There will be much more on the Hurst follow-up in Florida, but I had to take a second to point this out ...
-
-
From a Friday evening filing from the Federal Public Defender's Office: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/56/2016-56_motion_109635.pdf …pic.twitter.com/dUHJYYQwbv
-
(I know. I'm just a guy shouting into the nothingness by tweeting about this on a Saturday night, but so it goes.)
-
@chrisgeidner I guess my question would be: how unusual is this to oppose these type of amicus briefs? -
@emily_esque Right. Obviously. Even if they do regularly, it's sort of, enh, not the sort of thing I think is necessarily appropriate ... -
@emily_esque ... for state officials to be doing. -
@emily_esque Which, of course, has no bearing on whether it's ordinary in FL or not. -
@chrisgeidner Yeah, good point. I guess "routinely awful" or "uniquely awful," either way it's awful. *sigh* -
@emily_esque Esp. here. "We, the state, do not consent to a brief sharing the views of lawyers who regularly oppose us on this issue."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.