7 Burst results for "Patrick Harvey"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio. In a death penalty case, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, creating a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, reminding just as Elena Kagan of the works of Kafka. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank, Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say Simmons always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? For decades, Arizona refused to follow Supreme Court precedent established in the 1994 Simmons case, which gave defendants facing the death penalty the right to tell juries that, if they spared them from the death penalty, they would never be eligible for parole. So in 2016, the Supreme Court specifically instructed Arizona to follow that law. But Arizona denied John Cruz that instruction at his trial, and then used a state procedural law to stop him from seeking reversal of his death sentence. Many of the justices seemed troubled by Arizona flouting the Supreme Court. Here's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Simmons made clear that this is what the law was. So many times Arizona said, we're not following it. And we had to have lynch in order to really cinch the deal. One thing I'm a little worried about is that if we rule in your favor in this case that it will be giving other states essentially a road map for defying this court's criminal law decisions. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his sentence. Tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer Patrick Harvey in 2003, but it was in cruise's guilt, but his sentence that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is at issue. So for decades, Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule, so then the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule you have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons case happened that the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the linch case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole ineligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch after the U.S. Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. I thought it was odd that the state was still arguing in its briefs that Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided by the court and justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney Joseph Kane field that she found that shocking and perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying, like lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumb and your nose at us. Justice Kagan is absolutely no disrespect was intended by that footnote to the court. And I apologize if that is the way it came across. Tell us about Arizona's arguments. So Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying it's just the state issue that in the first instance, it shouldn't even get to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule. And so there is this kind of threshold issue at the U.S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can even really take a look at this because it's a state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the type of federal issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments that the U.S.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Death penalty case at the Supreme Court, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, leaving a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, leading justice Elena Kagan to compare it to the works of Kafka. Mister canfield, that bad faith or not. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank, Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say sim is always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? Arizona ignored Supreme Court precedent set in the Simmons case in 1994, which gave defendants the right to tell juries that their ineligible to get parole if their sentence to life in prison instead of death. And then Arizona ignored a case in 2016, the lynch case in which the Supreme Court said the state had to apply Simmons. An innate on Arizona's death row is asking for a new trial because he wasn't allowed to tell the jury that he couldn't get parole. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his scent and tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer Patrick Harvey in 2003, but it wasn't cruise as guilt by defendants that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is an issue. Arizona just refuses, they are not following this Supreme Court case, Simmons, and then in another case, the Supreme Court says basically you have to follow Simmons. That's right. So the Simmons case happened at the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the lich case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole and eligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch, after the use of Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. What was, I thought, odd, the state was still arguing in its briefs that those cases Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided. Here's justice Kagan. And then in this case, you're still saying my lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumb and your nose at us. What did Arizona say about that? So Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying it's just a state issue that in the first instance, it shouldn't even get to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule. And so there is this kind of threshold issue at the U.S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can even really take a look at this because it's a state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the type of federal issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court really shouldn't even be getting involved. That's part of it. Another part is, according to this they procedural rule, they're saying it wasn't a significant change in law, despite how much that might seem to fly in the face of common sense as justice Kagan was pointing out during the argument. They're saying it's not a significant change. It's just now an application of the law. And so that's what brings up this situation where Kagan is pointing out that Cruz is blocked in this procedural maze, no matter in which direction he turns. Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin and we'll talk about how the Supreme Court may come out in this case. I'm June grass when you're listening to Bloomberg
