On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a federal trial judge to take a closer look at the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis, a Georgia death row inmate. The SCOTUS directed the district judge to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis’] innocence.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Scalia questioned the viability of Davis’s claim of actual innocence, then went one step further. Even if Davis might be “actually” innocent, he’s SOL:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

This bold pronouncement caught the attention of Professor Alan Dershowitz, back at Justice Scalia’s alma mater, Harvard Law School. From “Scalia’s Catholic Betrayal,” over at The Daily Beast:

Let us be clear precisely what [Scalia’s dissent] means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”

It would be shocking enough for any justice of the Supreme Court to issue such a truly outrageous opinion, but it is particularly indefensible for Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom claim to be practicing Catholics, bound by the teaching of their church, to do moral justice. Justice Scalia has famously written, in the May 2002 issue of the conservative journal First Things, that if the Constitution compelled him to do something that was absolutely prohibited by mandatory Catholic rules, he would have no choice but to resign from the Supreme Court.

So should Justice Scalia resign? The Dersh isn’t saying that — yet.

But he does have a challenge for Nino.

* NBC was criticized by the Department of Homeland Security for a series on war criminals that enforcers say could interfere with their investigations. [The New York Times]

* Raising questions about human rights, the State Department expressed concern about a Chinese blogger who has been indefinitely detained. [CNN.com]

* The artist of highly popular Obama posters Shepard Fairey filed a pre-emptive lawsuit against the AP, which accused him of copyright infringement. [The International Herald Tribune]

* Investors suing feeder funds that invested their money with Madoff will be fighting an uphill legal battle. [Bloomberg.com]

* Alan Dershowitz on bringing Israel before the International Criminal Court. [The Huffington Post]

Today there were white powder scares at some venerable institutions. The Wall Street Journal editors were targeted this morning, as were professors at Harvard Law School. Many tipsters believe that Professor Alan Dershowitz was targeted.

HLS just sent around this message reassuring students:

Dear members of the HLS Community,

Earlier today, a letter delivered to an office on the Fifth floor of Hauser Hall was opened by a faculty assistant and was found to contain some white powder. The university police and the Cambridge police department were notified and responded to the scene immediately, along with the Cambridge Fire Department and the university’s Environmental Health & Safety team.

There is no indication of adverse effects to any of the people who were in the vicinity of the letter when it was opened. Samples have been taken for laboratory testing by the investigating authorities.

While testing has yet to be completed, the authorities have concluded and informed the law school, based on the investigation thus far, that they do not believe that an evacuation of Hauser Hall is warranted. Nevertheless, because the investigation is ongoing, caution and prudence require that the fifth floor of the building remain off limits until the investigators have cleared the scene. Moreover, in order to minimize the possibility of interference with the investigators and responders, the law school administration is asking that anyone intending to study or conduct
business in Hauser not do so until further notice informing the community that the building can once again be accessed freely.

Any students and staff presently in Hauser should feel free to leave if they so choose. Classes scheduled in Hauser later today or this evening, are being rescheduled, and any affected individuals or groups should contact the office of the Registrar for further information regarding new locations for those activities.

We will continue to update the community as we learn more.

I know Professor Dershowitz a little. Intimidating this man is not an option. In fact, Dersh is more likely to defend these powder sending yahoos and use the case as an educational opportunity for his students than he is to lose sleep over this nonsense.

Next time, you best bring kryptonite.

We’re glad to hear everybody is safe.

* Remember the Mystery Pimp from our recent column about Cadwalader? Peter Lattman, who works in the same building as CWT, has solved the mystery. Fantastic! [WSJ Law Blog]

* “Despondent Microsoft Has Nervous Breakdown; Jumps Into Elliott Bay To Live With Alien Sea Creatures.” [What About Clients?]

* New digs for The American Lawyer. Their landlord is now Larry Silverstein, who was recently featured on the magazine’s cover. Did they get a break on the rent for that kind of publicity? [The Real Estate]

* Brilliant Harvard Law professors rush to the defense of… online poker! Charlie Nesson and Alan Dershowitz? Now that’s what we call a full house. [Conglomerate]

* “Is Dumbledore gay simply because Rowling says he is?” Discuss. [PrawfsBlawg]

Over the past few months, a number of you have written to us about A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar. It’s a critically acclaimed, independent documentary film about lawyers and the legal profession.

The movie made the rounds on the film festival circuit earlier this year, and now it’s out on DVD. Here’s a brief synopsis:

A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar… is a celebration of the law and triumph over adversity that follows 6 future lawyers of all ages and backgrounds as they undertake the rigorous and excruciating California Bar Exam while also dealing thematically with certain hot button issues in our profession. The [themes of the film] include, among other things, stress, big firm economics, substance abuse, law as a calling, frivolous litigation, bar exam economics, women in the law and other threads that you can likely intuit.

