Ed. Note: Our intrepid TV and Movie Critic, Harris County Public Defender Alex Bunin, reviews the new show “all rise” in the new “wokelaw” genre.

A new CBS legal show debuted this week called “all rise.” The lack of capitalization is a metaphor for the main character’s ascension to a Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship from modest origins. The lowercase bailiff’s call to order is meant to imply she is humble, different, and a “first” for the job, albeit not the first African-American, not the first woman, and not the first former prosecutor. She is allegedly “first” because she cares about criminal defendants. Her otherness is emphasized by her face-plant climbing onto the bench the first time.

The show’s presentation of defendants as complicated persons, even victims themselves, is a refreshing change from Law & Order’s parade of evil. However, like most fictional legal shows, “all rise” skims past serious issues in favor of tidy outcomes. This includes a number of “that does not really happen” moments. Continue reading →

Many words and phrases that are deemed offensive, if not actionably discriminatory today, were at one time in common use, and were the preferred, kind, word. There was a time when the polite word for black people was Negros. Even “colored people” was once a favored phrase. The N-word, notably, was never anything but a slur, what has been called the nuclear bomb of words.

Preferences change, which is fine, but during the time when they wind their way into our speech, our law, our culture, they are adopted as the proper terminology. In reviewing a brief recently, I caught the phrase “sexual preference,” which had been the common descriptor of the inclinations of gay people. That phrase is unacceptable now, as the suggestion that it is a choice, rather than an innate state, is contrary to the notion that people are born that way. So I changed it to sexual orientation, which is acceptable language now. Continue reading →

It wasn’t only the name of Dan Hull’s blog, switching on the weekends to “What About Paris” because why not? It was an approach to the practice of law. Law wasn’t there so we had someplace to go in the morning. It wasn’t there to buy us a car or feed the kids, though we expected to be paid for our services.

So what happened here?

#TBT | These bright new lawyers are ready to fight for constitutional and social justice. #DefendersRepresent pic.twitter.com/7AUfP0owbs

— Defender Association of Philadelphia (@PhillyDefenders) September 26, 2019

No doubt they’re all bright new lawyers. No doubt they’re “ready to fight.” But these are public defenders, and they’re fighting for “constitutional and social justice”? Continue reading →

[Ed. Note: This post has been pinned to the top. There are new posts below.]

R I C H A R D ! ! !

Remember the HBO serial “Oz,” about life inside Oswald State Correctional Facility, formerly Oswald State Penitentiary, a fictional level 4 maximum-security state prison? Good times, right?

My old buddy, who was the head of HBO Studios at the time, gave me a promotional post for the series. It’s big. It big, a whopping 68.5″ by 48″, too big to fit into one pic. And would look spectacular in your bathroom, she-shack or SHU cell. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Greg Prickett is former police officer and supervisor who went to law school, hung out a shingle, and now practices criminal defense and family law in Fort Worth, Texas. While he was a police officer, he was a police firearms instructor, and routinely taught armed tactics to other officers.

On September 15, 2019, St. Paul Police Officer Steven Mattson shot and killed Ronald Davis at the intersection of Griggs and Thomas. The usual groups immediately started protesting, calling for justice for Davis. There’s only one problem. This isn’t the horse that they want to be riding, because justice was administered to Ronald Davis at the scene.

Continue reading →

When Tiffany Cabán ran for Queens County District Attorney, her primary pitch wasn’t her prosecutorial or managerial experience, as she had neither, but her identity as a “queer Latina.” There was an assumption that her identity meant she would be more understanding, more empathetic toward people who looked like her, whatever that means. Essentially, she was announcing a bias, and if the bias appealed to voters, they would elect her.

In a campaign for prosecutor, this isn’t entirely a new concept. Candidates historically noted their endorsement by police unions for the “tough on crime” positions, which reflected a similar, if opposite and more related to the job, bias, and it worked well for a long time.

But is that what we would seek of federal judges? Cato Institute’s Clark Neily makes the case. Continue reading →

That Donald Trump was a vulgar, amoral ignoramus was why he got elected, not why he should be impeached. We tried the best and brightest, the educated and knowledgeable, the experienced and savvy, and they didn’t produce anything more than a lot of sweet words and a paralyzed Congress. Nothing was getting done, so why not try the guy whose grasp of America was as low-brow as most Americans. Throwing the alternative of Hillary Clinton into the mix made the option that much easier.

As David Leonhardt says, he was unfit for office, but that’s not a reason to impeach. But now, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said the words that so many wanted to hear, that the House is opening an “impeachment inquiry.”

It’s up to the House of Representatives to vote Articles of Impeachment. The various committees already investigating Trump for impeachment are now doing so “officially,” as opposed to just putting on a show for the sake of trying to embarrass Trump and humiliate him in front of a nation. Pelosi has asked the chairs of the committees to put together their best charges from matters that, up to now, haven’t managed to move the dial in the hearts of the public. Those who hated Trump still hate Trump. Those who loved Trump still love Trump. Continue reading →

The question has now been posed in a great many less vulgar ways, but is it time for the Democrats in the House of Representatives to shit or get off the pot? If they believe that Trump has committed “high crimes or misdemeanors,” has engaged in impeachment-worthy conduct, then the Constitution offers them a means of addressing it.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The question isn’t whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense(s). The question isn’t whether it’s a political, rather than legal, determination. The question is whether there will be more speeches, more investigations, more subpeonas, more accusations, more calls for action, all for the sake of the performance when the Constitution provides the mechanism to address the problem. Continue reading →

Is it a call to action or a call to nihilism, the belief that life is meaningless because they’re all going to die anyway? Why bother if it’s too late, if things are so terrible that we’re all doomed? Is this how young people should view their world? Carol Roth argues that the message is the problem.

Children today should be enjoying their youth. They arguably live in the greatest time ever, with unparalleled access to information, connectivity around the globe, advances in health care and tremendous opportunity. But instead of embracing optimism, the adults in their lives are filling them with fear.

In the last few weeks, from town halls on climate change to “climate justice” marches, I have seen scores of children – some teens, some squarely of elementary school-age – proclaim their anxiety about the world ending.

In what is described as either an impassioned plea from the face of global warming or the abuse of an indoctrinated child, Greta Thunburg has become the voice of climate doom and political failure. Continue reading →

In the course of a typical day, I’ll be informed of how I’m sexist, racist, fascist, and a cuck, a libtard, a criminal lover and a rape apologist. People, right or left, seem to feel compelled to let me know how horrible I am, particularly bold and passionate law students who demand I explain my awfulness so they can tell me why I’m wrong. Fun times.

But every once in a while, someone gets so incensed by my awfulness that they vet my every expression, my posts here, my twits, in search of some way in which they can shut me up and close me down. On the one hand, it’s rather endearing that anyone would go through that much effort to silence me, to “win” by canceling me. On the other, it’s a sad reflection of the state of affairs.

To my surprise, an email arrived to inform me that someone who hated me enough to search back to 2015 came up with something of sufficient awfulness to get the Twitters to act. Continue reading →