Just from reading the news story and not the whole opinion, it would seem that the MN court is correct. From a Constitutional standpoint, the court needs a case or controversy before it. Re-examining evidence enmass seems more like an executive function. If the court were asked to review evidence in a particular case that is seeking a new trial, then I think that falls within their jurisdiction.
I agree that it is an executive function. Therefore, I think this must have been a petition for a writ of mandamus. However, I've looked on the Montana Supreme Court's website and cannot find anything that proves or disproves that.
Post a Comment