Cellphones

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara

* U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara wants to know more about why Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down an anticorruption commission. [New York Times]

* The ABA weighs in on the “unfinished business” controversy affecting bankrupt law firms, their lawyers, and their clients. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Better late than never: students and professors at UC Davis Law are pushing for the posthumous admission to the California bar of Hong Yeng Chang, who was denied a law license in 1890 solely because of his Chinese heritage. [Associated Press; South China Morning Post]

* Speaking of late, a robber sent to prison 13 years late because of a clerical error just got released. [ABA Journal]

* Drones could claim another victim: the First Circuit nomination of Harvard law professor David Barron. [How Appealing]

* Who still wants a landline phone? The jury foreman in the latest Apple-Samsung battle, who is sick and tired of cellphones after the month-long trial. [The Recorder (sub. req.)]

* Not such a Great Adventure: “Cadwalader To Pay $17M In Six Flags Malpractice Fight.” [Law360 (sub. req.)]

* This guy used a cellphone jammer in his car to keep his commute interruption free. Guessing he’s not a lawyer. [Slate]

* Let’s lay off Justice Scalia for his latest screw up. Because Justice Stevens screwed up once too. Oh, well, that settles it then. I think the real point is Scalia completely whiffed trying to make a hugely bitchy argument, but we’ll let the Scalia lovers have their moment. [The Volokh Conspiracy / Washington Post]

* Not for the faint of heart. Audio of a guy killing two unarmed teens. Obviously they were breaking into his house, but his wingnut psyche is laid bare in his rambling justification for shooting first and never asking questions. He’s charged with first degree murder because the grand jury just wasn’t buying his story. [Gawker]

* Meanwhile, the guys who really need guns can’t find where they left them. [Legal Juice]

* The long-running “Commentgate” story from New Orleans — where federal prosecutors allegedly used anonymous comments to sway public opinion on their cases — has ended with the prosecutors agreeing to a ban from federal court. [Times-Picayune]

* Did anybody know Donald Sterling’s son was suspected of shooting a guy in an argument? And the D.A. that the elder Sterling ran fundraisers for decided not to prosecute? Yeah, I’d missed that. [Bessette Pitney]

* Martin Scorsese’s nephew is basically a bit player in one of his crime movies. [NY Daily News]

Ed. note: This post was written by Parker Higgins and posted at ParkerHiggins.net and republished on Techdirt

I spent a lot of the last week shaking my head at the commentary on the Supreme Court and its (lack of) technical expertise. Much of the criticism came in response to the oral arguments inAereo, and broke down in two areas: it either misunderstood the nature of Supreme Court oral arguments and their transcripts, or mistook familiarity with a handful of Silicon Valley products with actual tech savviness.

But in a series of cases this week about law enforcement searches of cell phones, we caught a glimpse of the Supreme Court’s real technology problem. Here’s what it comes down to: it’s not essential that the Court knows specifics about how technology itself works—and as Timothy Lee argues, that might even tempt them to make technology-based decisions that don’t generalize well. However, it is essential that the Court understands how people use technology, especially in areas where they’re trying to elaborate a standard of what expectations are “reasonable.”

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Supreme Court’s Real Technology Problem: It Thinks Carrying 2 Phones Means You’re A Drug Dealer”

‘Uh, you want me to do *what,* Justice Scalia?’

I’m hoping that a law clerk is sitting in a back room wrapping a phone in aluminum foil.

– Professor Adam M. Gershowitz of William & Mary Law, noting that warrantless cellphone searches are unnecessary when they can be stored in Faraday bags or wrapped in aluminum foil to prevent the remote wiping of information. Gershowitz and other criminal law professors filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, which are both being heard before the Supreme Court this week.

‘But it’s not even an iPhone or a Galaxy, Your Honor!’

Please turn your phones off. We don’t want an angry judge.

– Courtroom deputy Martha Parker-Brown, cautioning those in the gallery of Judge Lucy Koh’s courtroom during the latest Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Judge Koh has previously threatened to take attorneys’ and tech executives’ phones away from them, and shamed others by making them stand up if their phones were turned on and started ringing.

See, this is an awesome logo.

* The Phoenix Coyotes plan to change their name to the Arizona Coyotes. They probably should have looked into whether or not someone had trademarked “Arizona Coyotes.” I don’t care about their name as long as they go back to their awesome original sweaters. [The Legal Blitz]

* As expected, Mayor Bill De Blasio has dropped New York City’s appeal of the stop-and-frisk case. [New York Times]

* As we discussed this morning, Eric Holder had to make a decision on whether or not to pursue the death penalty in the Boston Bomber case. Well, he made it. [CNN]

* No, getting mocked on late night TV is not the same as torture or the mass extermination of human beings. [Popehat]

* What happens when 16 children’s book characters are sent to court? [Visual.ly]

* Here are 5 quick tips to employ when preparing for the bar exam. [BigLaw Rebel]

* Prosecutors aren’t all out to get your client. You need to read the signals to figure out when they’re willing to help. [Katz Justice]

* Unlocking your phone is still a crime. It’s almost as though Congress was deliberately obstructionist on every issue for a whole year. Weird. [Politix]

* Ever wonder how to make the transition from law school to journalist? Here’s one answer from across the pond. [Legal Cheek]

Last week, we asked readers to submit possible captions for this picture:

On Friday, you voted on the finalists, and now it’s time to announce the winner of our contest…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest Winner: The Courtroom Selfie, Caught On Camera”

On Tuesday, we asked readers to submit possible captions for this picture:

Let’s have a look at what our readers came up with, and vote on the finalists…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest Finalists: The Courtroom Selfie, Caught On Camera”

Hey guys, we just wanted to let you know that taking selfies isn’t cool anymore. It’s just not. How do we know? A lawyer ruined it. Ugh, lawyers ruin everything.

Case in point: here’s a lawyer trying desperately to take the perfect courtroom selfie…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest: The Courtroom Selfie, Caught On Camera”

In too many ways, 2013 was a year that vindicated the long-standing paranoia of many Americans, particularly the more conservative. A bewildering number of stories littered the news that seemed to confirm exactly the sort of gross government overreach that previously sounded like a delusion of someone whose eyes were scanning the skies for black helicopters. In spring 2013, for example, we learned that the IRS had been targeting the 501(c)(3) applications of conservative and libertarian organizations, apparently based solely on their political and philosophical affiliations. Nothing in 2013, though, fanned the flames of political paranoia quite like revelations of the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs.

In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, decided in February, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Amnesty International’s constitutional challenge to a portion of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In its 5-4 opinion, the Court found that Amnesty lacked Article III standing, in part because the plaintiffs could not show that they had necessarily been targeted for surveillance. When Edward Snowden later disclosed details of the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, civil libertarians experienced something of a Pyrrhic victory. Standing would not be a problem in many future lawsuits because the revelation of PRISM established that millions of Americans had been subject to some NSA spying. The only question was whether that surveillance amounted to a violation of the law.

As we leave 2013 and 2014 dawns, some new developments have emerged . . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “NSA Surveillance In 2013: The Year Of Vindicated Political Paranoia”

Page 2 of 7123456...7