OA175: Defending a Client In the Shadow of the Death Penalty (& So Much More!)
Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week:\xa0 McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and\xa0\xa0Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA),\xa028 U.S. Code \xa7 3701\xa0et seq.\xa0\xa0In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball.\xa0 What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly:\xa0 when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end\xa0with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed.\xa0 Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page\xa0so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!\xa0 If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links
- \xa0The first case we break down is\xa0\xa0Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code \xa7 3701\xa0et seq.
- After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in\xa0Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004).
- We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173.