Last year, I did a quick run through LegalTech, the trade show for businesses with a lifespan of about a month to show how cool their legal technology is. It was the “swag report,” and it was for fun, though some of the vendors who got caught on video didn’t think it was funny at all. Defectum humoris non curat lex.*
I didn’t return this year. One year of wading through that crap was enough. It was a crashing bore. And there was someone who will follow my lead, saving me from any thoughts of having to suffer LegalTech again.
But there are others who not only went to LegalTech this year, but did so because they wanted to go. I know, but it’s true. My old pal, Nicky Black, was there. She has an interest in legal technology that I don’t necessarily share, which is cool. Each to their own. And she decided to test these “innovators” while she was at it.
After talking to all of these innovators, I decided take a tour of the Exhibit Hall. But instead of seeking out booth swag, I decided to recreate an experiment that I conducted at the ILTA conference last fall. Continue reading
Rookie New York City Police Officer Peter Liang was convicted in Brooklyn of Manslaughter 2° for the killing of Akai Gurley in the stairwell of the Pink Houses. Gurley is still dead, not to mention smeared for the audacity of being the body in which the bullet landed. By its verdict, the jury found that Liang was reckless in causing the death of Gurley.
§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person;
The case didn’t breed the level of outrage that so many other killings of innocent black guys have. After all, this wasn’t a venal act, an indictment of the police for their hating young black men so much that their lives mean nothing. This was flagrant incompetence.
The reaction to the verdict has been, well, peculiar. But then, so too has the quiet surrounding the trial itself. Continue reading
Among the myriad complaints arising from colleges adjudicating rape and sexual assault claims following the unlawful and misguided efforts of the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, to compel schools to recreate their campuses into gender-Utopias, is that the accused are denied due process. This is but one of the failings, but it’s a huge one.
But colleges and universities are by no means prevented from providing students accused of crimes the basic protections that comprise minimal standards of fundamental fairness, and not all schools have chosen to burn some students in order to pander to the feelings of others. University of Tennessee is such a school. And six female students have had enough of it.
Six women filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday claiming the University of Tennessee has created a student culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, especially football players, and then uses an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward.
An “unusual, legalistic adjudication process”? That sounds pretty scary. What could they be talking about? Continue reading
I haven’t always been kind to former federal judge turned victims’ rights advocate and law professor, Paul Cassell. That’s not going to change now, even though it might appear to some that he’s done something praiseworthy.
A former federal judge in Utah asked President Obama Tuesday to “swiftly” give clemency to Weldon Angelos, a man he sentenced to 55 years in prison in connection with selling marijuana.
Calling the sentence “one of the most troubling that I ever faced in my five years on the federal bench,” Paul G. Cassell, now a professor at the University of Utah’s law school, said the mandatory minimum sentence he was required to impose on Angelos was one of the chief reasons he chose to step down as a judge.
It’s not that Angelos is undeserving of clemency. It’s not that his sentence, a by-product of the government’s charging decision and the stacking requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), plus the Supreme Court’s uncharitable decision in Deal v. United States, is not absurd. Indeed, Cassell said as much in his written opinion following sentence. Continue reading
Outside of academia, few would know or care that it exists. There is a movement afoot by progressive scholars to create an alternate Constitution Day, one that celebrates not the piece of paper upon which our nation was founded, or the evil rich, white, slaveholding misogynists who wrote it and ratified it, but the dignity of its victims. A symposium was held at the Race and The Law Prof Blog.
Professor Starger in a blogpost for Constitution Day 2015 reiterated this critique and issued a call to celebrate the Constitution on a different date. He argued that
[t]he flawed document of  no longer rules us. We can now proudly celebrate the reconstructed Constitution. In 1987 the great Justice Thurgood Marshall critiqued bicentennial celebrations of the 1787 date, saying: “While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality.” When we interpret – or celebrate — today’s praiseworthy Constitution, we should look not only to the nobler commitments of the original Founders, but also to Reconstruction’s promise of a nation that is uncompromisingly respectful of human dignity. (Emphasis in original.)
