Looks like the CCA is so serious about new Rule 47.3 it decided to make its unpublished opinions available as well (even though Rule 77.4 was not changed). If Rule 77.3 had been changed I could understand why we have been blessed with this change in policy on the court's website. Will be interesting to see if these opinions are now included in Westlaw or Lexis. I note the Second COA has not been similarly influenced to include its unpublished opinions (civil or criminal) on its site (still stating instead you can order them for a price).

I am going to find it interesting to compare the quality of the real vs. the pseudo opinions as well (until I get bored reading). I have always wondered how much difference there was (even though I have had access to quite a few unpublished opinions all along). Has anyone else ever tried to figure out who Judge per curiam was?

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 01-15-03 at .]

Must admit I was getting a little bored reading some of these pseudo opinions, but then came across Rojas today. The Defendant was executed in December but Judge Price felt the need to ex post facto chastise the court for not declaring David Chapman incompetent as habeas counsel so that Rojas would get a chance at a federal writ. So he wrote this unpublished opinion that I guess would (until now) normally have been seen by very few outside the court. Presiding Judge Keller's response woke me up. It ends as follows: "Finally, had the author of the dissent been present at conference when the Court decided this matter, the Court would have had the opportunity to discuss his arguments before applicant's execution. As it is, they come too late, serving no apparent legitimate purpose." You do not find that kind of frankness in the published reports.

One thing I like about some of the court websites is you can see who the author was even if the opinion was per curiam. CCA, unfortuneately, isn't one of them.