He’s back.  Rumors of Judge Richard Kopf’s blog being deader than Generalissimo Francisco Franco turn out to be somewhat exaggerated.  I say “somewhat” because the judge’s health isn’t all it should be, but all expectations are that he will be back to sentencing in no time, and I wish him a speedy and full recovery.

That said, it hasn’t stopped the judge from issuing a challenge, though it was to Doug Berman rather than me.  But with some gentle criminal defense lawyer persuasion, the judge was kind enough to let me play too.  Or as he said, “game on?”

His doc was from Denver, and the judge has cancer, which naturally led to a discussion about Colorado’s legalization of marijuana.

[W]e had a fascinating discussion about legalizing marijuana in Colorado and some of the unintended consequences of Colorado’s idiotic (my view) pot policy. Continue reading →

Much as it may surprise some, I read marketing guru Seth Godin’s posts every day.   While it may be occasionally trivial or self-serving, Godin often provides significant insight into the meaning of service. As law is a service we provide to clients, we ought to always be concerned with how we can better perform our services. And since we, as consumers as well as lawyers, enjoy or suffer at the hands of those whose services we use, we ought to be concerned with what we are getting and why.

Godin writes a “what people really want” post, which serves as a generic counterpoint to the post about what criminal defense lawyers really do.

Most of the time, people don’t want a refund or a bonus. What they really want is for you to hear them and to do the right thing. What if every manager and every customer contact in your organization bought into that? Continue reading →

An avalanche of amici have arrived in the two cellphone cases coming before the Supreme Court in April, Wurie and Riley.  As previously discussed, these cases present an opportunity for the Court to impact the future of privacy, either by creating the foundation for distinguishing technology from historic 4th Amendment precedent that no longer applies, extending that precedent by failing to address the fundamental distinction between the digital world and the physical world, or splitting the baby.

Here are the amici briefs of which I’m currently aware. If there are others, regardless of side, please let me know and I’ll add them in: Continue reading →

It clearly wasn’t his purpose, but the representative from the 8th Congressional district of Washington, Dave Reichert, made the case against the death penalty.  In an op-ed in the Seattle Times, he planned to rip Gov. Jay Inslee’s execution moratorium a new one. Reichert, you see, had a real job before becoming a congressman:

As a King County Sheriff’s deputy and homicide detective, he was the lead detective of the Green River Task Force. He served as sheriff from 1997 until 2005.

Drawing on his experience as lead in the Green River Task Force, Reichert explained:

Gary Ridgeway is the monster we arrested as the Green River killer in 2001. He would eventually plead guilty to 49 counts of murder although he has claimed that he raped and murdered 20 to 30 more young women. Continue reading →

While much of the discussion surrounding the parody video by Daniel Muessig was about how awesome/awful the video was, a snarky secondary issue arose from its content: Finally, someone understands what criminals want from their lawyer.

Mark Draughn, the WindyPundit, left this comment:

I do have to admire how unapologetic the ad is. I once offended a criminal defense lawyer when I offhandedly described his job as something like “Helping criminals get away with crimes.”  I understand why he objected to that characterization, because that’s not quite what he’s selling, but if I were the client (and I more or less did the crime), then that’s pretty much what I’d be looking to buy.

At Walter Olson’s Overlawyered, a commenter named David Smith wrote: Continue reading →

Having hung around with lawyers for more than 30 years, there is one thing I can assert with confidence: we’re not that interesting.  Sure, we amuse ourselves, but there is a reason why nobody thinks our “why did the chicken cross the road” joke is funny.*

Yet, in the Age of Kardashian, that doesn’t stop lawyers from fulfilling their dream of becoming a star.  First, Jamie Casino, of the most awesome lawyer commercial of January, was signed to do a reality show. No concept yet, but flaming sledgehammer. That’s a draw, right?

Now, the Connecticut Law Tribune announces another one: Continue reading →

Among the many things we take for granted as we travel through life is that the places we travel through actually exist. Obviously, they exist physically, land, trees, road, but that they exist legally. After all, every tiny inch of dirt from sea to shining see has to be governed by someone, right?

Years ago, I awoke to find that someone had parked a backhoe on the corner of my property. When I mentioned something about it in a very loud voice, the explanation was that they didn’t realize it was anyone’s property.  I responded, in an even louder voice, by asking if they really thought there was free-floating land in New York that wasn’t owned by somebody, still waiting to be claimed.

There is a ribbon of highway, a part of Route 301 in Florida, consisting of a grand total of 1,260 feet, that is owned by the city of Hampton.  That 1,260 feet of highway is Hampton’s ATM, Continue reading →

The opening line of the Daily Californian editorial was shocking:

The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable.

If it’s undeniable, then it must be so, and yet the evidence of it appears to be largely relegated to baseless statistical claims of vague and undefined offenses.  I’ve looked. I’ve asked.  There is empty rhetoric up the ying-yang, but no substance behind it.  And from that, it’s now so prevalent that it’s undeniable? Continue reading →

The post by Jonathan Adler at the WaPo Conspiracy did little more than point to another WaPo post.  Under other circumstances, that wouldn’t be surprising, as newspapers internally cross-promote all the time. But this was the remnants of the once vaunted Volokh Conspiracy, and while pointing at the writing of others was nothing new, this one was special:

Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious problem. Because prosecutors are largely immune from suit for their actions, some prosecutors take liberties, tolerate false testimony, suppress exculpatory evidence, and engage in selective prosecutions. Fortunately, we have writers like Radley Balko, who focus on these issues. His latest discusses the disturbing reaction of prosecutors to judges who criticize their conduct.

Did Adler just discover prosecutorial misconduct?  Did he just decide to take ownership of Balko (note the “we” in there)?  Does he think the readers of VC were oblivious to Brady violations, or oblivious to the writings of non-lawyers like Radley? Continue reading →

Not that it’s more than a bit self-interested, but the New York Times has an editorial celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the watershed decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. It’s entitled. It was a huge win, both for the Times and for the freedom of the press, which endures today:

The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials — even if false — as antithetical to “the central meaning of the First Amendment.” Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher — capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions, and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.

From the mainstream media to the wackiest person with a keyboard, the right to criticize public officials endures, much to their consternation, unless done with malice.  Since the courts haven’t been particularly cooperative in silencing those who reveal, real or imagined, government excess and malfeasance, government has used its fiat to accomplish what the court won’t. Continue reading →