|
Draile posted:I actually had a long conversation with an ADA on this very topic. Here's a possibility that came up where Brady might be involved: I think ultimately, the guiding principle of prosecution must remain Berger v United States, 295 U.S. 78: "It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." I think that informs my decision-making more than the scope of Brady. Something in me seems to think that there's a case saying that the absence of inculpatory evidence does not equate to the presence of exculpatory evidence. (That might just be me parroting Jack McCoy, however.)
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Post-BA, the best lesson I learned is that people absolutely love when you approach then with humility, sincerity, and grace. Yeah, but that doesn't explain why they'd give them to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Someone please get grumblefish and izzy to start arguing with each other it will be a perpetual motion thread dynamo That or they're the same person.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:He's getting in his prosecutors face and accusing him of all kinds of things. Fireworks will fly, fun for the whole family. I'm just worried we're not going to get the end of the saga. It's going to end on a cliffhanger, with him going into court and then we'll never know what happens next.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
Hey, here's a fun hypo for all you crim pro geeks like me, based on an actual situation: You, Erstwhile Police Officer, are searching Defendant's home. Because Defendant is present, you have him in handcuffs and have no intention of letting him leave. Do you: A) Strike up a conversation about illegal activities or B) Read him his Miranda rights, THEN strike up the same conversation I know what I'd do. And I know what our local PD did. And they don't match.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
Well, *I* didn't. And neither did the locals, actually -- he wasn't arrested until months later. He was merely handcuffed during the execution of the search warrant and not free to leave ("for officer safety").
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:44
|
|
|
joat mon posted:He was "investigatorially detained" No he didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:He's my clerk pa, I'll take care of him. And you'd better loving look him RIGHT IN THE EYES when you do, because the Confrontation Clause demands nothing less.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
It's interesting you folks can just say "pass" and be done. We received one "unprepared" per term and you had to communicate it to the professor before class began (usually in writing). If the professor called on you and you weren't ready to discuss the case and you hadn't submitted your unprepared, they could report you for an honor code violation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 12:18
|
|
|
entris posted:Honor code violation? Are you sure about that? For the few professors who did track preparation, the penalty was grade-related, not honor code-related. Yes. It was an honor code violation. Also, our grades never had our names attached to them. We were given a randomly assigned exam number for each term, so our grades were anonymous. Soothing Vapors posted:seriously? Cooley sounds like a loving concentration camp That's not at all a fair comparison. Our attrition rates are much higher.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
Holland Oats posted:Were your exam numbers tattooed on your forearms? Bar code, right next to the Mark of the Beast. entris posted:No offense to you, but I guess the people who run Cooley are morons. I just can't understand that lack of preparation qualifies as an honor violation. Yeah, everything that people say about Cooley in this thread and then "the administrators are morons." THAT's what's gonna offend me.  The theory is that you have an opportunity to be unprepared for class, by submitting a note, or by taking one of your two absences. By doing neither, by showing up to class, you are indicating that you are prepared and ready to discuss the assigned material. It's not that you have to come to class knowing all the answers. You just have to have made a good faith effort to read the material such that you can be called on and answer questions about it. You can be wrong, of course, that's why we have law school, but you have to at least be able to give it a shot. I'm not really venturing an opinion on the policy either way. It is what it is, and I got through it and it doesn't impact my daily life any more. It's just an interesting difference in the way schools handle these things. The preparedness policy always struck me as less draconian than the attendance policy, given my history of wild and uncontrolled migraines.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 14:21
|
|
|
entris posted:I always notice typos and I do judge people for them. All else being equal, I am more likely to pay attention to the typo-free person. Whenever I spot a typo in a judge's copy, I make sure to circle it. They amuse my judge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
For sheer weapons-grade bureaucracy, I always admired the Registrar's Office. At Cooley we have to declare a concentration (for some reason) (I guess technically you don't have to, but then you get lumped into the "no concentration" track which has its own requirements). Girl I knew was going into the litigation concentration, so she filled out the form and had one of the Innocence Project supervisors sign it. Which the registrar's office lost. They told her to have the professor make a copy of the original. Except, of course, that the document the office lost WAS the original. Okay, simple enough, have the professor sign a second form. Oh, this form? This form can't leave the office. We can't just GIVE YOU this form. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to be Registrar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:You know how my Torts professor reenacted Palsgraf with toys, well I have even more toys Due to the spike in enrollment, we have had to divide up 1L classes. All incoming 1Ls are now required to take the following courses: Tort Law Prior to Palsgraf Civ Pro Prior to Pennoyer Con Law Prior to Wickard
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
