Within minutes, the “Gaza Ministry of Health,” which is Hamas with a legitimate sounding name as Hamas is the only government in town in Gaza, announced that Israel bombed Al Alhi Hospital, killing 200-300.

Upon seeing this, one tragedy was obvious. The deaths of hundreds in a hospital was horrifying, regardless of who dropped the bomb. But Israel? That made no sense. It advanced no interest, legitimate or otherwise, and was ridiculously counterproductive as it would enrage the world and cause a seismic shift against Israel. It would be crazy to target a hospital, and Israel’s weapons were exact enough that, while it was possible that it was a mistake or accident, it seemed highly unlikely. Continue reading →

Berkeley law prof Steven Davidoff Solomon wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal warning prospective legal employers not to hire “some” of his students if they “don’t want to hire people who advocate hate and practice discrimination.”

If a student endorses hate, dehumanization or anti-Semitism, don’t hire him…. If you are a legal employer, when you interview students from Berkeley, Harvard, NYU or any other law school this year, ask them what organizations they belong to. Ask if they support discriminatory bylaws or other acts and resolutions blaming Jews and Israelis for the Hamas massacre. If a student endorses hatred, it isn’t only your right but your duty not to hire him. Do you want your clients represented by someone who condones these monstrous crimes?

Continue reading →

There are two basic rationales for imposing a gag order on a criminal defendant, to prevent him from intimidating witnesses against him and to preserve the integrity of the proceedings by preventing improper influence of the jury pool. But then, rarely is a criminal defendant a  serious candidate for public office. What’s a judge to do?

“They put a gag order on me, and I’m not supposed to be talking about things that bad people do, and so we’ll be appealing very quickly,” Mr. Trump said on Monday at a campaign stop in Iowa. He added, “I’ll be the only politician in history where I won’t be allowed to criticize people.”

Continue reading →

When cellphone cameras and video became ubiquitous and police body cams became the norm, video revealed much of what had been adamantly denied. Cops sometimes did bad, and sometimes horrible, things. Those who slept comfortably knowing that all police officers were mutations of Andy Griffith had a rude awakening, judges included. But the aftermath of the Hamas terrorist attack suggests that the “truth” videos once revealed have both spoiled people and given people an excuse not to believe any source if they can’t see it with their own eyes.

But there’s more: Even if they do see it, they still don’t have to believe it because of deep fakes, contextless video and the now-ubiquitous “aftermath” video which supposedly proves that an unseen preceding narrative is proved by what’s left behind. Continue reading →

From the New York Times to many well-meaning friends on the twitters, the cry is for Israel to “show restraint” and obey the rules of law. And who could disagree with such thoughtful and humanitarian advice? But what does it mean?

Reasonable people can also oppose other measures that Israelis have taken in response to the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It seems neither right nor smart for Israel to cut off water and electricity to Gaza until Hamas’s hostages are returned — not because Israel shouldn’t do whatever it takes to obtain their release but because the people who suffer most from the action are the ones who have the least say over the fate of the hostages. Hamas’s leaders, I’m sure, have amply supplied themselves and their forces with fuel, generators, potable water and other essentials. Continue reading →

Harry Kalven knew something about free speech when he defended Lenny Bruce, so it made sense when the president of the University of Chicago charged him with heading a committee to figure out what the proper role of a university should be in addressing social and political issues.

Chaired by Harry Kalven, Jr. — a leading First Amendment scholar, and the attorney who successfully defended comedian Lenny Bruce against Illinois obscenity charges — the committee produced the Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action (the “Kalven Report”). The report’s central conclusion was that neutrality is necessary to maintain a university’s fidelity to its core mission: “the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.”

Continue reading →

Was it a matter of academic freedom or just an instructor who sided with Hamas using his authority to teach the Jewish students a lesson?

An instructor at Stanford University has been suspended for what the president and provost called “identity-based targeting” of students in connection with the Israel-Gaza war.

Rabbi Dov Greenberg, director of the Chabad Stanford Jewish Center, said he was told by three students who were in the room that the instructor asked Jewish and Israeli students to identify themselves during a session for a required undergraduate course called “Civil, Liberal and Global Education.” Continue reading →

As president of the Student Bar Association at NYU law school, Ryna Workman* has her say.

Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Chris Halkides has been kind enough to try to make us lawyers smarter by dumbing down science enough that we have a small chance of understanding how it’s being used to wrongfully convict and, in some cases, execute defendants. Chris graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and teaches biochemistry, organic chemistry, and forensic chemistry at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

The efficacy of marijuana testing is a very significant problem. Without an appreciation of how and why drug tests produce false positive, and how to argue against them, they become a “black box” that we simply assume to be correct for lack of the knowledge to challenge. Chris explains what we, as lawyers, generally fail to understand so we can more effectively defend our clients. Continue reading →

In October, 2022, a new federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 6851, went into effect that provided for both a civil cause of action by a “revenge porn” victim and the right of the victim to proceed pseudonymously. In the case of Doe v. Crawford, the defendant moved to seal with entire record because, he alleged, his defense would require both the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity and intimate details of their relationship.

By design, claims brought under this statute concern intimate, personal and private evidence. Further, because of the sensitive subject matter, § 6851 allows plaintiffs to use a pseudonym to protect their privacy. The use of a pseudonym is subject to the discretion and injunction power of the Court. Here, Doe has chosen to use a pseudonym, expressing her desire to remain anonymous. Continue reading →