It came as a shock when Harvard lawprof Jeanie Suk took to the New Yorker to explain that law professors were now afraid to teach rape law for fear of breaking the fragile teacups.

But asking students to challenge each other in discussions of rape law has become so difficult that teachers are starting to give up on the subject. About a dozen new teachers of criminal law at multiple institutions have told me that they are not including rape law in their courses, arguing that it’s not worth the risk of complaints of discomfort by students.

So when, a few years hence, you ponder why your lawyer doesn’t seem to have a clue what the law is, you know why. But rape law is rather specific, even if it should be part of the curriculum.  What about an issue that’s far more pervasive, far more fundamental, to criminal law: eyewitness identification?  Via David Lat at Above the Law*:

Here’s what one source told us about Indiana Law professor Aviva Orenstein’s ill-advised attempt to teach a lesson about eyewitness identification: Continue reading →

The inbox contained one of those emails that makes you shake your head.  From Ohio lawyer Dean Boland with a history of incredibly poor choices.  He added one more to the list.

 Mr. Greenfield:

Your article at this link contains false and defamatory statements that I am demanding be revised or the entire article removed.

By way of summary, you cite to a Wired article and quote as follows:  “Boland was an expert witness for the defense in a half-dozen child porn cases and made the mock-ups to punctuate his argument that child pornography laws are unconstitutionally overbroad because they could apply to faked photos.” Continue reading →

It was huge when Northwestern Law School, now with Pritzker added, announced that it would be offering a two-year accelerated J.D. program.  Not so huge was Northwestern’s shutting the program down because it failed.  This isn’t so much to fault the school for coming up with a new idea, particularly given the atmosphere at the time which strongly suggested that the third year of law school was a waste, and the debt burden was inexcusable.

But good rationales don’t make things work. The idea had a good rationale. And didn’t work.

The other day, an email from Brian Tannebaum contained a link to Steph Kimbro’s post explaining that she’s had enough.

I’ve been suspiciously quiet over the past several months. I stopped posting on social media as much as I used to and am no longer providing talks to legal organizations. Speaking at the ABA Techshow in the spring after the release of the second edition of my Virtual Law Practice book was my last speaking gig for awhile. (Bowing out to a standing-room only talk is not a bad way to go.)

Continue reading →

Was it “historic” that President Barack Obama mentioned a twitter hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter?  So DeRay McKesson says.

President Obama’s unprompted defense of BlackLivesMatter was powerful given the context — he defended the movement to an audience consisting primarily of law enforcement leaders. 

Then again, he didn’t actually “defend the movement” so much as warn it.

What could that mean, “take seriously the job police have”?  FBI Director Jim Comey is there to translate his boss’ words. Continue reading →

Before getting into anything of substance, let’s be clear up front: there was never going to be any reform. Not real reform. It was just a show to pacify the unwary, with a tweak here and there to give it the smell of change. So there wasn’t much to lose, as there was nothing really at risk.

But any decent Broadway play runs for a while. This one closed almost immediately after opening night. When Tyrone Howard allegedly murdered NYPD Officer Randolph Holder, the producers had all they needed to shut it down. When PBG Officer Nouman Raja shot Corey Jones dead on the side of the road, no one cared. Everyone was too busy applauding the reform show to notice.

They won the public. The show worked, and better still, they had a dead cop to put on their victory flag and march around. Continue reading →

As Fault Lines continues its growth, in readership, depth and influence, it’s ready to expand again with a few new writers.  We remain dedicated to a few basic principles:

• All perspectives on the criminal justice system be represented (meaning that no, it won’t be limited to confirming your bias, no matter how much you love that).
• The voices reflect writers who know what they’re talking about. Being “passionate” isn’t enough. You need to be knowledgeable.
• You have the fortitude to express your view and take the heat that comes with it.

If you think you’ve got what it takes, then Fault Lines wants to hear from you. The last time we opened the doors to new writers, the response was nothing short of magnificent, adding some spectacular voices to a roster of some of the best writers in criminal law.  We’re ready for a few more.

So if you really do have the chops to contribute to serious discussion, there may be a place for you at Fault Lines.

There is an app called Yik Yak. How they come up with these names is beyond me, but then, old guys probably aren’t the target audience for such things, and so the name need not strike me as meaningful or appealing. And Yik Yak, apparently, has become a fixture on college campuses.

And that’s problematic.

Seventy-two women’s and civil-rights groups on Wednesday announced a campaign to enlist the federal government in pressuring colleges to protect students from harassment via anonymous social-media applications like Yik Yak.

The groups have sent the U.S. Education Department a letter calling for it to treat colleges’ failure to monitor anonymous social media and to pursue online harassers as a violation of federal civil-rights laws guaranteeing equal educational access.

Continue reading →

Over the past few days, criminal law reform has become a darling of discussion, with the Senate Judiciary Committee approving its bipartisan compromise, the prosecutors and head cops responsible for over-incarceration forming a cool club to pretend they’re going to save us from it, and a panel discussion with the President of the United States explaining how we’re going to fix everything, provided no cop gets a paper cut in the process.

Never has there been a bigger dog and pony show of empty rhetoric so carefully orchestrated to pacify public concerns by feeding them a heaping, steaming pile of bullshit. Sure, there will be some tiny changes, where the low hanging fruit is plucked so our law enforcement heroes can prove how much they care, and pat themselves on the back for being so reform-y that they’ll sprain something.

As anticipated, there is no front page story in today’s New York Times about how everything changed at 100 Centre Street yesterday, now that New York’s heroes of reform have changed everything.  Of course, that could be attributed to President Obama, who explained that it will take a long time, baby steps really, to make changes while making sure public safety isn’t compromised.  Continue reading →

It must be hard for a company with its finger on the pulse of every narcissistic teeny-bopper desperate for validation by “likes” to have to figure out a stance to take with regard to grown-up issues. After all, if they fail to cater to the feelz of their customers, they might all run away to the next shiny thing and leave Mark Zuckerberg feeling awful about dropping out of Harvard.

What then to do when asked about the federal revenge porn law that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) has been announcing, over and over, is coming?

Facebook is backing the criminalization of so-called revenge porn but has yet to take a public position on broader draft legislation in Congress.

So you’re all in for criminalizing it? Or not?

“I haven’t seen the federal legislation, so I am loath to comment on the federal legislation,” [Antigone Davis, Facebook’s head of global safety] told reporters after a presentation about Facebook’s projects and products dedicated to enhancing the “social good.”

Continue reading →

Having done the unthinkable, and posted a press release in its entirety from a group that has given itself the less-than-humble name of “Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration,” I awaited the fallout. It didn’t take long.

The New York Times editorial didn’t fail to disappoint (or surprise).

In a news conference on Wednesday, officials who have spent their careers fighting crime stood up to say that too often, the aggressive approach has only made matters worse. “It’s really clear that we can reduce crime and at the same time reduce incarceration rates,” Garry McCarthy, Chicago’s police chief, said.

Chicago? The Chicago with a secret interrogation facility at Homan Square where people go in and come out dead? Where lawyers are denied access to clients? Where the cops deny they’ve taken suspects?  That Chicago? Sure, McCarthy is the perfect spokesman for reform. Continue reading →