerk tweeting about a decision that his judge wrote while he was clerking.  Here's a string from Andrew Case about the Apraio trial and his thoughts on the pardon.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is inappropriate. He says, I am not going to comment about my conversations with the Judge, but still leaks all sorts of personal details about him and what is on his desk, etc.

Anonymous said...

Inappropriate... he should've sent an anonymous email to his local federal blog. Isn't that what all good former clerks do?

Anonymous said...

Appropriate. JA is slandering his judge and he's defending his judge. When JA is making unfounded accusations and threats against the judge, I'm glad the clerk is steppng up.

Anonymous said...

How can robbery, etc., not be a violent felony. I hate the conservative crappie we get in the Eleventh, but seriously, if you commit a robbery or armed robbery, you are committing a violent felony. As for firearm in commission, I agree with the 9th.

Anonymous said...

So 11:52 we should base a person's sentence of what a crime is called?

Anonymous said...

The 9th circuit decision created and acknowledged a split with the 11th circuit's decisions in Fritts/Seabrooks/Lockley, not with the 11th circuit's more recent 6-5 en banc decision in Vail-Bailon (which dealt with felony battery, not robbery).

Anonymous said...

The 9th Circuit decision also touched on two issues that have divided the SD FL. The court held that:

1. A movant has a claim under Johnson if the record is unclear under which ACCA clause was used; and

2. In assessing harmlessness the 2255 looks at the current state of the law.