Epstein Secrets

restrictions upon bail pending appeal may undoubtedly 'work to the disadvantage' of defendants."). In reaching this conclusion, we are mind of the Supreme Court's decision in Kring Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 2 S.Ct. 443, L.Ed. 506 (1883). In Krin,g, the Court held that an ex post facto violation had occurred w

d=%7bFEDF5709-3AEA-4F74-8619-... 4/10/2008 EFTA00191715 Page 17 of 24 765 F.2d 944 765 F.2d 944, 53 USLW 2628 (Cite as: 765 F.2d 944) As the Supreme Court has stated, "[p]resent federal law has made an appeal from a district court's judgment of convic- tion ' in a criminal case what is, ' effect, a

(quoting Hop . Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 590, 4 S.Ct. 202, 21 , 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (brackets added to conform to origll quotation in Hopt )); see also Dobbert ■ Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S.Ct. 22 , 2298, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) ("Even though it may work to the uri disadvantage of a defendant, a proced

how narrow the circumstances under which abstention is appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, was demonstrated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co. 437 U.S. 655 (1979). In Will, the Supreme Court further narrowed the contours of when a federal co

upheld intervening procedural changes even if application of the new rule operated to a defendant's disadvantage in the particular case. See e. g., Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-294, 53 L. Ed. 2d 344, 97 S. Ct. 2290 (1977); see also Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 111 L. Ed. 2d 30, 110 S. C

ch governs, the law must be obeyed.... United States t Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 102, 9, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). This principle is embodied in the Supreme Courts holding that a new law applies to a case in progress unless applying it "would result in manifest injustice or there is stat- utory direction or il

al is not an ex post facto law. Even though it may work to the disadvant- age p f of a defendant, a procedural clinge is not ex ostacto ',"citing Dobbert Flor- ida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977); g e e.g., United States ex rel Massarella Elrod, 682 F.2d 688, 689