Some people in Columbia, Missouri, were unhappy to see a grand, old house denuded of its grand, old trees, and so they made a bit of a fuss about it.

“Can you do a story about the owner who cut down all the old trees and created a wasteland in his front yard?” Sarah Grim asked. “I cannot drive on Stewart now, as it is too awful to see.” Continue reading →

While most lawyers spend their non-case-related writing and thinking time on legal issues, there is a surprising number of academics who concern themselves with happiness.  Sometimes it’s the happiness of our clients, for whom they blame us for our failure to deliver therapeutic justice because we’re so busy being adversarial:

The crux of the problem is this: what do lawyers practicing in accordance with the prescriptions of therapeutic jurisprudence, comprehensive law, or comprehensive justice do when a client’s actual best interests are at odds with what traditional adversarial legal representation assumes?

After all, shouldn’t we be more attuned to an academic’s view of our clients’ “actual best interest” than winning their case? Continue reading →

On August 28, 1963, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his iconic “I have a dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It included these oft-repeated words:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

While it’s easy to see the color of skin, it’s hard to see the content of character.  Things have improved somewhat, with a president whose skin color is darker than that of white Americans, with dark-skinned men and women on television and in academia.  Things haven’t changed all that much, with black kids stopped on the street by the millions and presumed to be thieves in the finest stores. Continue reading →

The saga of Crystal Cox continues for the time being, as the 9th Circuit correctly rules that Judge Marco Hernandez neglected to include neglect in his instruction to the jury.  Ken White at Popehat has graciously provided a remarkably thorough post about the saga to date, including footnotes and an appendix of the many federal suits she has sought to commence against the better part of humanity.

And Ken makes the only salient point to be made of this otherwise hot mess: that a robust First Amendment can withstand the rantings of one more crazy while providing the protections that would apply to everyone else.  And that means bloggers, but it also means anyone and everyone else who chooses to express themselves publicly. Continue reading →

One of the great joys of sitting on an appellate bench is that one is never compelled to accept as fact things that were hashed out at enormous length and effort before the trial court.  As Appellate Squawk likes to point out, facts are for kids. But a wave of reality swept over the Second Circuit, compelling them to do the unthinkable: reject the government’s allegations as “unreasonable.”

In United States v. Clark, the defendant, following some drinking at Gonzo’s Bar in Lockport, New York (I swear I didn’t make up the name of the bar), was arrested for being in the vicinity after a fight occurred. He was arrested, searched and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser. His hands were cuffed behind his back.  He was left alone in the back seat for five to ten minutes, then taken out of the cruiser after a one-minute ride to the police station. Continue reading →

The call was for a medical emergency, the “public safety” function of police that transcends their law enforcement function.  But neither function nor purpose transcends the First Rule of Policing, as 50-year-old CUNY physics and math professor Karl Anders Peltomaa learned.  From the Gothamist:

Peltomaa had a bad reaction to medication he was taking (he had undergone open-heart surgery a few days earlier). [Peltomaa’s wife, anthropology professor Suzanne]  LaFont called 911, telling them they needed an ambulance and her husband was “freaking out,” worried about his heart.

The couples’ dog escaped the apartment when Officer Anthony Giambra first arrived; LaFont chased after the dog, and when she returned, she found her husband inexplicably against a wall being handcuffed. Continue reading →

The verdict was stunning:

Two former police officers were acquitted of all charges Monday in the 2011 beating death of a homeless man at a Fullerton, Calif., transit station.

It took a single day of deliberations for jurors to reach their verdicts regarding the culpability of former Fullerton Officer Manuel Ramos and former Cpl. Jay Cicinelli in the death of 37-year-old Kelly Thomas.

As if to add insult to injury, the beating was somewhat captured on video, and he died five days later.  Calling for his dad to help him as he was tased and beaten was more than most people could stand.  And yet, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Continue reading →

In what should not be, but is, an earth-shattering decision, the Second Circuit did the unthinkable. In the en banc decision in Poventud v. City of New York, the court held that a defendant who had been denied Brady with a reasonable probability of having affected the outcome of his case could maintain a §1983 action even though he subsequently took a plea of convenience.

Poventud served nine years out of a ten to 20 year sentence before his conviction for attempted murder was reversed.  It was learned during the retrial of a co-defendant that a key witness identified another person as the shooter, but that this exculpatory information was not disclosed.  After his conviction was vacated, he was offered a plea to one year, which would preclude a prosecution appeal of the reversal or retrial. It means time served, and he would walk out. Poventud took the deal. Continue reading →

I haven’t always been kind to the Future of the #ReinventLaw of the New Normal crowd, sometimes calling their much adored baby ugly. Or worse.

But Bitter Lawyer’s Gregory Luce surreptitiously recorded this telephone call in the future, which helps to explain my reluctance to jump aboard the train.  I apologize for the inconvenience.

Please be advised that this conversation may be
recorded for quality control and training purposes.

WWL: It’s a great day at WorldWiide Legal Services, where we  always have two “i’s” on your legal issue. My name is  Darby and I’ll be your Legal Ninja today. Welcome,  how can we help you?

THOMPSON: Uh, did you say Ninja? Continue reading →

Steven Lechner had a rough start to his oral argument in the fascinating case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States before the Supreme Court.  As it turned out, he did pretty well after that, but Justice Nino Scalia threw him off his game at the outset. From Tony Mauro at the Blog of Legal Times:

By all accounts, it was an excruciating moment at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A nervous first-time advocate began his argument by reading from a prepared statement, until the never-shy Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted and asked: “Counsel, you are not reading this, are you?” The lawyer, Steven Lechner, froze and did not answer, staying silent until Justice Stephen Breyer broke the tension with these words: “It’s all right.”

It’s not that one can’t sympathize with Lechner. Continue reading →