I often recommend the people read particular opinions that are doctrinally complicated or that contain factually interesting material. Basically, if I was glad that I read the opinion, and thought that others may perhaps similarly enjoy it, on occasion, I'll recommend it to others.
Did I learn anything from reading it? Definitely. It's a death penalty case. It's got tons of details about the defendant's life, the crime, the procedural complexities of the trial, the attitude of the state court judge and their rulings, etc. I definitely learned stuff.
But here's the thing. It's long. L-O-N-G. 145 single-spaced pages. Essentially, a full book.
All about a person who committed crimes in 1990, for which he was sentenced to death 30 years ago, in California. A jurisdiction in which, in reality, no one's actually going to be executed at this point.
As a result, you'd basically be reading the resolution of a hypothetical question about a person who committed a long-ago crime the result of which is preordained. He's going to die in prison.
It's not that the story of how he got there isn't interesting. It's just that other 145-page books would likely be even more rewarding to read.
Unless you're a true death penalty and/or federal habeas nerd. In which case: Go to town.
As for the actual result: Judge Murguia writes the majority opinion, which remands the case for a new factual determination regarding whether the defendant is sufficiently mentally retarded to preclude his execution. Judge Berzon agrees with this, but would go a bit further. Judge Nelson disagrees, and would allow the execution.
The devil's in the details, of course. But that's the short and sweet version of the end product.