Or shorter, the original constitution was a document that fixed slavery and oppression of women, and it required a civil war and 650,000 deaths to correct these flaws. Continue reading
To anyone whose head isn’t so firmly planted up their most beloved sacred cow’s butt, it has long been obvious that every side in politics has its nutjobs. Few can rock as well as Ted Nugent, but that doesn’t make him less insane.
And that’s just the start of it. When attacked for his rabid anti-Semitism, Nugent
doubled quadrupled down. Continue reading
There are cameras out there. Lots of cameras. Some take a constant stream of video of a street corner, say 42nd and Broadway, where tens of thousands of people walk every day. Others go up for more particularized reasons, such as the camera affixed to a utility pole outside the trailer of the Houston brothers in Tennessee, where it remained for ten weeks.
What’s the difference? Not much, said the Sixth Circuit.
Such warrantless recording is permitted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said, because people have “no reasonable expectation of privacy in video footage recorded by a camera that was located on top of a public utility pole and that captured the same views enjoyed by passersby on public roads.”
Some days are particularly good for remembering life’s happy moments.
Baltimore lawprof Garrett Epps is feeling pretty good about himself. When he taught law in Oregon, Mike Arnold and Tiffany Harris were in his class. And there they were, on the TV screen, representing Ammon Bundy.
In the early hours of the morning, law professors wonder whether anything we do makes the world a better place.
Today, I feel pretty sure that the answer is yes. That’s because, on January 28, I awoke to a televised image of Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Mike Arnold of Eugene, Oregon, reading a statement urging the other Malheur protesters to stand down. Arnold is a former student of mine. So is Tiffany Harris of Portland, who represents Shawna Cox, the 59-year-old woman who was arrested in the car with LaVoy Finicum, the militant spokesman who was shot during a traffic stop near the occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
I couldn’t be prouder.
For more than a decade, early advocates of the Reinvent The Future of the New Normal of Law have been telling lawyers that the end is near. The preferred analogy was that technology and alternate models for the practice of law were a speeding train, and that if we didn’t hop aboard, we would miss it.
Some of us have been watching this train all along. We watched as those shouting their glorious predictions of future greatness fell off, never to be seen again. Lexblog’s Kevin O’Keefe notes that after a decade of attending LegalTech, the view of the midway is filled with fresh young faces.
The exhibitors are getting increasingly younger. Take that from someone approaching 60 way too fast. I often wonder though if the these people selling know as much about their product and what it offers as the lawyers, tech and information/knowledge management people they are selling to.
If you read between the lines, what Kevin is saying is that the fresh young faces of ten years ago are gone. Nobody talks about failure. It disappears in the ether, only to be replaced by the next fresh young face filled with the promise of future greatness. Continue reading
It seems intuitive when you think about it. Those 50,000 volts don’t merely impact one’s muscles and nervous system, but can addle one’s brains as well. And let’s face facts, there are brains that are more than addled enough, and a tasing will put them over the line.
Scientists say the results — detailed in the journal Criminology and Public Policy — call into the question the legitimacy of police questioning in the immediate aftermath of an arrest involving the use of a Taser.
“The findings of this study have considerable implications for how the police administer Miranda warnings,” lead study author Robert J. Kane, a professor of criminology and justice studies at Drexel, said in a news release.
The efficacy of Miranda warning has never been entirely clear. The Supreme Court assumed that following its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, no one would ever willingly subject themselves to interrogation, because it was obviously a really stupid thing to do. Continue reading
It’s not wrong to believe that if Congress or a state legislature passes a law, it somehow makes that law magically happen. It’s terribly naïve, but not wrong. It’s not just the “take care” clause, that the executive branch doesn’t like the law, so it refuses to put any effort into making it happen. It’s not even that mandates usually require money, a bureaucracy, behind them, and Congress hates putting money where its mouth is.
So great ideas (along with the horrible) find their way into laws that the public thinks will change everything, and ultimately become just another morass of broken promises, good ideas that don’t pan out. When collateral issues arise, someone will point out, “wait, there’s a law for that,” and ponder why that’s not a good enough answer.
Have you met the FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act? It may be one of the most promising laws ever enacted that failed so astoundingly to fulfill its promise. At PrawfsBlawg, Margaret Kwoka explains why. Continue reading