From the ABA Journal, it’s now universal.  The judge in an Australian criminal trial gave new meaning to “you snooze, you lose.”  Asleep and snoring, the appellate court upheld the conviction, holding that there is “no relevant distinction to be made between a judge who is asleep and one who is awake but inattentive.”  We wouldn’t want to expect too much from judges, now would we.  So now we’re 2 down, 1 to go.  Any sleeping prosecutor stories out there?

Davey Crocket, per Crime & Federalism, understood the true nature of fiscal conservatism.  After Congress (including Crocket) voted to give $20,000 to the victims of a Georgetown fire (aside: this was the public line, it was actually given to Halliburton to distribute, and only $12 actually made it to victims), he was ripped by a constituent for giving away other people’s money.  Doing something unheard of, Davey recognized the folly of using public money as a gift and changed his mind.  He later chastised Congress for its largess toward others with taxpayer money while they held their own tightly in their little grubby hands.

Robert Guest at I Was The State reminds us of that little prosecutorial detail of how the duty of a prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that justice is done.  Seizing a brief question from the Texas prosecutors’ message board about how to find a rationale to prosecute when the truth fails the constitutional sniff test, he asks why winning trumps everything.  This can’t be said enough (and especially to prosecutors), justice sometimes means adhering to the Constitution.  Of course, if they did that, all the other prosecutors at the bar would make fun of them.