whaaaa?
We interrupt your regularly scheduled…
Aug 10th
…radio silence to bring you this update:
In the defense interview the prosecutor and the victim advocate decided to place Stilson on top of the table during the interview. It was such a surprise to the child (and the defense attorney) to see Stilson snoozing on the table that the child came out from under the table and everyone petted him during the interview. Under these circumstances the child did a much better job describing what had occurred and it was a fairly pleasant experience for everyone.
It is also less likely that a defense attorney would engage in aggressive questioning when a dog is seated or lying in between the attorney and the witness.
If the witness and facility dog have not had a previous experience together, be sure to arrange for them to have at least 45 minutes to interact and play with one another before the interview begins.
Yeah.
How to get out of jury selection
Apr 30th
Blog, blogger, blogging
Apr 26th
This here is what one might call a Public Service Announcement. Here’s a handy guide for those of you who want to sound “up” on the lingo and trends in our lexicon, c. 2009. This way I won’t think you’re a wannabe when you talk about blogging or tweeting.
Some simple stuff, said in fun, so don’t get all atwitter (HA! HA! Laugh at my joke; I’m clever!).
This whole website (apublicdefender.com) is a blog. I, Gideon, am the author of this blog. This makes me a blogger. This particular piece that I have written, entitled “blog, blogger, blogging” is a blog post.
You cannot say that I have written a blog when you are referring to this particular post. You can say that I write a blog in reference to apublicdefender.com, however. You also cannot have read my latest blog, unless, of course, I started a new website (or blog) and you have been reading that. You can (and must) say that you read my latest post. It’s like saying that you’ve read my latest book, when actually referring to the last chapter of my book.
Simple enough? Blog is a website, the person writing it is a blogger and the individual entries are blog posts.
Onto Twitter. Twitter is the company or service that is used by millions. You do not twitter. That’s like saying you Apple or Microsoft. You tweet. Thus, you cannot have read my recent twitter. You could have read my latest tweet, however. A person who uses Twitter is not twittering; he or she is tweeting.
Now if you absorb these simple conjugations, you will be ready to engage in an intelligent conversation on the above subjects! You don’t have to thank me, really. I want to inform.
If you like these things, you’re a poseur
Apr 10th
That's just not cool, Bill! Poseur!
That’s right. I said it. You’re a poseur if you like…
1. You’re over 25 and you’re hooked on Facebook. Seriously, what’s that about? Start a blog or something. Facebook is for your kids.
2. Heavy metal. I thought the point of music was to understand and appreciate the music and lyrics. When was the last time you understood the words coming out of the mouth of a heavy metal-ist? And don’t say 1980, because even back then no one understood; the only difference was that everyone was high on something or the other so it didn’t matter.
3. Will Ferrell. He’s. Just. Not. Funny. At. All. I mean, seriously. The dude is crass, loud and just not funny! But, then again, if #1 applies to you, then #3 probably will too. [Fine, I'll add one exception here: SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy. But that was all Darrell Hammond.]
4. Bonus item: Anything from Starbucks. You’re paying for fancy names people. The “coffee” costs $0.35, the thought process that went into “triple-grande-mocha-frappachino-venti-ridiculato” costs $2.50. The taste is worth my $0.02.
Other things that suck: Sushi, pinot grigio and soccer.
Your turn, Heather, S and Anne. (Yes, this is some sort of silly meme. Pass it along and don’t get offended.)
Get off my lawn you damn kids with your Googles
Apr 6th
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp8ForrAqrQ[/youtube]
(Disturbing) Video Wednesday
Mar 25th
Here are two videos, on different ends of the spectrum, both equally disturbing in their own right.
First, from Meriden, CT, a brutal beating by a cop caught on tape. I mean, it’s really brutal.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaUHz3H-GcQ[/youtube]
Second, from Capitol Hill, Rep. Barney Frank makes a bizarre statement:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lquwFjsZ4nQ[/youtube]
Eyeballs: a Texas delicacy
Mar 20th
eye eye cap'n
How many times can one say: “It happens only in Texas” and not sound repetitive? I’m pushing the envelope here. Because, this just happened in Texas.
A man plucked and ate both his eyeballs (though not at the same time) and yet he was found competent to stand trial and be convicted of capital murder. Texas sure loves their executions (and eyeball marinara).
A condemned Texas inmate with a history of mental problems who removed his only eye and ate it in a bizarre outburst several months ago on death row lost an appeal Wednesday at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Thomas “is clearly ‘crazy,’ but he is also ‘sane’ under Texas law,” Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in a 14-page statement accompanying the court’s brief order upholding Thomas’ conviction and punishment.
Yes, that does seem to be a contradiction of terms, although I guess one can argue that the legal standard for “sane” is so damn low that even eating one’s eyeballs clears that standard.
