At his blog (which is fortunately not within the ambit of the Second Circuit), Nebraska federal Judge Richard Kopf asks a “simple” question.
Should jurors in criminal or civil cases be allowed to ask questions of witnesses during trial?
There are such things as simple questions. Chocolate or vanilla? One lump or two? Continue reading
In a brief opinion, three judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse (thrown in simply for the irony) smacked Southern District of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin for telling the truth. She said:
“I don’t think I’m the favorite of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District. Because I’m independent. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Bill of Rights. These issues come up, and I take them quite seriously. I’m not afraid to rule against the government.”
If you ask the government, the Mayor of New York City or the cops, on a day when they tell the truth, they will confirm that she’s not their favorite judge. Continue reading
When Tim Cushing twitted me a link to a post called Disrupting the Legal Industry, I shrugged. Another website dedicated to promoting the blind adoration of idiotic schemes to make money off lawyers. Nothing new there. But I was wrong.
Included within the post, among the flotsam and jetsam of drivel that has no chance of either making money or achieving anything worthwhile, was a gem. A diamond. The name is at first disturbing. Lawdingo.
At Techdirt, Mike Masnick risks life and limb by posting a c-span link to an “absolutely incredible exchange between Intel Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers and law professor Stephen Vladeck.” Rogers figured he could easily outmaneuver Vladeck (and two others on the panel before the committee) with some tricky rhetoric, as Kevin Underhill explains:
In what was intended as his wrap-up question, Rogers asked each of the three panelists for a “quick yes or no answer” as to whether they thought “the government should have the ability to try to find a nexus between a foreign connection and a business record in the United States that would indicate the identity of someone who may be working with a terrorist organization.” Well, I think you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this is not a “yes-or-no” question. Continue reading
Regular readers are painfully aware of the issues that have appeared here and at Mark Bennett’s Defending People with Miami lawprof Mary Anne Franks’ revenge porn law, and more particularly with her nasty, childish and dismissive responses to anything shy of adoration.
Sadly, Mr. Bennett, I do not have endless amounts of time to read everything that people write about me or my ideas. I also do not have time to review basic principles of reading comprehension or logic with every commenter with an axe to grind.
She is so brilliant. Bennett (and I) are such lowly trench lawyers, unworthy of her time and attention. Continue reading
We met a few times in real life, but I heard from him often in emails. It was either to let me know of a story that he thought would interest me, or to tell me how wrong I was about something, or to correct my typos. You see, “Ed” stood for Editor, and he was the editor of Blawg Review.
Ed had a few rules: First, no one ever showed a picture of his face. He was anonymous, and it was his desire to stay that way. To my knowledge, no one has been so unkind as to ever post a pic of Ed. Second, everyone called him Ed. He spoke of his life, but he was still always Ed. That’s how he wanted it, and so it was respected.
When Charles Lane beat up on 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner for talking out of school, his complaint fell flat.
Yet, respect comes from the knowledge that our judges aren’t gaming the system to get to results they prefer. Respect comes from honesty and sincerity, and that comes from being truthful, both to oneself and the public. Judge Posner told the truth. That’s cause to rejoice, not complain.
But Judge Posner, apparently smarting from Lane’s spanking, couldn’t leave well enough alone.
But in the latest twist, Judge Posner now says he never disavowed the 2007 opinion he wrote for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board. Writing in the New Republic, he says: Continue reading
In one of the most outrageous and bizarre stories to come out of the dark and ugly annals of the Drug Enforcement Administration protecting us from the plague, Craig Patty was left hanging high and dry after the DEA decided that his life, his family’s life and his business were their toys.
Patty, the owner of a small trucking company in Houston, was never asked if he wanted to become a cog in the DEA’s sting of the Zetas Cartel. He was never asked if it was cool with him to have his truck, his driver, become part of their covert operation. The DEA didn’t care what Patty thought. Continue reading
Whenever a story about an inadvertent discharge of a weapon by a police officer appears, people knowledgeable about gun safety will explain how it violated every basic safety rule around. The point is that the problem isn’t with guns, but improper gun handling. Had the police merely employed proper precautions, it wouldn’t have happened.
While this may be true, it fails to take into account one perpetual problem with the use of weapons by police. They don’t give a damn about firearm safety when it conflicts with the First Rule of Policing.
Within hours after the Citizens United decision issued, people started asking how big money would fundamentally alter judicial elections. I had my doubts, since buying judges’ loyalties never struck me as a good use of money, and if someone was dying to throw their money away, there were better places to waste it. And indeed, aside from some high profile purchases, the influence of big outside money didn’t appear to be nearly as serious a problem as initially thought.
From this report by the Center for American Progress, however, it appears that cash for judges may have a more insidious effect than most realize.
As state supreme court campaigns become more expensive and more partisan, the fear of being portrayed as “soft on crime” is leading courts to rule more often for prosecutors and against criminal defendants. Continue reading
