ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 08:46 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3075
>>
>> ========================= Criminal Case 3075 =========================
>>
>> Yally violated Rule 2157 (Judicial Panels) by failing to act to
>> ensure that the judicial panel of scshunt, Yally and Pavitra
>> satisfied its obligations with regards to CFJs 3028a and 3029a.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>
> NOT GUILTY. The obligation is on the individual members ("each member of
> the panel SHALL"), and thus Yally violated rule 2341, not 2157.
I intend (with 2 support) to request reconsideration.
Just because Yally violated R2341 doesn't mean that e didn't also
violate R2157 via the same inaction.
Consider these hypothetical situations where the panel of Alice, Bob
and Charlie is assigned to an appeal:
1) None of the panelists publish an opinion or otherwise cause the
panel to judge on time. Each of them violates both R2341 and
R2157.
2) Only Alice publishes an opinion, not enough to trigger "the panel
acts" in R2341, and none of them otherwise cause the panel to
judge on time. Bob and Charlie violate both R2341 and R2157;
Alice probably gets NOT GUILTY on R2157 due to R1504(e), especially
if she reminded the others before the time limit expired.
3) Alice and Bob publish matching opinions, Charlie doesn't publish
an opinion, and "the panel acts" in R2341 is triggered when the
time limit is reached. (This is the situation at hand.) Charlie
violates R2341, and may also violate R2157 because - even though
the panel acted - e didn't perform any action contributing to
causing it to do so. (On the other hand, once Alice and Bob's
opinions were published, maybe R2157 no longer required Charlie
to perform any action because the panel was already set to act.)
