Monthly Archives: November 2008

Sunday Stupidity: Star (Trek vs. Wars)

So this isn’t your usual “stupidity”, but it’s a very funny interview with Patrick Stewart: Apparently embedding of that video is not permitted, so if you still want to see it, go here [Hence the original title of this post: male pattern baldness edition].

Instead, I give you this very, very funny Star Wars v. Star Trek video. Some of the audio sounds (well) dubbed, but it’s funny nonetheless. The first firing scene is pretty hilarious. It includes the infamous “handface”.

Come get your badge!

After all the marketing/no-marketing brouhaha, I thought it appropriate to create some fun badges to display on your blog.

For the blawger:

For the public defender blogger:

Since you all know that my image making skills are limited to cutting and pasting, this obviously is not my work. All credit for these badges goes to Heather, who writes a terrific blog on city issues in Hartford and Springfield.

Update: Please don’t link to the image on my server. Right-click, save as, download, upload to your server and link to it there. The license for the image is the same as for all else on this blog: Attribution, Non-Commercial, ShareAlike.

Undercover mother: exposing a juror’s lies

undercover mother

When John Giuca was convicted of murder in 2005 and sentenced to 25 years in prison, his mother was unconvinced. The evidence was weak, perhaps politically motivated and she was sure her son was getting railroaded. So he did what every mother would do: she went undercover.

Ms. [Doreen] Giuliano is the mother of John Giuca, a Brooklyn man who was convicted three years ago along with another man in the 2003 killing of Mark Fisher, a college student from New Jersey who was found beaten and shot five times after a night out in New York City. Ms. Giuliano claims her son is innocent and has mounted an unstinting campaign to free him from prison

She recently gave an interview to Vanity Fair, describing the last two years of her life and “the sting” that she performed to bring down one of the jurors in her son’s trial.

It went like this for a long time, Doreen in a daze, doing what needed to be done and feeling hopeless. Then, one day in early 2006, Doreen awoke from her stupor. The jurors, she told herself. Find something on the jurors. It was a desperate thought. She’d watched television cop shows: if you prove a juror engaged in misconduct, it could overturn the case. She obtained the jury sheet, which listed the names and neighborhoods of the jurors. She got her hands on a transcript of the voir dire, the pre-trial review of potential jurors’ fitness to serve on a case. She even managed, through a contact, to come up with a list of some of the jurors’ addresses.

She started trailing jurors, finding out where they lived or work, tried to get close to them.

Repairing Windows: Disorder to Order

Two and a half years ago, I wrote (rather pithily and ignorantly) about some who were questioning the Broken Windows theory. The Broken Windows theory, which most of you I’m sure are aware of, was posited by George Kelling and James Q. Wilson in a 1982 article in The Atlantic Monthly [pdf version here]. The title was taken from this simple explanation for the theory:

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.”

Theories are, of course, the products of fertile imaginations.

Judge Wu needs to grow a pair

The title of this post is somewhat of a response to the question in Dan Solove’s post at Co-Op, which is: Why won’t Judge Wu rule on the motions in the trial of Lori Drew?

Dan asks:

Judge Wu hasn’t ruled on the merits of how the CFAA should be interpreted, whether it is unconstitutionally vague, and now whether or not the prosecution, as a matter of law, has failed to prove the requisite mens rea. Why won’t he rule on any of these issues?

There is only one answer: because he doesn’t want to be the one making this obvious decision.

The testimony at trial was pretty clear:

testimony proved Drew never saw MySpace’s contract, and wasn’t the one who set up the account and accepted the terms.

How, then, can she be convicted of intentionally violating MySpace’s TOS?