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 →

This year’s Emmy for Writing in a Variety Special went to Hannah Gadsby’s Netflix special “Nanette.” If you haven’t seen “Nanette,” critics will tell you to drop everything and go view it immediately. It is a rare feat to reach a critic score of “100% Certified Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes, and “Nanette” holds that honor as well.

Curiously, over a thousand people who saw Nanette took the time to leave a review on Rotten Tomatoes. While forty six critics gave “Nanette” a “100% Certified Fresh” rating, the 1,290 audience reviewers panned it with a 27% rating overall.

Let’s compare this year’s crowned comedic champion with a recently released special by veteran funnyman Dave Chappelle. Seventeen critics panned “Sticks & Stones” with a total rating of 35%, while 37,739 audience reviewers currently have it sitting at an overall 99% positive score. Continue reading →

Have a legal question? Want it answered free of charge? Well, it’s 2019 and the internet is a thing, so there’s no shortage of websites that will let you have just that. Countless areas exist for people to anonymously ask their legal question in the hopes lawyers will answer it. In many cases, on some sites, real lawyers actually will.

It doesn’t matter that the lawyer you’re posing a criminal defense question to primarily practices bankruptcy or property law. As long as they have a bar card, some sites will call them qualified, let them respond to you inquiry and tempt the poor schmuck who dared pen a response to your question to offer you a free consultation for their time and effort.

It’s Friday, and it’s time to get a laugh in, so for this week’s Funny I’ve culled a selection of free legal questions from various sites and I’m going to answer them. Horribly. Before I go any further, I want it clear that none of this is actual legal advice. This is the Friday Funny, and I already mentioned I’m answering these questions horribly. If you read this and then take one iota of my answers seriously, go get your head examined. Continue reading →

Obviously, I take no position on whether President Trump should or should not be impeached. Even if I had a position, I would not reveal it. But I am intrigued by the fact that the Chief Justice of the United States becomes the Presiding officer in such a trial pursuant to Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution. That is:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

(Emphasis added.)

But, what does “preside” mean? 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 →