entris posted:This is a joke, right? You think the course selections at Goon Law are a joke? I should report you to... whoever is in charge of the honor code!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I thought it was Latham & Watkins primarily. I've been trying to talk my judge into this. I also want to institute a measurement rule for motions for summary disposition -- if your brief and accompanying attachments are more than an inch thick, there's a question of material fact and your motion is denied.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Linguica posted:GULC HAS MOON BOUNCES??? I WENT TO THE WRONG SCHOOL In light of the fact that USN&WR ratings fails to grade law schools based on moon bounces, I move to establish a new ranking system based on the moon-bounce-to-student ratios of various law schools.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Also not a drinker. Not before, during, or since.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I can't tell if that's a clown or prostitute. Why does that have to be an "or" proposition?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:So do MSJs. Don't worry, those of us on the court end of the equation hate reading them as much as you hate writing them!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:And then you get to bill for an appeal, too. You mean you skipped motion for reconsideration and went right on to the appeal?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:You need some new evidence though, not just the judge getting the law wrong, don't you? That's the theory. However it rarely stops the attorneys who practice in front of my judge. Most of the reconsideration motions that cross my desk are of the "I don't like how you ruled, so change it" variety.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 05:32
|
|
|
Totally loving the GBS hysterics over "6 year old girl can be sued for bicycle accident."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. Yeah, I think you get to reasonable suspicion. I don't think you get to probable cause. Having said that, we all know the outcome of the overwhelming majority of suppression hearings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Anthropolis posted:Have you never heard of In Rem actions? They're all like that. See, e.g., US v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 F.3d 976 I've always loved in rem cases. They have the best names. US v Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, US v Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:My company was "served" today with a lawsuit by a crazy guy....his method of service (for a federal suit) was by email with an embedded youtube video. Well, where's the link?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Dantu posted:I just applied for a job that requires a JD and pays $30k a year. gently caress this gay life. Have you considered working for TSA? In terms of public perception, lawyer to airport security seems like a lateral move these days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
nm posted:Lawyers probably touch less junk. I assume everyone's read about the Michigan lawyer who told his female divorce clients they could settle his fee on the "couch of restitution"? Because that guy was MADE for TSA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
At Cooley, the Innocence Project clinic shares office space with the elder law clinic (which for the record, consists of prissy babies who are incapable of cleaning out the shredder when it gets jammed and who freak out as soon as they hear you talking about finding pubic hair). At any rare. in addition to the three major areas already mentioned, I recall that they did a lot of landlord/tenant stuff, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:First I read that as "medieval patent litigator". That job would be awesome. patenting things like leeches and sandwiches A delivery system for meat (fig 1) and bread (fig 2)...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:If it sinks it's protected The only IP terms I know are "novel and nonobvious" and that's because I have a friend who practices in that field and that's one of the headers on her blog.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
Petey posted:I don't think you 'get' the Dunning-Kruger effect. Yeah, but he THINKS he does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
schwein11 posted:<clerkship stuff I clerk at the circuit court level in Michigan (general trial jurisdiction) and much of what you said applies. The bulk of my week is spent (theoretically) working towards our Friday afternoon SD motions, but in reality that's just what I do when I'm not dealing with whatever came up RIGHT NOW. (Dear attorneys who decide to submit a reply to a response to a motion for summary disposition at 3:30 on Wednesday afternoon: I hate you.) The other big event in my week are the pro per paperwork reviews in anticipation of our Friday morning pro confesso hearings. Sometimes those can be fun, but I much prefer the whims of the research schedule. I always prefer the criminal issues, but you never know what's going to cross your desk on a given day and sometimes it can be surprisingly novel or entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
puchu posted:I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any intention of ever being one but I was wondering what are the undeniable qualities of a great taco. Advice appreciated, thanks! A high score on the TSAT is a must.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2010 10:13
|
|
|
Raaagh! I hate Blackacre! Nothing good EVER comes out of Blackacre. It is the worst acre.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:Also in her motions she was still sending stuff out on captions listing partners that left 10 years ago (also one is now a client for DUI, along with his son), and spelling "signed" as "singed." So I guess Judges here light their orders on fire or something. Right up there with the "please agreement" I saw. Before I give my judge his copies of motions, I always make sure to highlight those items. I think they amuse him, but he's too nice to call out the attorneys on them. Although once we did get a brief on a motion for reconsideration (which I assume was copy pasta that the associate who drafted it didn't scan carefully enough) in which Plaintiff's attorney repeatedly referred to her client as Defendant and even signed herself "Counsel for Defendant." She didn't respond to a call offering her the chance to rectify it before Judge got his copy, so when the order went out, I dropped a footnote highlighting her inability to determine who she was representing. Do senior partners read orders like that? Would there likely be a chewing-out to follow? I like to think so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:Why is the guy with the Christian Bale avatar so mean to everyone? He couldn't get a reservation at Dorsia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Or "this school doesn't have grades".....I hope I almost wonder if it's appropriate to include a GPA line and an explanatory note.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:He supports Something Awful completely just by re-reg fees That's not true at all! You're not accounting for the amount Grumblefish spends on new identities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Stunt Rock posted:Despair not, jobless lawyers. You, too, can become a LAWDOG: So now Bob Loblaw lobs lawdogs?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2011 07:03
|
|