Monday Morning Jumpstart

Handy

With great power comes great current squared times resistance

Ack! What is this? An edition of Monday Morning Jumpstart? Why, yes! What with my blooming campaign for Governor, I figure it’s time that I revive this once-loved, but much-maligned feature (at least for this week). It does help that there have been plenty of stories around the blawgosphere worth reading. So, in my own pedantic way, here are the best:

  • Bobby G has a trilogy of interesting posts on SCOTUS’ decision in Montejo v. Louisiana and the fallout from it.
  • Scott “I am the blawgosphere” Greenfield has an interesting post on justice and the role of the criminal defense lawyer (along with some advice for young lawyers), which resulted in this follow up by Rick Horowitz. My recent post tangentially related to justice is here.
  • Here‘s Reason magazine’s take on the story of the newspaper editor who got a commenter fired. (Here’s this blog’s comment policy. We won’t get you fired.)
  • It’s harmless error to permit a police detective to testify wearing a ski mask (my lengthy post on this). You can read the decision here [pdf].
  • The Government will not appeal the Lori Drew dismissal.
  • What does prosecutorial and judicial immunity from suit really mean?
  • Judge as advocate: 89 questions to a witness is okay.

That’s all. Now get to work.
Creative Commons License photo credit: NoWin

2 thoughts on “Monday Morning Jumpstart

  1. gerardw

    If anyone with half a brain took a second to think about it…

    I think for the non-lawyers you need to have read a few hundred news stories about folks in jail being released after found innocent or the Boston FBI guys who were indicted to realize the accused need a forceful advocate against the real and perceived power of the state.

    Seems like when police officers are judged by arrests and prosecutors judged by convictions, niceties such as whether the conviction was justified tend to get overlooked.

    Reply
    1. Gideon Post author

      Well, the question usually isn’t why do they need zealous defense? It usually is: how can you defend those people?

      The answer to that question, in my opinion, isn’t that difficult to imagine or comprehend at all.

      I mean, all one needs to do is put him/herself in the place of the person accused.

      That’s my irritation with this question. Take a second; think about it. The answer will be apparent.

      Or maybe I’m viewing this through a tinted lens.

      Reply

Leave a Reply