Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Parenthetically speaking

Amy came across this today at work. Pretty funny stuff.

A brief excerpt from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s concurrence today (free reg. req.) in Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, in which he recites case law on what constitutes a crime of violence:

“[W]e often disagree. See, e.g., United States v. Chambers, 473 F.3d 724, 726 (7th Cir. 2007) (escape is a crime of violence); United States v. Piccolo, 441 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2006) (no it’s not); United States v. Asberry, 394 F.3d 712, 715-16 (9th Cir. 2005) (statutory rape is a crime of violence); id. at 722 (Bea, J., concurring) (no way); United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2003) (burglary is not a crime of violence); id. at 977 (Wallace, J., dissenting) (is too); United States v. Johnson, 448 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2006) (grand theft auto is); Von Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524, 525 (6th Cir. 2009) (au contraire); Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2007) (stalking isn’t); id. at 1088 (Duffy, J., dissenting) (“I respectfully dissent.”); United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez, 578 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2009) (Reinhardt, J.) (attempted robbery is); id. (Reinhardt, J., specially concurring) (or is it?); United States v. Trinidad- Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140, 1146 (drunk-driving-resulting-inbodily- injury is a gentle crime); id. at 1147 (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (Bull!).


  1. Awesome. I particularly like the fact that Reinhardt wrote a special concurrence and contradicted himself.

  2. Um, can I say how glad I am that I wandered across this blog post this morning? Made my day.


Your turn...