tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post7860246133901304467..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: More, more and more on the numbersRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-58852038720794981932008-03-23T20:35:00.000-05:002008-03-23T20:35:00.000-05:00One more thing:The list that McBride put up does n...One more thing:<BR/><BR/><I>The list that McBride put up does not make claims about the percentage of times a conviction did not get overturned.</I><BR/><BR/>What are you talking about. Of course it does. That is the whole point. That's where the 70% comes from. A percentage is a number, and numbers are derived from other numbers, not from words.<BR/><BR/>Once again, look at the numbers. For example: (3:0). A criminal appeal came before the court involving three convictions (those things that are kind of essential to criminal cases in the first place).<BR/><BR/>Regardless of whatever procedural issues were involved, the case was remanded with the convictions intact; <I>i.e.</I>, Butler did not vote to reverse the conviction.<BR/><BR/>Another example: (2:1). A case came up on appeal with three convictions. Butler voted to reverse one of them, but the other two remained intact.<BR/><BR/>It's not that complicated. And as I have said repeatedly, if the problem is with the description beside the docket number, then, by all means, discuss that.<BR/><BR/>But then you may find, for example, James E. Brown. Brown petitioned for leave to proceed with his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on constitutional grounds.<BR/><BR/>Butler agreed that the plea colloquy was constitutionally infirm.<BR/><BR/>Not only did the Supreme Court not say anything about whether Brown's plea could be withdrawn on his merits, it ordered another hearing at which the State could present more evidence showing why Brown should <B>not</B> be allowed to withdraw his plea.<BR/><BR/>Pro-defendant? Pro-State? There are equally compelling arguments on both sides. Hardly the stuff of calling a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court a liar.<BR/><BR/>But, as far as Louis Butler was concerned, Brown's conviction remained intact. <BR/><BR/>So, I'll ask again. Do you actually expect Justice Butler to count towards the overall percentage a conviction as reversed where no conviction was reversed?<BR/><BR/>I don't think so.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-5871205929749866632008-03-23T19:47:00.000-05:002008-03-23T19:47:00.000-05:00Read that post or, better yet, watch the video and...Read that post or, better yet, watch the video and let Justice Butler himself speak. He addresses the number directly.<BR/><BR/>And, as I said earlier, y'all can pick away at the parenthetical notations beside the docket numbers on the list, but those are not the central issue here.<BR/><BR/>Remember, the Butler campaign was responding to percentages with percentages, and Butler explains what his are derived from.<BR/><BR/>My suggestion is that the question should have been put to the Butler campaign, or to Butler himself, before anyone started calling him a liar on the pages of the Milwaukee <I>Journal-Sentinel</I>.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you engage <I>that</I>?illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-73507039623001419202008-03-23T19:38:00.000-05:002008-03-23T19:38:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-19566728149326255532008-03-23T19:14:00.000-05:002008-03-23T19:14:00.000-05:00IT, you're not engaging. The list that McBride put...IT, you're not engaging. The list that McBride put up does not make claims about the percentage of times a conviction did not get overturned. You may be able to pull that out of it but it distinguished between rulings for the state and rulings for the defendant and, unless she has fabricated it, that breakdown is just wrong.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57027654644582222262008-03-23T18:51:00.000-05:002008-03-23T18:51:00.000-05:00So, who was it exactly that was "sniping around th...So, who was it exactly that was "sniping around the edges" again?<BR/><BR/>Your many readers might also be interested in the whole story behind Patrick McIlheran's post on this subject, which has been sitting on the main index page at www.jsonine.com all weekend:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2008/03/mcilheran-so-so-busted.html" REL="nofollow">So, so busted</A>.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-13376992840260476332008-03-23T09:21:00.000-05:002008-03-23T09:21:00.000-05:00But the idea that Justice Butler does not have a m...<I>But the idea that Justice Butler does not have a more expansive view of the rights of criminal defendants than the more conservative wing of the court is preposterous and, if you will note the exchanges between me and our representatives of the defense bar, no one really disputes that.</I><BR/><BR/>Nicely and accurately said. And, far more intelligently than spuriously proclaiming Justice Butler pro-criminal, which is what both McIlheran and McBride said. <BR/><BR/>It's your support of that kind of mental hijinks that is disturbing, Rick, because as iT said, you are to be respected.<BR/><BR/>Have a wonderful Easter Sunday.Other Sidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06475658453374184885noreply@blogger.com