Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has apparently come up with a new form of opinion: “disagreement with everyone.”
Continue reading “It’s Not A Dissent, It’s Not A Concurrence . . . It’s Disagreeing With Everyone”
Category: Lawyering
We recently saw the relatively light treatment given a Wisconsin juror who walked out of deliberations in a major criminal case to enjoy a vacation in Cancun. The same does not appear to hold true for lawyers who are accused of skipping out on trials, it appears. Lawyer M. Tayari Garrett was convicted of misdemeanor contempt for skipping a trial last year to attend her brother’s wedding in Paris. She was given one year probation and a $1000 fine.
One of the most common complaints by civil libertarians is that prosecutors who abuse the system or rights of defendants are rarely held accountable when convictions are later thrown out. Some like Nancy Grace actually make television careers based on their checkered record as prosecutors. One exception is the Texas proceedings against Texas judge and former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson, who is accused of withholding evidence and making false statements during the 1987 trial of Michael Morton for the murder of his wife. Despite the allegations of his abuses as a prosecutor, Anderson was elevated to the bench to mete out justice as a judge.
Continue reading “Texas Judge Faces Bar Hearing Over Alleged Abuses As District Attorney”
I know that being a twit would pay off someday, no matter what my parents said. I was just sent this list of The 20 Biggest Stars on Twitter by one of our regulars who spotted my name. Our twitter numbers have been growing steadily with the traffic on the blog (indeed the number given on the listing is now higher). We are currently at around 6000 followers on twitter. I generally notify people of posting and occasionally (when I remember) of media appearances or gripes. You can join our merry group by hitting the follow button to the right of this story.
Two University of California, Berkeley, law students have been accuse of a disgusting crime in which they tore the head off a 14-year-old Helmeted guinea fowl in the Flamingo’s wildlife habitat and then laughed about it. Security cameras reportedly caught Eric Cuellar, 24, and Justin Teixeir, 24, chasing the bird into the trees and then carrying out its body and severed head as some type of hilarious joke.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
In a case that didn’t receive too much publicity, the federal district court in Idaho recently struck a blow against the FBI’s misuse of the material witness statute which is designed to allow for the government to arrest and detain witnesses who will be used to testify in court cases against third parties. The case in question involved a United States citizen who converted to the Muslim faith during college and was arrested, detained and abused in jail in 2003. The man in question was born in Kansas and was a college football star and his name is Abdullah al-Kidd. Continue reading “Abdullah al-Kidd and the FBI”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
One of the main problems with any legal principle is that we humans are so complex in our interactions that even the most hallowed of legal principles are bound to run into conflict with a real life situation that turns it on its end and leaves even the most principled among us at a loss. This is why the timeless practice of training lawyers to be able to argue both sides of a case arose. Even those who are most respectful of our legal system and our Constitution, recognize that with the variety of human situations, sometimes the legal process leads to results that are far short of the mark of what a person might consider to be justice. Recently, while watching a TV real life murder show called “Unusual Suspects” I came across a case, whose resolution, left me confused as to whether the result was correct in a Constitutional sense. The first ten amendments to our Constitution that are known as “The Bill of Rights” are legal principles that I hold sacrosanct. Historically, the founders put them in place to safeguard the people from the tyrannies that often flowed from autocratic systems of government. These were principle that history and experience had taught them were necessary to protect and preserve the freedom of citizens.
The Fifth Amendment became famous in the 40’s and 50’s when it was invoked at congressional hearings striving to root out “communists”. People in the glaring spotlight of Congressional Hearings, sworn under oath, would be forced to invoke the Fifth Amendment to assert their right not to incriminate themselves. What was unfortunate about these “witch-hunts” was that according to legal procedure, if the person under oath answered any kind of question it was deemed that their Fifth Amendment Rights had been forfeited, since any answer, no matter how innocuous could be considered to have opened up a line of questioning. Thus if one was asked to discuss where they worked they would have to invoke the “Fifth”, or otherwise be opened to questions on who they worked with. The result of this was that by exercising their Constitutional Rights, these witnesses were made to seem guilty of hiding something, merely by asserting their right to remain silent. People’s careers were destroyed having been guilty of nothing more than associating with people who believed in a different economic system, that wasn’t inherently illegal. As the title indicates I’m writing about another aspect of the Fifth Amendment and the result of a particular murder case that left me intellectually and emotionally conflicted. Continue reading “Double Jeopardy”
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In the case of Fourtin v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court of Connecticut overturned the conviction of Richard Fourtin. Fourtin was convicted of sexually assailing a twenty-five year old woman with significant mental and physical handicaps including cerebral palsy, mental retardation and hydrocephalus. The Court, in affirming the Appellate Court’s judgement, found that the woman could have used “gestures, biting, kicking and screaming” to indicate “her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.”
