Appellate Judges: Umpires Or Gods?, Ctd
Posted: February 28, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentThe Litigation Section of the Connecticut Bar Association has invited former state Supreme Court Justice Ian McLachlan and noted appellate advocate Linda Morkan to discuss the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blumberg Associates Worldwide v. Brown and Brown. As I’ve discussed in prior posts, the decision addresses the circumstances under which appellate courts can resolve appeals based on unpreserved issues that the appellate judges raise sua sponte.
The McLachlan/Morkan presentation will take place at the Litigation Section’s meeting on March 4, 2014, from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm, at Carmen Anthony’s Steakhouse in New Haven. It should be a great meeting. Click here to register!
What Is “Equal Opportunity”?
Posted: February 24, 2014 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentEqual outcomes or equal opportunity? I hear this question debated constantly. But like debates about the meaning and existence of God, I find debates about equal opportunity v. outcomes pointless unless we first define the meaning of the terms being debated.
House Of Cards = Bad Civics Lesson
Posted: February 21, 2014 Filed under: General Law | Tags: blackstone, house of cards 2 CommentsDoes anyone out there suffer from the same problem I do, to wit, a compulsion to watch House of Cards, followed by a feeling of revulsion after watching each episode? But let’s leave the psychoanalysis for another day . . . .
Legal Quote Of The Day
Posted: February 19, 2014 Filed under: Legal Quote Of The Day Leave a comment“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Brandies (dissenting in Olmstead v. United States (1928))
Hybrid Representation In The Appellate Court
Posted: February 14, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: hybrid representation, pro se 1 CommentThe law affords a person the right to hire an attorney to represent him in a civil or criminal proceeding or to represent himself, that is, to appear pro se. But does a person have a right to have a lawyer appear on his behalf in a case AND to enter a pro se appearance as well? Is there a right to “hybrid” representation?
Myths And Facts About The Fundamental Orders
Posted: February 12, 2014 Filed under: Legal History | Tags: fundamental orders Leave a commentConnecticut is known as the “Constitution State,” not just because that’s what appears on many license plates, but because of a very old document known as the “Fundamental Orders,” which some argue represents the first written constitution in America.
Not everyone agrees with the accuracy of that historical argument. Attorney Michael Besso, former law clerk to Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters, Assistant Attorney General, and member of the board of directors (and Editor-in-Chief) of the Connecticut Supreme Court Historical Society, has researched the history of the Fundamental Orders in depth. I invited him to share his thoughts as a guest blogger.
Appellate Judges: Umpires Or Gods?, Ctd
Posted: February 10, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: sua sponte 4 CommentsA few months ago I wrote a post about a case I had argued in the state Supreme Court in March of last year. The main issue in the case was whether, absent plain error, constitutional error or an issue implicating subject matter jurisdiction, appellate courts can raise on their own initiative (i.e., sua sponte) an issue that neither party had raised below or on appeal, and then decide the case based on that issue. I jokingly characterized the dispute as requiring the Supreme Court to decide whether appellate jurists are mere umpires who decide the issues the parties raise–and only those issues–or whether they are gods who are able to dream up unpreserved issues out of thin air in the interest of doing justice.
Today, the Supreme Court provided the answer to that question: appellate jurists are gods. 🙂
Finally, A Ray Of Open Government Sanity In The State Senate
Posted: February 9, 2014 Filed under: General Law | Tags: Donald Williams, foia, Sandy Hook Leave a commentAfter a year of emotion clouding reason in the public debate over freedom of information in Connecticut, a ray of sanity broke through those clouds last Thursday.
Efforts to curtail public access to 911 calls and photographs of homicides have gained momentum since last June, culminating in a widely criticized set of recommendations proposed last month by the legislature’s “Task Force on Victim Privacy and the Public’s Right to Know.” The Task Force, which was weighted in favor of privacy advocates, and which never even considered the possibility of recommending that the legislature repeal anti-Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) legislation it passed in almost total secrecy last June, recommended that 911 emergency calls and other records be made largely exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
How Would Amanda Knox Have Fared In The U.S. Justice System?
Posted: February 8, 2014 Filed under: General Law | Tags: amanda knox Leave a commentLaw professor Jason Mazzone has an interesting post concerning the Amanda Knox retrial (and conviction) in Italy. He wonders how Knox would have fared had her alleged crimes been committed in the U.S.:
Under those circumstances, the most likely place Knox would be today is in prison serving a lengthy sentence. This is because, as is true of the vast majority of criminal defendants facing trial, Knox would have pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain—in exchange for a reduced sentence or dropped charges or some combination of both. As it is, Knox might well never spend another day in prison and certainly she will not be in a cell anytime soon. From that measure, the Italian criminal justice system probably serves Knox better than would that of the United States.
Subpoenas And The Fifth Amendment: The Chris Christie “Bridge” Scandal, Ctd
Posted: February 5, 2014 Filed under: General Law | Tags: chris christie, fifth amendment, george washington bridge Leave a commentThe media is reporting that Bridget Kelly, former aide to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, is “taking the Fifth” in response to subpoenas issued by a New Jersey state legislative committee investigating the George Washington Bridge closure scandal. According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, Kelly’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, wrote in a letter in response to the subpoenas:
Here, the information demanded from Ms. Kelly … directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey. . . . As such … Ms. Kelly asserts her rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and New Jersey law and will not produce the information demanded by the Committee.
Is Ms. Kelly’s invocation of her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself proper in response to a subpoena? Possibly, but probably not. Here’s why.
Appealingly Brief! 