Remember Judge Herman Thomas? He’s the former Alabama state court judge who was accused of spanking male prisoners, trading favorable treatment for sexual favors, and improperly interfering on behalf of a cousin in legal trouble.

Judge Thomas challenged the charges at trial, and this afternoon the jury returned its verdict. From the Mobile Press-Register:

Herman Thomas has been found not guilty on charges of sex abuse, sodomy and assault. The jury initially returned seven not guilty verdicts on five sex abuse charges, one sodomy charge and one assault charge and reported they were deadlocked on the remaining counts. Judge Claud Neilson dismissed those deadlocked charges against the former Mobile County Circuit Court judge.

Now that’s what we call a “happy ending.”

Herman Thomas acquitted on all charges [Mobile Press-Register]
Alabama Spanking Judge Cleared of All Charges [Blogonaut]

Earlier: Prior coverage of Judge Herman Thomas

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on the kind of plaintiff that gives other plaintiffs a bad name:

In the middle of trial, a plaintiff (who is claiming his employment was terminated, among other reasons, in retaliation of his exercise of FMLA rights) drops a bombshell:

“[In the prior October], I learned that I had — have stage III prostate cancer with a metastatic brain lesion.”

What kind of client just blurts out “metastatic brain lesion” in open court? What kind of counsel allows that to happen?

Not surprisingly, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The judge called a hearing, and then the idiot plaintiff had something else to say:

During the hearing, however, there’s another another unexpected development: The medical records show that the employee did not have (and never had) a metastatic brain lesion.

The plaintiff knew he didn’t have a brain lesion — though it seems self evident that something upstairs is not working properly in this guy’s head.

Is this a situation that demands more than a mistrial?

Down in Miami, celebrity heiress Paris Hilton is charming the robes off of Chief Judge Federico Moreno (S.D. Fla.), who is hearing a film contract dispute in which she’s the defendant. Reports Davis Markus:

Paris Hilton is on the stand. And Judge Moreno is getting in the act. In one exchange, Moreno was puzzled by the title of Hilton’s current reality show, “My New BFF.” “What does that mean?” he said. After Hilton gave the full title “Paris Hilton’s My New Best Friend Forever,” the judge remarked “This will be my best case forever.” Without missing a beat, Hilton replied “You’re my best judge forever.”

Flirting with the judge? Well, this is a bench trial — and Paris is a trial lawyer in the making. Plaintiff’s counsel should be on the lookout for any ex parte contact between His Honor and Her Hotness.

Read more about the trial over at the Southern District of Florida Blog, which has been covering the proceedings quite closely.

Best blog post forever [Southern District of Florida Blog]
Paris Hilton insists she plugged sorority movie [AP]

Earlier: The American Legal System: We’ll Always Have Paris

Our colleagues over at sister site Fashionista aren’t alone. Lawyers also get worked up over shoes.

Some, like former Enron prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, show up to court in four-inch pink stiletto spikes. Others hate on commuter shoes and Crocs. Attorneys have strong opinions about attire, and that extends to footwear.

So we can’t say we’re completely surprised by a motion recently filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the case of Lenkersdorf v. Sorrentino, now pending in Florida state court.

Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial — we kid you not — after the jump.

The Village Voice had a great piece last week on the developing trial of Robert Simels, a New York attorney who has attracted a fair amount of fame from defending alleged mobsters and other assorted “kingpins.”

Legendary local attorney Robert Simels is only being punished for representing some of New York’s most unredeemable gangsters, say some in local legal circles. Kind of a what-goes-around-comes-around situation.

Simels not only lawyered for mafia turncoat Henry Hill (on whose life GoodFellas was based), but also some of the biggest Latino and black drug kingpins of the ’80s and ’90s. And now, Simels himself is in deep trouble. He’s been indicted for allegedly tampering with witnesses in a case revolving around a comparatively little-known Guyanese drug gangster, Shaheed “Roger” Khan.

There is talk that Simels has been hauled into court as a punishment for his unsavory client list. Coincidentally enough, his trial is taking place before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson — a former prosecutor who went after John Gotti.

