It’s not that I’ve argued (or implied, for those unconstrained by reality) that the students who engaged in mob action to silence intemperate Judge Kyle Duncan should be “punished.” But I have argued that there must be consequences for what happened there. It’s not enough that they be sternly admonished, and if they do it again, be even more sternly admonished.

At some point, and that point is usually obvious early on, students realize that the rules are malarkey and the worst that comes of violating the rules is they have to suffer an anti-tummy rub. Granted, the lack of validation is routinely considered deleterious harm by children these days, but they’ll survive with or without puppies and Play Doh. Plus, they get to call themselves “survivors” and all their friends and allies send them thoughts and prayers. Continue reading →

Not too long ago, I opened a new business account at Citibank. I already had a business account there for more than 30 years, but they were offering some promo for a new account, so Dr. SJ told me to do it and she must be obeyed. But when I tried to open the account, I was told by the branch manager that I had to prove that I was a lawyer, even though my other account was captioned “counselor at law.” I was annoyed, but pulled out my state-issued bar card. Not good enough, I was informed.

I told her to check the New York State bar registration website. Nope, she officially replied. It was my job to prove it to her, not her job to figure it out. What she wanted was for me to bring in my bar admission certificate, the huge framed monster issued by the state court upon my initial admission that hung on the wall of my office for decades to impress potential clients with its fancy writing and gold seal. I tried to explain the levels of absurdity to her, but she didn’t care. “It’s the law,” she informed me. Continue reading →

Years ago, I served as the amicus chair for the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. With surprising regularity, issues arose that could have significant impact on the state of the law that would impact not only the parties in a specific case, but the practice of criminal law in general. When we learned of these cases, we cranked up the amicus machine to get our two cents in. Sometimes, it was because the issue at stake was too important not to get involved. Other times, it was because the lawyers involved weren’t up to snuff, and we didn’t want to lose on an important issue because the defendant was represented by a mediocre (or worse) lawyer. Continue reading →

The Michelle Dauber of prosecutorial commentators, Andrew Weissmann, has come to New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s defense.

Prosecutors are trained to consider whether a case can be brought — in other words, is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction? They also consider whether a case should be brought — principally, is the crime one that is typically charged by the office in like circumstances? Put another way: Is bringing the charge consistent with the rule of law that requires treating likes alike?

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would be well within his discretion in determining that the answer to those questions is yes and therefore supports charging Mr. Trump in connection with any crimes arising from an effort to keep Stormy Daniels from disclosing an alleged affair to the electorate before the 2016 election.

Continue reading →

The acts upon which the putative indictment of former president Donald Trump were completed in 2017. It’s now 2023. Math challenges aside, that comes out to be about six years ago. So how is it possible that six-year-old alleged conduct can be prosecuted when the statute of limitations in New York for most felonies is five years, and two years for misdemeanors?

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has signaled he is preparing to seek felony charges against Mr. Trump; Mr. Bragg is expected to accuse him of concealing a $130,000 hush-money payment that Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s lawyer and fixer, made to Ms. Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election. Continue reading →

There is little difficulty distinguishing people who hold themselves out to provide legal advice for a fee or appearing before a judge in court as “practicing” law. But what about your aunt or the neighbor in the back telling you what you should do about a lawsuit? Surely, they’re not committing a felony, but just kibitzing, as folks are wont to do. Between the two, however, is a no man’s (person’s?) land consisting of people to whom one turns for advice when confronted with problems who neither sell their services nor passed the bar.

Are they criminals? Should they be? Continue reading →

Ed. Note: This is a guest post by Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyers, Joe Otte, former public defender until he went rogue.

Before the chatbots replace online human opinions, I’d like to say my piece about indigent defense funding in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Here in the Commonwealth, we have no state-level funding for indigent defense.* We rely upon counties to fund public defenders and court-appointed attorneys in criminal cases. It’s a moronic system that has thankfully gone by the wayside in 49 states. Continue reading →

Under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 720.35, minor defendants given youthful offender treatment may not have their convictions used against them, thus providing an opportunity for them to change their evil ways and have a second chance (or fourth) at turning their lives around. This is a wonderful thing, although it held little promise for Dylan Pitt when he was stabbed by Santino Guerra on St. Patrick’s Day, 2016. Continue reading →

Bethany Mandel, who with Karol Markowicz, wrote a book “Stolen Youth,” and so she went on tour to promote it, including an interview with Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. It didn’t go well.

LOL: Briahna Joy Gray BREAKS the brain of Rising guest Bethany Mandel by asking her to define "wokeness" pic.twitter.com/uwRSSH0LaM

— The Vanguard (@vanguard_pod) March 14, 2023

Continue reading →

It would be impressive enough that Amy Wax is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. But her background is even more impressive.

Raised in an observant, conservative Jewish family, she received a bachelor’s degree from Yale and a medical degree from Harvard.

On a podcast, she said she realized medicine was not for her, and in 1987, received a law degree from Columbia University. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, she argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. And after seven years at the University of Virginia, she joined Penn with tenure in 2001.

Continue reading →