Thread of legal hubbub

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby AuthorTony » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:46 pm

Would that be similar to the "Son of Sam" laws preventing criminals from profiting via book deals, paid interviews, etc?

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:32 pm

Many of the "Son of Sam" laws have in fact been struck down as unconstitutional, including the original. The US Supreme Court struck down N.Y. Exec. Law § 63 in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of NY State Crime Victims Bd., 502 US 105 (1991).

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Kraftster » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:35 pm

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a petition for allowance of appeal in one of my appellate cases, so I'm headed to the Supreme Court for the third time. My client prevailed before the Commonwealth Court, and this is the first time I'll be representing the appellee at the Supreme Court.
Nice. I'm jealous. Had a couple exhilarating circuit court arguments last year. Really love appellate work.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:41 pm

There's now a circuit split as to whether laws banning female public toplessness are constitutional, which could potentially set the case up for the Supreme Court:

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/22/10th ... ns-nipples

willeyeam
Posts: 39567
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby willeyeam » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:50 pm

this is what i come to this thread for

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby AuthorTony » Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:27 pm

I'm all for banning man nipples in public. No one needs to see those. As for the ladies, they can be free as a bird.

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29204
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:48 pm

So Louisiana apparently has a law against "posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity," and a woman was arrested under that law for posting a video of a schoolyard fistfight. The police seem to have effed up because the statute says it applies only to "a person who is either a principal or accessory to a crime," but beyond that this law strikes me as having some serious First Amendment implications.

https://www.wtae.com/article/mom-placed ... a/26454706

https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/ ... -14-107.4/
What happens in cases like this where there’s a misapplication if the law? Can the accused sue the entity that punished them (aka a state law)?

What’s the usual outcome of those types of situations?

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:32 pm

There are state-law claims such as false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution that might apply. In addition, the misapplication of the law would potentially count as a civil-rights violation, so something like a § 1983 suit might be able to be filed. Whether those claims succeed often depends upon whether a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" applies to the police officers in question. As the name indicates, if qualified immunity applies, then the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything. It's not that easy to win a lawsuit against the police, but it is possible.

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:30 pm

Recent episode of one of my favorite podcasts, posted here in Youtube format:



It's about a staggeringly bad judge in Michigan. Some highlights of her behavior:

She was sleeping with the detective who was the principle witness in a murder trial she was presiding over.
She refused, for 6 days, to recuse herself from presiding over her own divorce proceeding. She used the 6 days to to destroy evidence, including using her court computer to search for 'how to delete hotmail from iPhone" after ordering the court staff to help her destroy evidence of her infidelity.
The special master assigned to investigate her misconduct found so many instances of her lying under oath the statements were included as an appendix to the report so as not to make the report itself overly verbose. She admitted to the perjury with the excuse "I wasn't going to make it easy on their lawyers."

Here is a link to the report, does not include the above mentioned appendix however: http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/docs/FC99.mastersreport.pdf

The divorce bit made me :lol: in the car listening to it.

tifosi77
Posts: 51515
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:46 pm

That...... my god, that's.... holy hell. :lol:

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:57 pm

:shock: :face:

MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29204
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:19 am

"She refused, for 6 days, to recuse herself from presiding over her own divorce proceeding. "

how does that even happen? In asking that question I realize I have no idea how judges get assigned to cases

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:30 am

The judge above her contacted her when he saw the case on the docket but didn't formally order her to recuse herself because it was such an obvious duty he assumed she was going to do it. But she did not and the husband had to file for emergency relief.

tifosi77
Posts: 51515
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:20 am

I guess the follow up question there is how in the world is that not an automatic thing? How can the mechanism even exist for someone to be named presiding judge in matter to which they are a named party in the first place? Like, how does it even get to be a decision point. lol

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:26 am

The 53rd District Court located in Brighton, Michigan is a county court with only one judge. Since it was the proper venue he filed it there.
If you go to their website there are two judges listed
. That's because Brennan is still technically a judge (and pulling her six-figure salary) but her case load has been taken away and she doesn't come to the courthouse.

edit: I don't know. They also have a Chief Judge, so, yeah.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:56 pm

Yeah, depending on the size of the district in question, a judicial district might only have one or two judges, and the way those judges divide up work can vary from district to district. One judge might take all of the criminal cases, and another take civil case, for example. Or incoming cases might just alternate back and forth so that judge A gets even docket numbers and judge B gets odd numbers. While in many places counties and judicial districts are coextensive, there are a number of districts in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia where one judge covers a district that includes multiple counties, so the judge might be in county A's courthouse on MWF and in country B's courthouse on T and H. If that judge has a conflict, then a judge from another district (often a semi-retired senior judge) will have to be appointed to preside over the case.

tifosi77
Posts: 51515
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:59 pm

Totally get it from a division of labor perspective. Totally do not get it from a the-one-judge-is-a-named-party-in-so-and-so-action-and-there-is-no-failsafe-that-automatically-reassigns-the-venue-or-whatever-other-mechanism-that-must-make-more-sense-than-allowing-a-judge-to-preside-over-their-own-divorce-for-a-week perspective.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:12 pm

There are many, shall we say, antiquated and inefficient practices, especially in more rural judicial districts. There are plenty of courts where everything is still done on paper, for example, and no one but the filing clerk knows where anything is or where anything goes.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:53 pm

Cop pulls over woman and decides to writes her a ticket for a lesser violation rather than speeding. Woman is not mollified by the reduction and flips off cop as she pulls away. Cop immediately pulls her over again and amends the ticket to a full speeding violation. Section 1983 violation of the woman's constitutional rights? You bet—and no qualified immunity—says a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in an opinion issued today: “Any reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.” Upgrading the ticket was illegal retaliation for her expressive act, and the second stop was also illegal because the woman had not broken any law that would have justified another traffic stop.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinion ... 43p-06.pdf

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:09 pm

Huh. Accountability. Sorta. Neat.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby AuthorTony » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:44 am

Any of the folks who are much smarter than me care to chime in on this?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... court.html
The parties in Garza v. Idaho, the Supreme Court case decided last month, did not question Gideon, and they did not question that defendants have the right not just to any lawyer, but one that is competent and effective. All of that was assumed. But Thomas didn’t care. His dissent, joined in full by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that Gideon was wrongly decided because it exceeds “the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment.” According to Thomas and Gorsuch, the Constitution does not actually provide the right to a lawyer at all; it protects only the right to hire a lawyer if you want one.

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:47 am

Dissent's do not mean anything, they're purely academic. They may signal arguments that future litigants can use if the court is starting to shift on a certain policy, but they have no substantive meaning.

I assume that is what you were getting at. I didn't read anything except your excerpt.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby AuthorTony » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:49 am

I was actually more curious whether you think their dissent has any merit and/or their possible reasoning behind it.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27522
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Troy Loney » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:52 am

Sounds like libertarian hogwash.

dodint
Posts: 59164
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:56 am

I don't think it has merit, no.

6A:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It's pretty plain to me. If it's a right, and the person can't afford it, then it needs to be provided. And in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct the assigned attorney needs to be competent.

If you have an earnest interest in how we got here the book Gideon's Trumpet: How One Man, a Poor Prisoner, Took His Case to the Supreme Court - and Changed the Law of the United States is exceptional. Very well written, accessible, and an intriguing story. A good read generally and is on point for this issue.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikey, skullman80 and 119 guests