No one is arguing that Duane Owen wasn’t a monster who committed horrific crimes. Whether that means that the death penalty is the right punishment is another matter, perhaps best argued based on opposition to the death penalty than that Owen’s crimes were not so horrible that execution wasn’t warranted. As monsters go, Owen’s actions would certainly qualify.

Owen was convicted for the 1984 rape and fatal stabbing of teenager Karen Slattery and for the rape and killing of 38-year-old Georgianna Worden in Palm Beach County.

It should be noted that Owen was convicted in 1984, nearly 40 years ago. Whether it makes any sense to execute anyone for a crime committed 40 years earlier is another good question. Yet these were not the foremost issues that outraged the ACLU, which felt compelled to make a public assertion of the harm suffered by Duane Owen. Continue reading →

In one sense, it’s a meme. But in another, there’s a good deal of truth in the assertion that Mario Puzo’s The Godfather teaches all the life lessons one needs to know. And in light of the new Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences “rules” for diversity, it does so again.

Starting with the March 2024 awards, movies will not be considered for a Best Picture nomination unless they feature a lead or significant supporting character from an “underrepresented racial or ethnic group,” have a main storyline that focuses on an underrepresented group, or at least 30% of the cast comes from two or more underrepresented groups (women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ or the disabled).

Continue reading →

Ten years ago, maybe even five, no one would have blinked at the bold assertion that there are only two genders. Some now argue to the contrary, and perhaps have made a legitimate argument that there are more than two and that the assertion that there are but two genders either “erases” their existence or, to put it more aggressively, is an act of violence against them. Massachusetts district court Judge Indira Talwani agreed.

The First Amendment has long been understood to protect messages on kids’ T-shirts in school, as long as they weren’t vulgar or likely to cause a disruption. For example, a federal appeals court ruled that a kid had the right to wear a T-shirt saying, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” But that was back in 2008, a less woke time, when judges were not as eager to sacrifice free speech rights at the altar of political correctness. Continue reading →

Every once on a while, the same old argument arises to do away with the bar exam because it’s a poor test of the skills needed to practice law and it reduces the number of lawyers, thereby increasing the cost of representation and leaves many without access to representation. This time, Ilya Somin at VC has latched onto a study that appeared in an ABA Journal article to pursue his belief in deregulation of the legal profession.

An important new study by Washington University (St. Louis) legal scholar Kyle Rozema finds that bar exam requirements massively reduce the number of lawyers. While some might cheer that result, the main effect is to increase the cost and reduce the availability of legal services. Lack of access to affordable legal representation is a serious problem in our legal system, particularly for the poor and lower middle class.

Continue reading →

It passed the House judiciary committee by a unanimous 26-0 vote. For the math challenged, that means both the Republican majority and Democrat minority on the committee agreed. With each other. But the most shocking part is that it was about in rem asset forfeiture, the debacle born in the heat of the crack epidemic and mafia war to, as its marketing spiel went, “take the profit out of crime.”

Back then, the promise was that it would only be used against mobsters and drug kingpins, so ordinary folk wouldn’t get too bothered by its near-total lack of due process and its presumption that assets were criminal until proven otherwise. Since then, we’ve come to appreciate that it’s used against anyone with loot to snatch, which then inures to the benefit of the thieving cops who snatch it. Continue reading →

As every lawyer is brutally aware, the judge on a case holds extraordinary power in making or breaking the case. From slow-walking rulings to the usual “denied” from the bench without even pretending to glance at the papers, there are a thousand little decisions that spell the difference between dismissal/acquittal and conviction. Much as some of us hope for fair, smart and reasonable judges, we know only too well that some judges fall short. And then there’s United States District Judge Aileen Cannon.

Her name may be familiar to many. Judge Cannon heard Trump’s challenge to the government’s classified-documents investigation, appointed a special master to review the documents, and temporarily barred the Justice Department from using those records in its investigation. That much-maligned decision was later reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit consisting of three conservative judges: two Trump appointees and the G.W. Bush–appointed Chief Judge William Pryor. They wrote that her decision violated “clear” law and that her approach “would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations” and “violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.”

Continue reading →

He’s been through a lot of lawyers and has not proven to be a delightful client. Yet, Donald Trump is now the defendant and, like any defendant, has a constitutional right to a defense. That, of course, doesn’t mean any particular lawyer has a responsibility to be the one to defend him.

Would you do it? Continue reading →

Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky is viewed as one of the smartest and more reasonable of progressive academics, lending him an air of credibility that often credits his position without engaging in too much scrutiny of his argument. In other words, if Chemerinsky is for something, the reasons why don’t really matter. But they do matter, and Chemerinky’s op-ed on Congress compelling the Supreme Court to create and subject itself to a code of ethics flops.

This is not to say that the justices of the Supreme Court should not be bound by an ethical code or should be able to engage in conduct that is, or appears  to be, improper. Of course they should be ethical. The problem, however, is twofold. First, can Congress seize control over the Supreme Court by imposing a code of ethics that could dictate the outcome of its ruling? Second, if such a code were crafted, is there any mechanism by which it could be enforced? Continue reading →

What if I compiled a list of groups with whom I disagree? What if I labeled them “hate groups”? No one would care, because nobody in media turns to SJ for the “official” list of hate groups, as if that ends the discussion about whether a group is good, bad or otherwise. Instead, they turn to the Southern Poverty Law Center which, for many years under the guidance of now-ousted founder Morris Dees, put together a legitimate and circumspect list of groups promoting hate, at least to the extent hate fit their definition.

The SPLC, like the once-respected ACLU, has used its legacy credibility to burn not only hate groups, but any group whose purpose conflicts with what the current crop of SPLC savants deem correct. They’ve now included “Moms for Liberty” within that ambit. Continue reading →

The indictment is devastating. Whether it can be proven remains to be seen as with any criminal prosecution, but anyone suggesting the charges are either trivial or insubstantial is blowing smoke. But Trump, together with his lawyers and lovers, are doing their best to mount a public relations defense to make him appear neither as guilty nor as ignorant as he comes off. The efforts involve a three prong attack.

(1) But what about . . . ? Continue reading →