I was an early adopter. I know, hard to believe, but true. I bought my first computer in the mid-1980’s, a 286 with ten MB of memory. The computer guy, because everybody who bought a computer used a computer guy back then, told me I would never use up that much memory.

The 286 replaced a word processor, which in turn replaced my beloved IBM Selectric III. It was a miracle to see what I was writing before it permanently hit the 20 lb. Esquire Bond. The trauma of carbon paper typos was over. Continue reading →

For criminal defense lawyers, Supreme Court decisions are big things. What seems to others like a smallish change in the law, one way or another, can mean thousands of people getting orange jumpsuits rather than “welcome home” parties. Sure, it depends on lower court judges actually knowing and following the law, but that’s a story for another day.

Linda Greenhouse makes a significant point in her New York Times column about no one’s favorite justice, Sam Alito. Sam who?  Well, of course we lawyers know all about him, right?  Right? Well, at least criminal defense lawyers know that the former Third Circuit judge, Continue reading →

Make popcorn. No, that’s not right. Get a sixpack. Closer, but still not right. I know, pull out your yellow pad and a pen, and take notes. The documentary, Scenes of a Crime, tells a story you need to hear.*

The movie centers around the creation of a case against Adrian Thomas, whose 4 month old baby was initially, and it would appear mistakenly, diagnosed as having a skull fracture caused by abuse that would inevitably lead to his death. Thomas was subject to ten hours of interrogation based upon this assumption, that his child would die from his crime, Continue reading →

It was huge news, as it should have been. The headline in the Washington Post read, “Juror B29, ‘Maddy,’ says ‘Zimmerman got away with murder’.”  Wow. Except as William Saletan writes in Slate, that’s not quite what she said.

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed Continue reading →

One of the perils when a flack pitches a story to the blawgosphere is that it may not be as fabulously received as they hope. This happened here when an email from a Washington Post flack arrived extolling an op-ed that addressed The Question. You know The Question:

How can you represent those people?

It’s a question that has been addressed a million times over, whether at a cocktail party, on a blawg, or in the media. It’s always been Continue reading →

The story out of Fort Worth doesn’t demand much by way of commentary, but needs to be known nonetheless. From the Star-Telegram:

Police officers responding to a burglary alarm call went to the wrong house because of poor lighting and fatally shot an armed homeowner, according to a search warrant affidavit released Wednesday.

Officers B.B. Hanlon and R.P. Hoeppner were dispatched to 409 Havenwood Lane at 12:51 a.m. Continue reading →

One of the dirty little secrets of the legal academy is that few of the thousands of scholarly articles they churn out on the backs of law students’ tuition find their way into the law.  Many are never written for that purpose, and serve only to provide fodder for the tenure committee to prove their scholarly worthiness as a brilliant theoretician, destined to be read by a grand total of twelve people before being forgotten forever.

But some academics have a burning desire to leave their fingerprints on something that matters. When a lawprof’s name ends up in a Supreme Court footnote, Continue reading →

No, not a refund for a conviction, which would tantamount to a contingency fee, but a refund upon discharge. John Wesley Hall notes a decision out of North Dakota, Disciplinary Board v. Hoffman, where an attorney was ordered to refund  the “unearned” portion of a fee upon discharge.

A criminal defense lawyer did not violate ethics rules by charging a flat rate $30,000 fee and depositing it in his operating account. However, when the client terminated the relationship (previously firing another lawyer before this one because he was a “flitter”) Continue reading →

The scenario is well known amongst criminal defense lawyers. A defendant arrives to retain legal services, having more than sufficient assets to hire counsel of choice. A deal is struck and a check is written. Counsel gears up, ready to use everything in his power to defend his client, then poof, the check bounces. Not for insufficient funds. Not because the defendant stops payment. Nope.

Because the government has obtained a restraining order freezing the defendant’s assets. It’s not for lack of money, the funds are all there. It’s because the government says Continue reading →

The trick often played in federal court is wrapping up innocuous observations under the “totality of the circumstances” test of Illinois v. Gates.  By breaking up otherwise banal conduct into as many tiny aspects, casting each in as nefarious a tone as possible, ordinary conduct can be made to appear sufficiently stinky to give rise to reasonable suspicion to justify further police intrusion, thus making the right to be left alone a matter of rhetorical skill.

The Oregon Court of Appeals refused to play that game in Oregon v Alvarado, where the defendant was stopped for speeding and a missing front license plate.  After going through the usual traffic ticket stuff, Continue reading →