The Guardian UK: Politics Weekly
"patrick harvey" Discussed on The Guardian UK: Politics Weekly
"Kind of margin worst battled out between a notorious and lip dan's labor and tourists and the company sense of urging green can be waste and so they're completely scuppered by the electoral system libby that brings us very neatly. Doesn't it to the situation in in scotland. Where green scream is completely separate. Isn't it from its english counterpart but it does have the benefit of a proportional system at least for holly route and is on its way into an agreement with snp. The scottish government has reached a proposed cooperation agreement with the scottish greens working together to build a greener feeder independent. Scotland is grown breaking ground breaking in both scottish and perhaps even more so yuki politics absolutely. Well it's it's it's in agreement with the assembly government as of the end of last month when the leader nicholas sturgeon and the leaders of the scottish screens. Patrick harvey and lorna sleater made this grand announcement beat house. A lot has been made of the historic nature of this deal. You know it's the first time that the grievances have been in government anywhere in the uk nicholas. Sturgeon has said repeatedly that this is about being seen to do politics differently and that the agreement is based on a spirit of cooperation and consensus building. There's certainly a lot being a lot of fanfare around around this this agreement to be clear. It's it's not a traditional coalition. The greens have secured cds of opt-outs for them selves on policies. That they feel they discount agree with the scottish government. On for example on green ports on aviation the scrutiny that this screen party is now going to be under thomas every of large government decision. I think that is going to bring with it. Its own pressures as well. Yeah absolutely and we're speaking they before nicholas urging percents so program for governments at hollywood. Do you think we'll get a sense of that from that that this is a sort of green tinged government you know that the greens have got something for these compromises. They're going to have to make. Yeah i mean we. We've already got that sense from from the deal itself. It was very detailed in terms of what. The two parties are proposing patine forward for this next five-year term. I don't think they'll be the of fantastic surprises in the pf. Aside from the fact that will just get a bit more of a sense of what they are prioritizing. More broadly in terms of of the deal that the parties worked for for the rest of the term..
Casting Actors Cast
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Casting Actors Cast
"That i'm excited to share with you and that is we had our first in person musical theater auditions here in new york. I know a lot of parts of the country haven't opened up yet but it was amazing to finally get back to what we know so well prior to covid which is live audition environment and so we had a dance. Call we over twenty actors dancers coming into the studio learning the combination and then we called actress back to saying and this is a wonderful project that we're really excited to participate in called a crossing and i have to tell you that we brought in a new internet mccorkell casting and it just so happened. We didn't know this. It was a so lucky that she also happen to be a co vid officer covid specialist so that she was able to be an incredible help to setting up the auditions properly but also to making sure that we were in compliance with both equity rules and with new york city and state regulations as far as covert is concerned. So yeah we had all of the the. The music and the sides were and sheet protectors that we wiped between actors. We had masks we We took the temperature. You know one of those temperature guns. It was just like we did it in such a systematic way. I'm the dancing. Was kind of interesting because we wanted the dancers to learn the combination. Josh bogas was choreographing and he was wearing a mask as well as his assistant wearing the mask and all of the dancers were wearing the mask until it came time for the dancers to go three at a time. So josh could evaluate their work and so everyone was wearing a mask during the entire learning of the combination and then once the combination was learned. Then they were three at a time. Came up and audition and it was pretty fun. It was pretty interesting. Everyone seemed to have a really good time and we were really kind of just excited to be. There have been such a long time. We were thrilled now. There was one incident that i have to share with you kind of interesting that an actor came in and we zapped their temperature and they came in at ninety nine degrees. Now the rule is that anything from one hundred degrees and above. We can't bring into an audition space and so we were like. Oh my gosh ninety nine and so the we inform the talent and we said well. Let's wait a few minutes and then we waited a few more minutes and then we you know took that temperature again on the forehead and it was ninety eight so what we realize is that it was close to ninety nine degrees outside. The actor was coming in from outdoors. And so we were like. Oh okay that kind of makes sense that the actress kind of hot coming in from outside and so that actor was able to come in and it was absolutely felt fine and so it worked out really really well but boy you want there. Was that moment there where we're going like okay. Is this going to be one of those moments where we say to the actress. Sorry we can't let you into the auditions that would have been just just oracle but anyway it was an exciting time. And i just wanted to share that with you for those of you who maybe in other parts of the country..
