In a comment to a post that was uncontroversial to experienced criminal defense lawyers, but less so to others, Charles Morrison wrote:

You are about to read something you are (probably) unused to seeing here: you are right. You have convinced me that a regulatory scheme that differentiates between attorneys is a bad idea.  I’m willing to admit that my initial inclination is wrong after having considered arguments.

I don’t know who Charles Morrison is. Continue reading →

Most of the time, videos here involve a cop doing wrong.  It invariably brings a bunch of comments with words like thuggery and brutality, often accompanied by such brilliant insight about how all cops are evil and deserve to have harm come to them. You wouldn’t know about such comments, as I trash them. They do nothing to illuminate a meaningful issue and reflect the simplistic anger that many have toward the police.

But on the occasion when a cop keeps his cool, even in the face of jerks with cameras who are trying to goad the officer or too blind to recognize that their own bias and cop-hatred prevents them from making fools of themselves, it’s worth showing as well. Continue reading →

When a student has special needs, there are two things that run through a school administrator’s head: it’s going to cost money and it’s going to require someone to exert some effort. Neither of these things makes an administrator happy, but good schools are resigned to their duty to provide a Free and Public Education.  Others demonstrate little to no grasp of what that means.

In the case of 5-year-old Michael Davis, who suffered from ADHD with behavioral issues, his IEP should have included a behavioral intervention plan, an individualized means of addressing the behavioral issues raised by special needs students to manage problems, address negative and support positive behaviors. It’s hard work.  Instead, the Rio Calaveras Elementary in Stockton, California decided to try the hammer method first. Continue reading →

After parsing the website of young buck Maverick Ray for, let’s say, excesses, Mark Bennett found a far more concrete, and disconcerting, excess to address.  With all of his 8 months of experience, Maverick had taken on a retained death penalty case against one of the toughest prosecutors Texas can throw at a lawyer, raising the ghost of Joseph Rakofsky with one significant difference: this time, there was an opportunity to address the mistake of judgment before the harm was done.

“I am extremely trou­bled about Mr. Ray’s lack of knowl­edge and train­ing in tak­ing this case,” Weeks said. “(Cap­i­tal mur­der) is the most dif­fi­cult and inte­gral crim­i­nal case we have in this state.” Continue reading →

Let’s be clear up front: Judge Clark Waddoups of the District of Utah did not hold that anyone has a constitutional right to marry as many wives (or husbands, or cats, or chairs) as he wants.  Not even Kody Brown.  He did, however, hold in Brown v. Buhman that the Utah law criminalizing Brown’s living with a bunch of women in addition to his one lawfully wed wife was unconstitutional.

And for that Jonathan Turley, lead counsel for Brown, is rightfully proud. This was the goal from the outset.  Dave Koppel at Volokh Conspiracy provides the best synopsis of the lengthy opinion:

Utah’s anti-bigamy ordinance has a normal provision, and an unusual provision: “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101(1) (2013). Continue reading →

Once again, marketing philosopher Seth Godin gives us something to chew on:

The obvious answer to your problem isn’t obvious yet, but once someone finds it, it will be.

That’s the way obvious answers work. They’re not obvious because they’re easy to find, they’re obvious because, in fact, there’s an answer.

There’s something inside us that needs answers.  When they aren’t forthcoming, we default:

Answers: $1

Correct Answers: $5

Sure, it’s an old joke, but it’s funny because it reflects experience. Continue reading →

Though Judge Jean Boyd never uttered the word during sentence, it’s come to characterize the 10 year sentence of probation, with the condition of rehabilitation at a center in Newport Beach, California at a cost of $450,000 a year, footed by his parents.  Ethan Couch caught it, affluenza.

The 16-year-old killed four people after stealing a couple of cases of beer from Wal-Mart and plowing into them in his pickup truck.  Most people would have time to reflect on this in the quiet of a cell, but not Couch.  That’s because he suffered from affluenza, the causes of which range from parental neglect to enduring a life where actions had no consequences. Money was the distinguishing feature of the disease. Continue reading →

If only we were allowed to applaud the prosecution of people we hate because, well, we hate them, the arrest and prosecution of Kevin Christopher Bollaert would be a no-brainer.  Via Eric Goldman:

The California Attorney General’s office announced the arrest of Kevin Christopher Bollaert for his role in a revenge porn scheme. Most folks are cheering the arrest for understandable reasons: revenge porn is odious, especially when victims must pay to remove content.

Bollaert’s website, UGotPosted, was a toilet. Continue reading →

There seems to be an inverse correlation between the hyperbole in a legal opinion and the correctness of the outcome.  After all, if the result could be otherwise justified, the need to overstate the case wouldn’t be there.  And the New York Court of Appeals’ 4-3 decision in Holmes v. Winter wasn’t shy:

New York has a long tradition, with roots dating back to the colonial era, of providing the utmost protection of freedom of the press.

* * *

[T]here is no principle more fundamental or well-established than the right of a reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source.

None? One might think a defendant’s due process and right to defend is pretty fundamental and well-established, but neither gets a mention. Not even a nod. Continue reading →

In a dissent to the 9th Circuit’s refusal to rehear en banc the appeal in United States v. Olsen, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, joined by Judges Pregerson, Reinhardt, Thomas and Watford, opens with this sentence:

There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it.

The opinion, which goes on for another 16 pages, just gets better and better.  After struggling to find a way to excerpt it in order to add commentary, I realized that it was far more important to read Judge Kozinski than me, and so I demur to comment for now, and ask you to take the time to read the dissent.  It is devastating. It is real.  It touches on so many aspects of systemic failure that undermines the efficacy of our beloved system that it is absolutely worthy of your time to read.

Here is the original panel decision.

Here is the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc.

Update:  The good news is that Judge Kopf, finished with his trial in beautiful Sioux Falls, has discovered Judge Kozinski’s dissent.  The bad news is that he didn’t discover it here, but rather from Howard Bashman (who can’t be bothered with the criminal law blawgosphere). The good news is that Bashman linked to Radley Balko’s HuffPo post, which is good news since it gets this information out to a mainstream audience that would otherwise never see it.

I look forward to Judge Kopf thoughts on the dissent.