I’m going to pause for a second here while we all collectively shudder.
Everything about this case, including the murders themselves, are truly bizarre:
Following the crumbs
Feb 13th
I haven’t done this in a few months, so on this Friday the 13th let’s take a look at what brought you psychotic internet readers to my blog. As always, act your age.
- Of all the searches, the top non law related search was for “naked pictures”. Unfortunately, all they got was this lousy post.
- “me naked” was also popular. Presumably, these people have no mirrors.
- “is law school for me” is also a surprisingly common phrase used in search engines, just behind “what is my name”.
- “shame on you”. yes, shame on me indeed.
- “stachatory rape laws”
- quite a few visitors admonished me to “learn law” or, in the case of the more articulate ones “learn the law”.
- I like the simplicity of this one: “beer”. Yes, please.
- “Eye of the beholder porn”. That’s a new fetish.
- my personal favorite: “gravity defender”. Now if only they meant gravitas defender.
- “let me see you naked”, to which I say “buy me a drink first”.
- “humorous porn”. Porn is serious business.
- “Is it ethical for a public defender to refuse to represent a person believed to be guilty?” I get this one a lot, so let me say this once and for all: No.
- “halp”. bai, thx.
- “purple heart trees”. And they say you have to earn one.
- “asleep”. Okay, I get the hint.
Proving the negative: lawyers are special
Jan 2nd
Lawyers hate proving the negative, unless of course they’re asking other lawyers to do so. In which case, game on!
For reasons that are not very exciting, I was helping someone research the mandatory CLE (continuing legal education) requirements for lawyers in New York. CT doesn’t have any CLE requirements, so I wasn’t aware of how harrowing it can be for someone who lives in a state that does. Here’s what NY requires if you are a new lawyer:
- 32 credit hours are required of newly admitted attorneys during the first two years after admission (16 credit hours per year)
- of the 16 credit hours each year, 3 are to be in the areas of ethics and professionalism; 6 in the area of skills; and 7 in the area of law practice management and various areas of professional practice
Now 32 credit hours may not sound like a lot, but I imagine it is, as with all else when it comes to lawyers and hours, deceptive.
1 thing law school isn’t meant to teach you
Dec 26th
How to be a lawyer.
My post “10 things I didn’t learn in law school” led to a bunch of comments here, and some links from other blogs. Most of the commenters and other bloggers got it. One person, in the comments at the Marquette law school blog apparently didn’t.
Now he’s back at it and writes this [scroll to comment 11]:
However, I strongly agree with Chris King’s sense of the proper relationship between legal education and the practice of law. We don’t want law school to be lawyer-training school. When we cave in to demands of that sort from the ABA and assorted study commissions, we actually invite alienation among law students and lawyers. Legal education should appreciate the depth of the legal discourse and explore its rich complexities. It should operate on a graduate-school level and graduate people truly learned in the law.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh at the arrogance and short-sightedness or cry for the students at Marquette.
Another Beatty Christmas
Dec 25th
It’s been nearly 14 years now since H. Beatty Chadwick was first acquainted with the inside of a prison cell. Chadwick, a rich lawyer in PA, was jailed back in the ’90s for that most serious of crimes: contempt of court.
This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill contempt either, where he told a judge to stuff it. No, Chadwick is in jail for violating a civil court’s order of alimony. So what happened? From this 2005 ABC Primetime piece:
A question – Off topic
Dec 12th
This is a car accident/personal injury question. I’m sure some of you are well-versed in that area of the law. This is the setup: Two on ramps merge into one, leading to an interstate highway. One of those on-ramps has a yield sign. Assume that there are three cars going toward the highway on the non-yield side and one on the yield side.
The car on the yield side does not yield to the first car, which manages to pass it. The second car also manages to pass the car on the yield side, but the yield car is still moving forward. The third car on the non-yield side, which was following normal rules of traffic, keeps driving, because it has the right of way. Unfortunately, it is now to the side of, or slightly behind, the offending car from the yield side. They collide.
Is it a defense to any lawsuit that despite having the right of way, the third car is at fault (or at enough fault) that it should have followed normal rules of traffic and allowed the offending car to pass. Does the answer change if the third car hits the offending car from behind?
Ideally, following rules of traffic, the offending car from the yield side should have waited till all three cars had passed.
10 things I didn’t learn in law school
Dec 10th
Look, law school taught me a fair bit. I won’t lie. It taught me that even grown-ups can get drunk and get in fights at local bars. It taught me that my fellow lawyer isn’t much smarter than me and will one day become really famous. It taught me that you can fake your way through almost anything.
But here are ten things it didn’t teach me:
Come get your badge!
Nov 30th
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.
recent comments