Casting Actors Cast
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Casting Actors Cast
"At the top of the audition. It doesn't have to be super fancy. It can literally be your head shot for example so five seconds of your head shot or it could be alive slate where you introduce your name. The project character name in your height by the way hiding something. I always ask for an video submission. So you'd be sort of the head of the game if you included your height automatically but there's no reason why you couldn't keep that slate as a separate piece of video and then you fade into you doing hope that makes sense in other words so that if i were going to be giving this video to a producer i could just cut out the slate if the producer didn't see the slate if it didn't matter to them but i always think a slate is a really good default setting as a separate piece of video only because that's providing me as a casting director a little bit more information about you i get to see sort of looking directly into the camera and introducing yourself and introducing the material. There's just something about that. It's almost like when you're meeting somebody for the first time you know you make that handshake and you look them in the eye. You give a nice firm handshake and say nice to meet you. So that to me is what a slate can actually become so i. You didn't do that here so i just wanted to point that out. Perhaps that was a purposeful decision on your part but in general i prefer anyone to give me some additional piece of information in the form of a slate like i said. Some people include their headshot. Some people just do a live slate but please do not do this. Don't slate take a breath and start acting in the same video. Keep it separate. Let's move on a little bit more. Technically what struck me is. I would love for you to have a little less headroom in your shot..
Casting Actors Cast
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Casting Actors Cast
"Slash classes workshops. And i hope that we can work together. Sue great so thank you so much for that. Thank you for sticking around and now this get to the video shall we. This is patrick. Harvey patrick harvie submitted a video. A little while ago. I have to say and because the response has been so amazing. It's taken me a while to to all of these because frankly right now Mccorkell casting works casting six feature films right now plus some theaters that were casting so we are just really kind of overwhelmed. And so i've been a little remiss in trying to stay up on all of those submissions. So if you've submitted or interested in submitting please have a little bit of patience. I would appreciate that all right. So let's take a look at patrick vs self submit video. I'm going to be playing it right from the top. And then i'm going to give some spontaneous feedback because i haven't seen the entire video. Okay all right here we go back. I just got a complaint from mary. Hot saying you're used inappropriate language with her. I simply congratulated her winning the raffle. What did you say. I'm sorry the kitchen and my hands were full of lunch item. So i said congrats mary. Next time i see you. I'm born pounded. You mean a fist pound. Yes it's just called count. That sounded like you were going to be corrupt. Oh okay so. I see you won the raffle mary. Can we found each other. No you can't say any of this to someone without a fist involve a congrats mary. I'd like to fist you now. Wow that's terrible. Oh you're not great with expressions team. Remember the chaos. You call us when we were hiring younger people and you sent out a memo saying the company was trying to euthanize feel bad about that truly did well. I need to get out of here late for my dinner date. Ooh where are you going. Antonio's o somebody's gonna get stopped. Oh my god. I'm so sorry i hear. Now.
Casting Actors Cast
"patrick harvey" Discussed on Casting Actors Cast
"To thank you for tuning into casting. Actress cast. please visit the website casting. Actors cast dot com. Where you're going to find some freebies and lots more information you'll find some past episodes of casting actors cast in addition to that. You're going to find a there is a section called jeff's jots which are show notes that you can download from all of the episodes so if you have an episode that you kind of like maybe you went some notes on that episode you can go to jeff jackson download those absolutely free of charge additionally if you fill out the form that says it into the talent pool. You're going to get a free book. A one hundred page. Pdf that you can download again. I said for free called conversation pieces out of the studio. The voice over workshop for professional actors. It's a think a really helpful book on what. I've been teaching in my workshops about voice overs and it's an comprehensive one hundred pages that i think you'll find very very helpful. Also there is a free video out there. Also filling out that form and it's called casting directors secrets what they don't want you to know but i'm going to tell you in this twenty minute video again. That's free for you to check out as well and please if you enjoy what you're hearing if you like what you're hearing if it has been helpful to you i ask you to. Please please please consider leaving a like. You could share the video with your friends. Maybe there's an actress out there who would like to know about what we're doing on this podcast. Also if you could review that would be so helpful to me as well especially like i tunes. Because that's like the cool place to leave reviews and i would love to continue to grow this amazing audience..