Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Your recent article ["Court Rescinds Threat to Hold Pay for 'Blakely,'" Aug. 12], paints a rather unsympathetic and arrogant portrait of Justice Nickolas Dibiaso. The criminal defendants who have Blakely appeals pending in his court are waiting in prison for a timely decision from his court. The fact that our Supreme Court has granted review in two cases raising similar issues is no excuse for any judge to refuse to hear and decide the cases pending in his own court. If he will just allow the lawyers to properly brief their cases, Justice Dibiaso may even decide those appeals correctly before any similar decision from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could then cite and credit Justice Dibiaso as the source for a correct analysis of Blakely’s application to California’s sentencing scheme. If the Supreme Court were to vacate review as improvidently granted in its cases, Justice Dibiaso’s “efficiency” edicts, which limit the briefing in his court, would look pretty foolish. I see no legitimate reason for the court to create special rules and procedures on complicated issues in hopes of potential guidance from some higher court. Because Blakely was based on the federal right to a jury trial, there is no guarantee our Supreme Court would have the final word on its local application. If our many trial judges were to adopt Dibiaso’s approach in thousands of pending trials, it would quickly be exposed as a false economy. Maybe I am old-fashioned in my views, but I think the justice system works best when everyone labors to bring justice to the cases on their desk, rather than sitting around waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting. When the Supreme Court has something to say on the issue, they will let us know. Until then, let’s all get back to work and do our jobs.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.