Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week: McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client’s guilt over that client’s objections in a capital murder trial, and Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides.
We begin, of course, with sportsball. What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly: 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 with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show Notes & Links
- The first case we break down is Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et 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 Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004).
- We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at email@example.com