New York criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield, who blogs at Simple Justice, has a terrific follow-up on his blog to my immediately preceding post. His post is well worth reading. (He also has some very kind words to say about my post, for which I thank him.)
Connecticut public defender and blogger Gideon and I had a spirited exchange the other week about the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Kelly, which concerned the legality of a warrantless Terry stop (and resultant arrest) of a person whom the police had no reason to suspect of having done anything wrong, must less anything criminal. So why did the Court hold that the detention and subsequent arrest of this person was constitutional? Because he happened to be walking down the street with someone the police reasonably suspected of a crime. A clear case of “guilt by association” would be hard to find.
Check out this thought-provoking article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. I loved law school. And I love teaching law (having been on the adjunct faculty at UCONN since 2003). But law school is too damn expensive. Law school as a graduate program is a relatively recent phenomenon. A very good case can be made for offering it as an undergraduate program.
Hat tip: The Dish
I’ve criticized the Connecticut Supreme Court for several of its decisions over the past year, so I’m pleased to take this opportunity to say this of the Court’s pro-First Amendment decision today in State v. Krijger: “Great job!”
The following is the first in what I hope will become a series of conversations about pressing legal issues with the anonymous blogger and columnist known as “Gideon.” Gideon is a public defender who blogs at A Public Defender. He also writes a column for the Connecticut Law Tribune. Our topic today: the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Kelly concerning the legality of certain types of “stop and frisks” under the state constitution.
Cool Justic Report author and columnist Andy Thibault recently wrote an op-ed, along with Register Citizen reporter Isaac Avilucea, about their frustrating experience during a recent hearing before the Freedom of Information Commission (“FOIC”). The authors of the op-ed have some harsh words for the hearing officer, FOIC commissioner Matthew Streeter, and how he conducted the hearing. The authors write of Streeter that “his bias and negligence pose a dire warning for any lay complainants who appear before the FOI Commission going forward.” They further complain that Streeter sustained most of the objections raised by Assistant Attorney General Terrence O’Neill (who represented the State Police at the hearing) and also accuse Streeter of “suppress[ing] evidence and statements that normally and customarily would be admitted during Freedom of Information hearings.”
Last week prosecutors filed their opening appellate brief in an effort to persuade the Connecticut Supreme Court to reverse a trial court’s judgment that Michael Skakel’s former attorney, Michael “Mickey” Sherman, did not provide a constitutionally adequate defense at Skakel’s murder trial. Not surprisingly, the gist of the state’s argument is that the trial judge improperly “second guessed” Sherman’s defense tactics.
According to the Supreme Court’s electronic docket, Skakel’s opposition brief is due on September 8, 2014, although I wouldn’t be surprised if his attorneys’ ask for an extension of time; the state’s opening brief is 247 pages long!
Last Friday, News12 Connecticut’s Tom Appleby interviewed me and Chris VanDeHoef, president of the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association, about recent developments on the freedom of information front in Connecticut.
Whoever said the camera adds 10 lbs. to a person was lying; in my case it adds at least 20. :)
Notwithstanding significant recent developments in the law concerning appellate review of unpreserved arguments and issues, the general rule remains that a party cannot raise an issue on appeal unless she has preserved it in the trial court. That rule, however, is not self-executing; it can be waived. If a party raises an issue for the first time on appeal and the opposing party does not object, the Appellate Court can go right ahead and review the unpreserved issue on its merits.
On Monday the Connecticut Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in an important Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Comm’r of Public Safety v. FOIC, which involved a 2008 request for arrest records by the New Haven Register. The media and open government advocates, myself included, have expressed considerable disappointment with the decision, which holds that the police (both local and state) need only disclose the barest minimum of information about an arrest. (Disclosure: I supervised several students from the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which wrote a fantastic amicus brief in the case on behalf of a multitude of media and open government organizations.) Read the rest of this entry »