After parsing the website of young buck Maverick Ray for, let’s say, excesses, Mark Bennett found a far more concrete, and disconcerting, excess to address.  With all of his 8 months of experience, Maverick had taken on a retained death penalty case against one of the toughest prosecutors Texas can throw at a lawyer, raising the ghost of Joseph Rakofsky with one significant difference: this time, there was an opportunity to address the mistake of judgment before the harm was done.

“I am extremely trou­bled about Mr. Ray’s lack of knowl­edge and train­ing in tak­ing this case,” Weeks said. “(Cap­i­tal mur­der) is the most dif­fi­cult and inte­gral crim­i­nal case we have in this state.” Continue reading →

Let’s be clear up front: Judge Clark Waddoups of the District of Utah did not hold that anyone has a constitutional right to marry as many wives (or husbands, or cats, or chairs) as he wants.  Not even Kody Brown.  He did, however, hold in Brown v. Buhman that the Utah law criminalizing Brown’s living with a bunch of women in addition to his one lawfully wed wife was unconstitutional.

And for that Jonathan Turley, lead counsel for Brown, is rightfully proud. This was the goal from the outset.  Dave Koppel at Volokh Conspiracy provides the best synopsis of the lengthy opinion:

Utah’s anti-bigamy ordinance has a normal provision, and an unusual provision: “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101(1) (2013). Continue reading →

Once again, marketing philosopher Seth Godin gives us something to chew on:

The obvious answer to your problem isn’t obvious yet, but once someone finds it, it will be.

That’s the way obvious answers work. They’re not obvious because they’re easy to find, they’re obvious because, in fact, there’s an answer.

There’s something inside us that needs answers.  When they aren’t forthcoming, we default:

Answers: $1

Correct Answers: $5

Sure, it’s an old joke, but it’s funny because it reflects experience. Continue reading →

Though Judge Jean Boyd never uttered the word during sentence, it’s come to characterize the 10 year sentence of probation, with the condition of rehabilitation at a center in Newport Beach, California at a cost of $450,000 a year, footed by his parents.  Ethan Couch caught it, affluenza.

The 16-year-old killed four people after stealing a couple of cases of beer from Wal-Mart and plowing into them in his pickup truck.  Most people would have time to reflect on this in the quiet of a cell, but not Couch.  That’s because he suffered from affluenza, the causes of which range from parental neglect to enduring a life where actions had no consequences. Money was the distinguishing feature of the disease. Continue reading →

If only we were allowed to applaud the prosecution of people we hate because, well, we hate them, the arrest and prosecution of Kevin Christopher Bollaert would be a no-brainer.  Via Eric Goldman:

The California Attorney General’s office announced the arrest of Kevin Christopher Bollaert for his role in a revenge porn scheme. Most folks are cheering the arrest for understandable reasons: revenge porn is odious, especially when victims must pay to remove content.

Bollaert’s website, UGotPosted, was a toilet. Continue reading →

There seems to be an inverse correlation between the hyperbole in a legal opinion and the correctness of the outcome.  After all, if the result could be otherwise justified, the need to overstate the case wouldn’t be there.  And the New York Court of Appeals’ 4-3 decision in Holmes v. Winter wasn’t shy:

New York has a long tradition, with roots dating back to the colonial era, of providing the utmost protection of freedom of the press.

* * *

[T]here is no principle more fundamental or well-established than the right of a reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source.

None? One might think a defendant’s due process and right to defend is pretty fundamental and well-established, but neither gets a mention. Not even a nod. Continue reading →

In a dissent to the 9th Circuit’s refusal to rehear en banc the appeal in United States v. Olsen, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, joined by Judges Pregerson, Reinhardt, Thomas and Watford, opens with this sentence:

There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it.

The opinion, which goes on for another 16 pages, just gets better and better.  After struggling to find a way to excerpt it in order to add commentary, I realized that it was far more important to read Judge Kozinski than me, and so I demur to comment for now, and ask you to take the time to read the dissent.  It is devastating. It is real.  It touches on so many aspects of systemic failure that undermines the efficacy of our beloved system that it is absolutely worthy of your time to read.

Here is the original panel decision.

Here is the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc.

Update:  The good news is that Judge Kopf, finished with his trial in beautiful Sioux Falls, has discovered Judge Kozinski’s dissent.  The bad news is that he didn’t discover it here, but rather from Howard Bashman (who can’t be bothered with the criminal law blawgosphere). The good news is that Bashman linked to Radley Balko’s HuffPo post, which is good news since it gets this information out to a mainstream audience that would otherwise never see it.

I look forward to Judge Kopf thoughts on the dissent.

Lexblog CEO, Kevin O’Keefe, who keeps track of such things because that’s how he makes his living, recently estimated that there are still only 2-5% of lawyers who are really active online. I would add that most are young, inclined to be active because they’re digital natives. The rest dabble a bit at best.

At the same time, there is no denying that people in need of legal services search online. It’s a foolish and terrible way to find a lawyer, but people often do foolish and terrible things as long as it’s easy. Finding a lawyer online is easy; type “criminal lawyer” into a search engine and see what pops up.

The results provide three things: Continue reading →

One of the voices in the blawgosphere that frequently comes in useful as a test of sanity is Georgetown Law School adjunct prawf Bill Otis, formerly Chief of the Appellate Division, US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and a host of other cool government posts.  Whenever one’s views align with Bill’s, it’s a clear sign that you need to stop binge drinking.

At Crime & Consequences, sponsored by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Bill takes on the annoying and persistent harangue that sending a person to prison is such a big deal.

Going to Prison Will Ruin Your Life Continue reading →

Ever mindful of the holiday season, the United States Department of Justice has created the perfect gift for good little boys and girls!  A book filled with cool puzzles, games and pictures to color.  And while having fun, fun, fun, they can learn a little about cool federal courts too!

On page 6, for example, the book offers this (click on image for a larger version):

Continue reading →