Legal Opinion · Dissent
In Re Quester Sterling-Suarez
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided March 4, 2003No. 02-1907Published
1DissentTorruella, Circuit Judge
Today the panel declines to enforce its mandamus ordering district court Judge Pérez-Giménez to appoint “learned counsel” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3005 in the capital case of Quester Sterling-Suárez. The majority concludes that the district court did not violate our mandate, and, that even if the court’s appointment of Joseph Laws was erroneous, this case is nevertheless inappropriate for mandamus. I respectfully disagree. The district court is simply not in compliance with our mandate of October 22, 2002. Therefore, mandamus is the proper tool to ensure compliance with our mandate.
The…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. John Javilo McCullahCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Richard A. HornCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- City of Cleveland, Ohio v. Federal Power Commission, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.