The case made the news for the craziest of reasons, that there was an old photo of one of the accused men with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  An editor googled his name, and there it was. Suddenly, it was interesting.

The accusation was rape and sodomy, that two men had drugged a 32-year-old woman and then passed her between them.  The name of the woman is unknown, because she was the victim, Continue reading →

Some opinions are head shakers, making one wonder how a judge can read what he’s written, review what he’s signed his name to, without that nagging feeling that he has contributed to the death of reason in the name of rule.  And the opinion of 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor in Paul Howell’s case makes my head shake.

It made Jeff Gamso’s head shake too. Maybe more than his head. Rough language ahead: Continue reading →

Over the past few days, I’ve watched in awe as a debate unfolded at the ABA Journal’s New Normal column by Paul Lippe. Now I like Paul, and respect both his efforts and acumen, even if I don’t always agree with him, but his post was a flagrant attempt to pass off a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.

The topic of discussion was the merit of two year law school, and more precisely, the  op-ed by Yale Lawprof Bruce Ackerman arguing for the virtues of the third year.  Paul wasn’t impressed by Ackerman’s argument. I wasn’t either.  One might suppose, then, Continue reading →

In a relatively short decision out of the 9th Circuit, Judge Stephen Reinhardt addresses a very important question in his opinion in United States v. Lopez-Cruz affirming the district court’s grant of suppression.  The defendant was in a car believed by Border Patrol Agent Soto (that narrows it down, right?) to be picking up people who had illegally cross the border.  After the stop, Soto asked:

“Can I look in the phones? Can I search the phones?” Continue reading →

As always, any post relating to “Amy” begins with the caveat of the horror of what happened to a young girl victimized by being forced to engage in kiddie porn. That’s never been the issue before, and it isn’t the issue now. But being the poster child for restitution against defendants convicted of having watched kiddie porn, the Amy saga continues.

One of the pressing questions was whether every person convicted of possessing images of Amy would be jointly and severally liable for the more than $3 million in damages determined to be due her.  The Second Circuit has finally chimed in with Judge Denny Chin’s opinion in United States v. Lundquist. Continue reading →

Reviews on the internet are one of the best features offered, providing insight into everything from a restaurant to a lawyer before spending hard-earned money. So within minutes of people realizing their value, businesses realized the value of their manipulation.

There are fake positive reviews, where the businesses say good things about themselves. Phony bad reviews, where competing businesses or adversaries say bad things about their competitors. Astroturfing and extortion to clear up the lies for a price. A cottage industry in reputation management was born to do the dirty work for you. Continue reading →

At Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene posted a video of himself (well, his thoughts and voice anyway) made by the Federalist Society to explain the virtues of Citizens United.

Some might call this a rather facile, even simplistic, discussion of the issues, but then, it’s propaganda.  When attempting to persuade people (remember, election time is just around he corner again) Continue reading →

“The vast majority of those who qualify for legal aid, don’t get legal services because there aren’t enough legal aid lawyers to go around,” it says below the video.  Well, it’s unlikely that any would argue that there are enough legal aid lawyers to go around, though there are certainly more than enough lawyers without much to do.  But to make them into legal aid lawyers, it takes money to pay them.  So where’s the money?

There is a perception that low-income people have ways through legal aid channels to get the legal services they need. But John Mayer learned that, “Eighty percent of people eligible for legal aid are unable to get in the door. There aren’t enough legal aid lawyers in the world.” Continue reading →

Have you ever noticed that guy who glides through airport security as if he owned the place, looking cool and sexy and getting those longing glances from hot chicks?  That would be Volokh Conspirator Stewart Baker.

On the one hand, Baker is a fairly impressive guy, having just returned from “a fine hiking vacation” and already placing an op-ed in USA Today. I admire a man who gets things done. But on the other hand, the fresh air hasn’t done much to clear out his head. Continue reading →

Granted, we’re way beyond the point where anyone with half a brain would confuse the advice of Chuck Klosterman, the Ethicist (2,0) in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, with legal advice.  First, he’s not a lawyer. Second, he doesn’t know anyone who is a lawyer well enough to ask a basic question. Third, he doesn’t appear to have any sense of what is or is not lawful. And fourth, he doesn’t let the huge gap in knowledge prevent him from using New York’s pre-eminent newspaper to tell people what to do.

But then Klosterman gets a question like this: Continue reading →