The words would be harsh in a Reddit comment:

The best way to think about it is to ask yourself this question: “Am I a willing judicial executioner, a person who consciously does great harm to other human beings by faithfully executing the extraordinarily harsh national criminal laws?”

The job to which these words apply is United States District Judge.  The author of these words is a United States District Judge.  Not just any judge, mind you, but Richard Kopf of the District of Nebraska, now on senior status having been appointed by President Bush in 1992. Continue reading →

Given the regularity of videos shown here and elsewhere of police misconduct and abuse, it seems fair to offer a video created by Police One of Roy Bedard, a 25-year veteran who has gone into television and video consulting as an “expert.”

Regardless of your perspective, it’s interesting and informative to hear Bedard’s views.

Continue reading →

Over at Nancy Grace’s favorite blog, Crime & Consequences, my old pal Bill Otis is busy inventing the “future of law” defenses for us.  While it’s very thoughtful of Otis to put in so much time and effort on our behalf, it’s like the judge interrupting cross to question the prosecution’s main witness; if you’ve going to do it, at least do a decent job of it.

In a post cutely entitled “Criminal Defense, The Bracket Game,” Otis writes:

No, I did not say, “Criminal Defense, the Racket Game.” That wouldn’t be very nice. Continue reading →

What was going through Lakeland, Florida, Police Officer Dustin Fetz’s mind when he pulled over a car with a broken headlight isn’t clear.  But what happened afterward was very clear, caught on dashcam in case there was any question.

Via Huffington Post: Continue reading →

A few months ago, I got a call from a very sweet lawyer. I won’t give you her name unless she tells me it’s okay, or reveals herself in the comments, because it wasn’t a telephone call for public consumption, though it wasn’t any big secret either.  She was frustrated and angry and needed to vent.

Her problem was that her non-lawyer friends, otherwise similarly nice, intelligent, lovely people, would talk about legal issues, and particularly criminal justice issues, and be completely, utterly clueless.  They were simplistic in their understanding. They were harsh in their judgment. But what drove this lawyer nuts was that they didn’t want to learn better. Continue reading →

While the ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education produced remarkably little of substance when it comes to actually fixing anything, it did throw out a few nuggets to keep tongues wagging.  One such nugget was the creation of “limited licensed technicians.”

However, there is today, and there will increasingly be in the future, a need for: (a)persons who are qualified to provide limited law-related services without the oversight of a lawyer; (b) a system for licensing of individuals competent to provide such services; and (c) educational programs that train individuals to provide those limited services. The new system of training and licensing limited practice officers developed by Washington State and now being pursued by others is an example and a positive contribution. Continue reading →

A friend of mine, a senior federal judge, explained to me simply that he was never going to make the Supremes, had life tenure, and if he couldn’t use his position to do the right thing, he had wasted it.  He didn’t start out that way as an ambitious judge, but figured it out along the way in time to make it matter.

Orin Kerr remarked that a “courageous” judicial decision is one that “stretches the law but nicely matches the observer’s policy preferences.”  Bill Otis has questioned whether the same “courage” would be praised had the judge deemed the “right thing” to be a substantially harsher sentence, ignoring law and guidelines to mete out severe punishment if that was what the judge decided proper. Continue reading →

Kids do dopey things, and what better place to do them than on the internet! Whether it’s some embarrassing nonsense of their really fun Friday night on their Facebook wall or a photo of them engaged in semi-naked, alcohol-fueled conduct that a future employer might find questionable, it all ends online. Welcome to the virtual world of digital natives.

So who, except the most heartless cretin, would deny an immature youth the opportunity for a Mulligan, a do-over, to clean up all the stupid crap he posted as a child so that it doesn’t follow him around for the rest of his life?  An “eraser” of youthful foolishness, if you will. Continue reading →

When the Supreme Court decided that the duty to explain immigration consequences fell not on the judge taking the plea, but on defense counsel in Padilla v. Kentucky, it was a trap in the making.  Not that any half-competent lawyer wouldn’t do his best to make his client fully informed anyway, but do what, exactly?  How hard could it be to explain immigration consequences to a defendant taking a plea?

The 5th Circuit in United States v. Ramirez demonstrates just how hard it can be, at least if you want to get it right. Continue reading →

Jamison Koehler posts about a CLE he attended that included a breakout session on the cross of the chemist.

[Presenter Ed] Shacklee was talking about how intimidating it can be for a non-scientist to cross-examine a government chemist.  Sometimes we also have to deal with a cranky judge who is annoyed with us for dragging the whole thing out:  The test shows that it was a controlled substance.  Why are you wasting all of our time?

But it can and should be done. Continue reading →