Criminal Procedure

* The Ed O’Bannon suit against the NCAA will proceed to trial in June barring settlement. Football writer/genius Spencer Hall put it best when he described the hearing as “a judge looks at amateurism and says ‘this is bulls**t’ in legalese.” [Sports Illustrated]

* McCutcheon will usher in even more campaign finance excess, but could alleviate gridlock. Plutocracies are efficient! [Election Law Blog]

* Hold the phone! Coerced confessions aren’t admissible? Next thing you’ll tell us is waterboarding is illegal. Thanks Obama. [New York Law Journal]

* Juror who couldn’t stop using Facebook didn’t cause a mistrial because he didn’t post any details about the case. In other news, he really needs a goat in FarmVille you guys, so if anyone can hook him up, that’d be great. (Alternative heading for this one: “11 Angry Men, 1 ‘Likes This'”) [IT-Lex]

* Disbarred lawyer mistakenly allowed to serve as a judge. But only for about 16 years, so it’s all cool. [Washington City Paper]

* “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the [Baby Boomer] lawyers.” [Law and More]

* A California lawsuit argues that pro-teacher policies in the state are hurting education. The defendants point to the fact that California’s educational administration and funding in the state is best described as a “sh*tshow.” Experts are fighting it out with some novel metrics. [The Expert Institute]

* * Elie talks about the new ad for cameras in the Supreme Court and the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases on Legalese It! with Mike Sacks. Video embedded below… [Huffington Post Live]

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 02.21.14″

Justice Kennedy announced the majority opinion in a long anticipated case today. It was met with a blistering dissent by Justice Scalia.

Unfortunately for most Court watchers, it was not the opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest in the Court’s attempts to resolve whether affirmative action in higher education is constitutional. Some observers expressed annoyance.

Instead, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Maryland v. King, which Justice Alito previously identified as potentially the most important law enforcement decision in decades. The Court held that the police can take your DNA any time you’ve been arrested for a “serious” crime.

But the real fun was in the dissent….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Police Can Take Your DNA Now, and Justice Scalia Doesn’t Like It”

The faculty at NYU Law are our poster children for law professors who lazily reuse old exams, instead of ripping themselves away from their largely unread law review articles long enough to write a new issue spotter.

Apparently, the school really likes being on that poster. Despite the fact that we’ve been highlighting this issue at the school since at least 2009, the faculty continues to use old exams. Students who find them enjoy an unfair advantage over students who are not skilled in the art of internet sleuthing. In fact, it seems NYU Law doesn’t even have a fully thought-out policy regarding exam reuse.

It must be a great life. Every time an NYU Law prof reuses an old exam (to the outrage of students), I have to write an entirely new post — even though the underlying issues of laziness and disregard for student concerns are the same. But if I were employed by NYU, I wouldn’t even have to go through the motions, I could just take the most recent post I wrote decrying the NYU Law faculty doing this, change the dates, and go back to watching the Australian Open on television. Does anybody know if NYU is hiring?

Actually, the latest example really is deserving of its own post. Because this time an NYU Law Vice Dean got into the mix and exposed a disturbing lack of understanding about the problem…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “At NYU Law, Using The Same Exam Three Times In A Row Is Apparently Not A Problem”