These subjects are all near and dear to the hearts of ATL readers. And there’s stuff in the film that ties into this week’s special theme, non-top-tier law school graduates:

The cast members run the gamut, from a former Marine who has taken and failed the California Bar Exam 41 times, to top and middle graduates of the Loyola and UCLA Law Schools, to a Latina activist from East L.A. who attended a non-accredited law school, to other diverse and interesting people.

Sadly, the film was produced before the rise to fame of Loyola 2L. But it features other legal celebrities, such as Alan Dershowitz, Scott Turow, and Nancy Grace — all of whom appear in this short clip:

Some of our favorite films are documentaries — e.g., Spellbound, Capturing the Friedmans — and some of our favorite people are lawyers. We haven’t seen A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar yet, but we intend to; it looks like it’s right up our alley. Exciting stuff!

A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar [official website]
A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar [trailer]
A Lawyer Walks Into A Bar [Amazon]

Last Friday, in the Scooter Libby case, Judge Reggie Walton delivered quite the benchslap. Some brief background, from Ana Marie Cox:

A group of exceedingly prominent law professors (including Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork) filed an amicus brief to Judge Reggie Walton [on Friday], arguing that the Libby verdict could possibly be overturned on appeal because of the “close question” about the constitutionality of the special prosecutor….

I was struck (as were others) by the footnote Judge Walton appended to his agreement to have the brief submitted:

Here’s the feisty footnote:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

Judge Walton, feel free to call upon The Dersh for help in future cases. He’s more than happy to offer his opinion on any subject under the sun. In fact, you may quickly come to regret your “call for such assistance” from that loquacious luminary.

(But you might want to give Judge Bork a break. He’s a little preoccupied right now….)

Update: The WSJ Law Blog has more here, including the names of additional celebrity professors on the brief.

Shorter Reggie: I Will Remember Your Interest in Public Service the Next Time Someone Really Needs It [The Next Hurrah]
Libby’s Last Stand [Swampland / Time.com]
Law Blog Footnote of the Day: the Scooter Libby Trial [WSJ Law Blog]

(Gavel bang: Several email correspondents, plus a commenter.)

Recently we asked you for juicy gossip about gigantic legal fees. We didn’t expect to receive a response so quickly. From the WSJ Law Blog:

NYU Law School professor Burt Neuborne worked for nearly eight years to help Holocaust survivors win a $1.25 billion settlement from Swiss banks accused of helping the Nazis steal Jewish property. He then submitted a bill for $4,760,000. The rest, as they say, is controversy.

New York magazine has a feature on the fee flap. A group of Holocaust survivors are furious with Neuborne for charging so much money for his services. Many say they thought Neuborne had taken the case pro bono and that he had said so many times. The executive director of the World Jewish Congress calls the bill a “moral disgrace.” Neuborne already made $4.4 million in a similar suit against German industry.

This got us thinking about other law professors who handle litigation or serve as consultants on the side — and get paid handsomely for it. A few examples off the top of our head: Laurence Tribe, of Harvard Law School (litigation, esp. appellate litigation); Alan Dershowitz, also of HLS (helping to get rich people out of deep doo-doo); George Priest, of Yale Law School (consulting, expert witness service); Dean Dan Fischel, of the University of Chicago (law and economics consulting).

In the comments to this post — or by email if you prefer — please share with us any dirt on this subject. The more specific the information — dollar figures if you know them (or can guess) — the better. Thanks!

The Neuborne Fee Flap Takes Center Stage [WSJ Law Blog]
Getting His Due: NYU Law Professor Burt Neuborne Was Hailed as a Hero. Then He Submitted His Bill [New York Magazine]

Earlier: Legal Fee Voyeurism: Seeking Submissions

For those of you in the New York area, our current location — we’re up visiting from Washington, DC — here’s an event next month you might be interested in:

Sunday - Tuesday, October 22-24, 2006
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Three-day conference: “Jews and the Legal Profession”, at 55 Fifth Avenue at 12th Street.

Participants include Alan Dershowitz, Stuart Eizenstat, and many others. For more information and registration, please e-mail xxx@yahoo.com or call 212-xxx-xxxx.

Other conferences you might enjoy:

— “Japanese Chefs and Sushi Preparation”

— “Koreans and the Dry Cleaning Industry”

— “Filipinos and the Domestic Arts”

We’re sticking to the Asians ‘cause, well, that’s what we are.*

Here is the conference’s website. We suggest that the organizers reach out to the “Jews and Web Page Design” crew.

Jews and the Legal Profession [Cardozo Law School]

* Three notes of preemptive defense: (1) it’s not “racist” to note that certain racial or ethnic groups make up a disproportionate percentage of a particular profession or industry; (2) this is less objectionable than a lot of material you’d see on The Daily Show, SNL, etc.; (3) we are not commenting, negatively or positively, on the contributions Jews have made to the legal profession. We’re merely suggesting that, in the grand scheme of things, there are more urgent topics out there to hold conferences about. Thank you.