We previously discussed the lawsuit by 3M Co. against Covington & Burling over its alleged conflict of interest and violation of its duty to 3M in representing the state against 3M in an environmental case. In a major conflicts decision (and a major embarrassment for Covington), a court has found that the firm betrayed its former client and “exhibited a conscious disregard for its duties of confidentiality, candor, full disclosure, and loyalty to 3M by failing to raise its conflicts arising from the fact that it previously advised and represented 3M.”
The Pennsylvania’s Court of Judicial Discipline has found that Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary is guilty of bringing his office into disrepute in a bizarre case involving the judge holding “photo sessions” with his genitals . . . and then showing the picture on his iPhone to a Traffic Court cashier. It was not the first time that Singletary has run afoul of standard of judicial decorum. However, his alleged “grooming” of his member for the photo display appears to have been enough to force his resignation. He is shown here in his other job — as pastor at a West Philadelphia church that he founded.
It really does not get worse that this in terms of allegations of misconduct. Pennsylvania deputy attorney general Douglas B. Barbour, 33, and his wife, Kristen B. Barbour, 30, have been charged with child endangerment and assault of two children they adopted from Ethiopia just this year. There is also an aggravated assault charge against them both for the abuse of the 18-month-old daughter. The other child is a six-year-old boy.
Jason Cantrell, an assistant city attorney in New Orleans, has resigned after being given a summons for marijuana possession. Cantrell was in court when a joint fell out of his pocket in front of a New Orleans police officer. The incident not only cost Cantrell his job but has put his wife, New Orleans City Council candidate LaToya Cantrell in a difficult spot.
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Three wounded patrons of the now infamous midnight showing of the latest Batman flick, The Dark Knight Rises, have filed suit against owners of the Aurora 16 movie theater. The negligence suit claims, that despite knowing about the large crowds sure to attend the blockbuster movie premier, movie-house proprietors failed to provide security personnel or door alarm systems that could have prevented the shooter, James Holmes, from unleashing his mayhem.
Continue reading “Three Victims Sue Theater At Center of Aurora Colorado Shootings”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
I have to admit that I do not shock too easily. However, when I read an article this morning in the New York Times, I was taken back by the news. It seems that private debt collection companies across the United States have partnered with District Attorneys offices, to use the threat of criminal charges being filed against consumers in attempts to collect on alleged bounced checks to merchants. The fact that people were being threatened by collection companies did not surprise me. It was the fact that the veiled threats to the consumers were sent on District Attorney or Prosecutor letterhead that amazed me! Continue reading “Privatizing the District Attorney?”
Below is my column today in USA Today on the closure of the final torture investigation by the Obama Administration. Notably, in light of the rift with civil libertarians and his move to the right on national security matters, Obama is not running on civil liberties in this election or claiming to be champion for such rights. Likewise, liberal newspapers and commentators have criticized the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party for rolling back on strong language in the prior 2008 platform to civil liberties in the Democratic platform. The downgrading of civil liberties by the Democratic Party leaves civil libertarians without even a pretense of a party or candidate championing the cause in this election. In a prior column one year ago, I complained that President Obama had not just killed certain civil liberties but killed the civil liberties movement in the United States. That appears reflected in the tepid response to these issues in the party platform. Of course, while party platforms can be dismissed as meaningless statements, the final closure of the last torture investigations without a single criminal charge promises to have a more lasting impact on the law and our record on civil liberties and human rights. Here is today’s column:
Continue reading “THE IMPROPRIETY OF TORTURE”