I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked for and with a lot of them. I’ve got a much-used copy of Black’s Law Dictionary on the shelf next to me, but I still get stuff wrong. From what I see reading appellate rulings – some of the lawyers out there also get it wrong, which is why we have these ineffective counsel cases in the first place!

Whaddya think? Is it time for a Revised Standard Version of legalese?[/quote]
It would have to be a massive undertaking and one that would face tremendous opposition. I’m not sure if you can replace all legal terms, but lawyers and judges have to do a much better job of explaining them and casting them in normal language – such as the Rule Against Perpetuities

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked for and with a lot of them. I’ve got a much-used copy of Black’s Law Dictionary on the shelf next to me, but I still get stuff wrong. From what I see reading appellate rulings – some of the lawyers out there also get it wrong, which is why we have these ineffective counsel cases in the first place!

Whaddya think? Is it time for a Revised Standard Version of legalese?

But I totally agree with you.

And thanks for the exchange. Perhaps I’m the only one, but I’d love more media criticism from a public defender. The attorneys I deal with personally probably want to curry my favor more than honestly criticize my work.

I’ve been sitting in court rooms and writing about what goes on for three years now and you just confused me. I pity the poor reader who just wants some news with his coffee and only absorbs court info in passing.

Reading your hypothetical paragraph as a hypothetical editor, it’s very standard daily newspaper style up to the sentence that starts “This claim was raised via…”

The reason that sentence is non-standard is because you begin explaining jargon that is not essential to understanding the story. The essentials of the story are the convict wanted a new trial, the judge wouldn’t give it to him.

The reason mentioning habeas is superfluous is we almost never – if ever – see any other petition raised by a convicted criminal. Aren’t all petition’s for a new trial habeas writs, some based on ineffective assistance of counsel, some not? And what does habeas do that is not a petition for a new trial? x = y and y = x, no?

It seems that way to this lay person.

People incarcerated without any charge could bring a habeas writ, I suppose, but that’s so rarely happening outside of Guantanamo. Perhaps in a Guantanamo story, habeas would be a more essential phrase, but I haven’t given that much thought.

So why use both phrases – “petition for new trial” and “writ of habeas corpus” – if one is immediately understood, the other is not, and there doesn’t seem to be a great need for both in order to convey essentially what happened in court?

These are genuine questions, by the way, not rhetorical flair.

This isn’t just court reporting: we newspaper folk avoid jargon whenever possible, no matter how sacred the jargon is.

As a side note, I would also argue that writ of habeas corpus is a legal term of art, admittedly a much older, more revered and traditional term than, say, Alford plea or Terry stop, but nonetheless it’s jargon that’s more useful to the initiated than the lay.

I agree with Karoli, by the way, that the media are to blame for the public’s misunderstanding of standards of evidence. I would, however, single out in particular one medium: television. TV reporters rarely get “beats” and so don’t develop any expertise anywhere. I’m in court three or four times per week and I frequently tutor my TV colleagues on court conventions, rules and procedures because I, too, hate misinformation, even if it’s in my competitor’s report.[/quote]
The Writ of Habeas Corpus is mentioned in the Constitution – Miranda warnings are not. The latter is a legal term of art – referring to a collection of rights.

As to the differences between a petition for a new trial and a Writ of Habeas Corpus, I’ll give you one recent example: If you are following Michael Skakel’s recent legal attempts, that is a petition for a new trial, not a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The standard of proof is different, as are the legal remedies available. Not all Habeas petitions involve IAC claims (legal term).

They are separate and distinct processes. In Connecticut, there is no right to counsel in a petition for a new trial, but there is one in a Writ for Habeas Corpus.

Reading your hypothetical paragraph as a hypothetical editor, it’s very standard daily newspaper style up to the sentence that starts “This claim was raised via…”

The reason that sentence is non-standard is because you begin explaining jargon that is not essential to understanding the story. The essentials of the story are the convict wanted a new trial, the judge wouldn’t give it to him.

The reason mentioning habeas is superfluous is we almost never – if ever – see any other petition raised by a convicted criminal. Aren’t all petition’s for a new trial habeas writs, some based on ineffective assistance of counsel, some not? And what does habeas do that is not a petition for a new trial? x = y and y = x, no?

It seems that way to this lay person.

People incarcerated without any charge could bring a habeas writ, I suppose, but that’s so rarely happening outside of Guantanamo. Perhaps in a Guantanamo story, habeas would be a more essential phrase, but I haven’t given that much thought.

So why use both phrases – “petition for new trial” and “writ of habeas corpus” – if one is immediately understood, the other is not, and there doesn’t seem to be a great need for both in order to convey essentially what happened in court?

These are genuine questions, by the way, not rhetorical flair.

This isn’t just court reporting: we newspaper folk avoid jargon whenever possible, no matter how sacred the jargon is.

As a side note, I would also argue that writ of habeas corpus is a legal term of art, admittedly a much older, more revered and traditional term than, say, Alford plea or Terry stop, but nonetheless it’s jargon that’s more useful to the initiated than the lay.

I agree with Karoli, by the way, that the media are to blame for the public’s misunderstanding of standards of evidence. I would, however, single out in particular one medium: television. TV reporters rarely get “beats” and so don’t develop any expertise anywhere. I’m in court three or four times per week and I frequently tutor my TV colleagues on court conventions, rules and procedures because I, too, hate misinformation, even if it’s in my competitor’s report.