In a 4-3 split, the New York conviction of Harvey Weinstein was reversed based on the trial court’s allowance of promiscuous propensity evidence against him under the guise of Molineux exceptions. Much as Weinstein was one of the most despised targets of #MeToo, four judges of the Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Judge Jenny Rivera, held that smearing a defendant with collateral accusations bearing no relevance to the crimes with which the defendant was charged went too far. No serious criminal defense lawyer was surprised.

Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901 ]). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the accused’s credibility (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 , 374 [ 1974]). It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 [1886] [“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon”]).

Continue reading →

Unsurprisingly, colleges across the country have taken up arms, by which I mean encampments, in sympathy with Columbia and its clones. House speaker Mike Johnson went to Columbia, because that’s where the cameras were, and announced it has to stop.

So too did Bibi Netanyahu, as if he gets a vote in the matter. Johnson called for the resignation of Columbia President Nemat Shafik for her failure to control her campus, while students rushed into Harvard Yard to set up a tent city on the fly. And at the University of Texas, Austin, troops were sent in to prevent students from seizing the campus in a massive show of force, with Gov. Greg Abbott saying the students belong in jail. Continue reading →

The word on Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, calling in the NYPD to arrest students who refused to leave what they called the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” a tent city they set up on the lawn that seized control of a portion of campus, was that her actions were predicated on showing Congress that she was doing something to protect the Jewish students at Columbia. Neither the students nor the faculty took her decision well.

Rather than put an end to the tent city, and to attacks on Jewish those students who didn’t join the protest to show they were the good, progressive Jews rather than the evil Zionists who deserved to be raped and murdered, it fueled a renewed effort. Who could have seen that coming? So Shafik issued another ultimatum, this time setting a deadline of midnight on Tuesday. The “or else” did not turn out well for Shafik. Continue reading →

Biden promised it would happen, and if there was any doubt he would keep his campaign promise, appointing Catherine Lhamon as chief of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education left little doubt that he meant it. For Lhamon, it was a matter of religious zealotry. This was what she lived for. The changes to Title IX rules by Betsy De Vos, requiring at least minimal due process in campus sex tribunals, are gone. The new rules are finally here, and they’re about as bad as everyone expected.

With the release of new Title IX regulations today, the Department of Education encourages institutions of higher education to violate students’ free speech rights and to eliminate essential due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

“Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone,” said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley in a statement. “Today’s regulations mean one thing: America’s college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding.”

Continue reading →

Judge Juan Merchan’s admonition to the media was “apply common sense.” If that seems less than satisfying, whether because there is no such thing as “common sense” or because it’s an invitation to do whatever they want, the problem is somewhat clear. The defendant is entitled to a public trial, and the media is entitled to report on things that happen in public. Whether that includes the workplace of a juror or the mole on the left side of the nose, it can be inappropriate and dangerous to disclose it, and also protected under the First Amendment, every last detail. Continue reading →

As Columbia University president Minouche Shafik was testifying before the House, students were setting up a tent city on the campus south lawn which they called “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” The encampment was a violation of Columbia’s rules, so Shafik announced that students involved would be suspended and called in the New York Police Department to arrest them. That, too, was against Columbia’s rules.

In her letter to the NYPD authorizing the arrests, Shafik wrote that “All University students participating in the encampment have been informed they are suspended.” Continue reading →

The Columbia student was a former soldier in the Israeli Defense Force, and so the narrative immediately went to toxic chemical weapons, allegedly causing “headaches, fatigue, and nausea,” causing pro-Palestinian protesters to seek medical attention. It was, as Aaron Sibirium called it, “a progressive fever dream.”

Pro-Palestinian protesters told the Columbia Spectator they had been sprayed with “skunk,” a crowd-control chemical developed by the Israeli Defense Forces, at a rally in January. Mainstream media amplified the allegations, and Columbia suspended a student involved in the “attack”—who had previously served in IDF—within days. Continue reading →

In the vast scheme of reinventing language to avoid offending anyone, David Lat raises a new problematic word being pushed out the law firm door: Nonlawyer.

Is it time to remove the term “nonlawyer” from the legal lexicon?

Earlier this month, two lawyers—Olga Mack, a fellow at the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, and Damien Riehl, a vice president at the legal-tech platform vLex—published an online petition for the American Bar Association “to cease using the term ‘nonlawyer.’” Continue reading →

Asna Tabassum was chosen to give the valedictory address at the University of Southern California graduation. It’s quite an honor, and one she earned through her efforts and accomplishments, having achieved a grade point average above 3.98 with a major in biomedical engineering and a minor in resistance to genocide.

And then it was decided that she should be silenced.

Andrew T. Guzman, the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, said the decision was based on maintaining “campus security and safety” in the email. The valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, said in a public statement later Monday she feels the university has “abandoned” her. Continue reading →

One thing that most trial lawyers agree upon is that jurors are a remarkable bunch. The seriousness with which they do the job of following the evidence and finding facts fairly is enough to restore your faith in humanity. Most of the time. But can a Manhattan jury, with Donald Trump as defendant, put aside bias? Jury consultant Julie Blackman says that a fair jury can be picked in New York County, even when Trump is the defendant.

For Mr. Trump, we’re about to find out.

Continue reading →