Below is my column in the Hill on the trial of Depp v. Heard, which seems to get more bizarre by the day. The trial proves Oscar Wilde’s rule that “nothing succeeds like excess.”
Here is the column:
Category: Lawyering
There is a bizarre report in The Daily Beast that former Trump Counsel Michael Cohen is laying down an Ultimatum for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.: indict Trump or I’m leaving you. Cohen warned that, if Bragg does not use the current grand jury to indict Trump, he will no longer cooperate. It is a curious threat since he could be called before a grand jury and would have to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse further testimony.
The defamation trial of actor Johnny Depp against his former wife, Amber Heard, has all of the makings of a Hollywood hit except for the absence of a single redeeming character. The comedian Henny Youngman may have been right that “the secret to a happy marriage remains a secret,” but the Depp trial shows that it is clear how to have a miserable marriage. It includes things like mutually taping each other, throwing objects of varying sizes, and rivaling each other in the competition of conspicuous consumption. Continue reading ““Nothing Less Than Everything”: The Depp Trial and The Litigation of Mutual Destruction”
When I was clerking in Louisiana after graduating from law school, there was story of a rather notorious local judge asking counsel in a criminal case if he was ready to present the case of the defendant. He then asked the prosecutors “and are we ready to present our case?”
The story came to mind recently with a controversy in Michigan where the Chief Judge of Michigan’s Court of Claims Elizabeth Gleicher said that she will preside over a challenge to an abortion law brought by Planned Parenthood despite her previously representing the group and her annual contributions to the group.
It is always good to have a “lawyer acquaintance” when things get tough. In “A Streetcar Named Desire,” the character Stanley Kowalski famously assures to Blanche DuBois that he has “a lawyer acquaintance” who will protect her. The same appears to be true for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Special Counsel John Durham is fighting to get access to evidence related to his prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. The documents are being withheld by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Fusion GPS, and Perkins Coie. There are 1,455 withheld documents, but only 18 reportedly involved a lawyer. However, they are arguing that their “lawyer acquaintances” shield their communications from disclosure to the Special Counsel.
Below is my column in The Hill on President Joe Biden doubling down on his absolute defense of his son Hunter Biden. The comments only magnify the concerns over Attorney General Merrick Garland refusing to appoint a special counsel despite the clear basis for such an appointment. It is clear that the President “absolutely” stands by his son and that the media absolutely stands by the President. The question is whether Garland will stand by justice and appoint a special counsel.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s ‘Absolute’ Defense of Hunter Leaves Media and Justice Department in a Muddle”
During the last Administration, the media was (rightfully) critical of President Donald Trump’s repeated public calls for action from the Justice Department or attacking the handling of pending investigations. Legal experts lined up to denounce the damage to the independence of the Justice Department. The media and experts, however, have been largely silent as President Joe Biden has declared the guilt of individuals or promised punishment before even the commencement of investigations. The latest such example is the leaking of Biden’s desire to have Attorney General Merrick Garland prosecute Trump. Continue reading “Report: Biden Wants Attorney General Garland to Prosecute Trump”
This week, a former Clinton campaign lawyer was in court with his counsel to fight the indictment by Special Counsel John Durham alleging a false statement to federal investigators. At points, however, Michael Sussmann sounded more like Michael Flynn in arguing that, even if he gave false information, it was trivial and did not warrant a criminal charge. The one missing element, however, was the prior host of liberal legal experts shouting down the defense as frivolous and heralding the prosecution. Continue reading “In Like Flynn: Clinton Lawyer Adopts a Familiar Defense Against Durham Charge”
Below is my column in the Hill on the possible conflict of interest faced by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson if she is confirmed to replace Justice Stephen Breyer. If Judge Jackson becomes Justice Jackson, her service on a Harvard governing board will be a barrier to her sitting on one of the most significant cases of the term. While the Harvard Crimson quotes Professor Noah Feldman as saying that there is a “strong argument that she would not need to recuse,” I cannot see how she could ethically sit in judgment on the case given her board position.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Crimson Tie: Why Judge Jackson May Have An Ethical Problem To Address”
The civil litigation between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) just took a “Big Lebowski” turn.
In the movie, there is a scene “The Dude” is pressed on what happened to a million dollars in a suitcase. He insists “We dropped off the damn money…” When the Big Lebowski asks “We?,” the Dude responds “I! The Royal ‘we’!…”
It turns out that the settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein contains what Prince Andrew might claim is a “Royal We provision.” In exchange for half a million dollars, the settlement expressly bars Giuffre from suing not just Epstein but “other defendants.” Prince Andrew is arguing effectively that the plural reference includes him. Continue reading “The “Royal We” Provision: Newly Released Settlement Favors Prince Andrew as One of Epstein’s “Other Defendants””
Cook County special prosecutor Dan Webb has issued his report on the Jussie Smollett scandal with scathing findings of misconduct by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. The findings include a determination that Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx lied to the public about her communications and role in the scandal. Despite the highly improper handling of the case (including the dropping of the original charges against Smollett), Chicago voters still reelected Foxx who has an appalling record in office. For a native Chicagoan, it is an all-too-familiar pattern of corrupt or incompetent elected officials continuing in office. The question, however, is whether Foxx will face any bar action for allegedly lying to the public about the handling of the case.
In the Georgia trial over the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, Judge Timothy Walmsley delivered a haymaker to the defense on the very eve of closing statements. The court ruled that Georgia’s prior citizen’s arrest law is only applicable if a person sees a felony committed and acts without delay. The ruling could be “outcome determinative” in the case by stripping away the core defense that these men were chasing a person suspected of a series of crimes over the last year. Travis McMichael, his father, Greg McMichael, and William “Roddie” Bryan are likely to make this ruling the heart of any appeal if they are convicted. Continue reading “Arbery Trial Judge Delivers Massive Blow to the Defense on the Eve of Closing Statements”
In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse verdict, figures on both sides of the case threatened new filings and investigations. It seems likely that the case will move into a new stage of litigation, particularly civil litigation. However, advocates on both sides may be overstating the basis for a Rittenhouse 2.0. These lawsuits can come with risks and considerable costs. That is why Voltaire once lamented “I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.” Continue reading “Rittenhouse 2.0: Threats of New Litigation Fly in the Aftermath of Rittenhouse Verdict”
The one thing that Daniel Muessig cannot be accused of is false advertising. The Pennsylvania attorney became something of a sensation after his 3½-minute video featured his tag line “Trust me, I may have a law degree, but I think like a criminal.” That was more true than many assumed. Muessig has now pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to distribute hundreds of pounds of marijuana in April and May 2019.