So it should come as no surprise that Simels has turned to another legendary defender of clients with supposed mafia ties, Gerald Shargel:

Simels has hired Gerald Shargel, one of Gotti’s main lawyers and a guy who is, in fact, one of the most prominent mob lawyers in the city.

Nice.

But did you know that Shargel also doubles as a professor at Brooklyn Law School?

Details after the jump.

Ed. note: This is a guest post by Keith Chapman, a lawyer with more knowledge of BitTorrent and all things tech than the regular crew on the ATL ship.

Avast ye hearties! Especially if you’re one of those hearties using a BitTorrent client to purloin copyrighted materials. Today marks the fourth day in the highly publicized trial against The Pirate Bay, a Swedish company that organizes and facilitates online file swapping. At the heart of the matter, Swedish prosecutors have charged The Pirate Bay’s three chief administrators, Hans Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde, as well as media savvy Swedish businessman Carl Lundström, with 33 instances of assisting in and preparing to commit copyright infringement. With potential jail time looming on the horizon, not to mention hefty fines and damages estimated north of $14 million, the Times of London has dubbed the case the “Internet piracy trial of the decade.”

If you are just tuning in, find out what you’ve missed — after the jump.

Breaking from CNBC, CNN, and NYT, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been found guilty on all seven counts of making false statements on Senate disclosure forms.

More to come.

Update (4:24): The jury started to deliberate Wednesday. On Monday jurors noted a discrepancy between the indictment and the evidence. According to CNN:

The indictment accuses Stevens of checking “No” in response to a question about whether Stevens or his family had “any reportable gift … more than $260” in 2001. But the form introduced as evidence in court shows he checked “Yes.”

The prosecution argued that the discrepancy was a mere typo, while the defense argued that the typo required the judge to throw out a specific count of the indictment. The judge was angry about the error:

But he did say the defense proposal went too far, instead deciding to tell the jury to match the available evidence with the appropriate charges in the indictment.

“The indictment is merely a charging document, it is not evidence. You must consider all the evidence and my instructions to determine if the government has proven each element in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Stevens (R) is locked in a re-election battle in Alaska. Conventional wisdom was that Stevens would either lose his race or get drummed out of the Senate if he was found guilty. Politico reports:

And even if he wins reelection, Stevens could face an expulsion from the Senate. Of the four sitting senators who were convicted of crimes while in office, only one — Sen. Truman Newberry (R-Mich.) — continued to serve after being found guilty, and he was eventually hounded out of office in 1922 by senators seeking his expulsion.

The lead prosecutor for the Department of Justice was Brenda Morris, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center who received her JD from Howard University. Brendan Sullivan (JD GULC) of Williams and Connolly represented Stevens.

Jury finds Stevens guilty on corruption charges [CNN]
Jury: Stevens guilty on seven counts [Politico]

This news came in overnight. Via the AP (story filed at 2:33 AM Eastern time):

O.J. Simpson, who went from American sports idol to celebrity-in-exile after he was acquitted of murder in 1995, was found guilty Friday of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.

Simpson, 61, could spend the rest of his life in prison. Sentenc[ing] was set for Dec. 5….

The Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering up five men a year ago and storming into a room at a hotel-casino, where the group seized several game balls, plaques and photos. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one of them said Simpson asked him to bring a gun.

Talk about timing:

The verdict came 13 years to the day after Simpson was cleared of murdering his ex-wife and a friend of hers in Los Angeles in one of the most sensational trials of the 20th century.

Karma is a bitch. We previously expressed pessimism about the prospects of a conviction, but we can’t say we’re unhappy to be proven wrong.

Update: (Mystal, J., concurring): I do think that the verdict was bull$#TTT because a white man who tried to get his own stuff back would never have been found guilty of a “crime” in a western state like Nevada. But I’m not going to lie (go to the 6:15 mark); the man killed two people back in the day.

I was happy that he got off back then, Fuhman was a racist cop, and I was happy that “society” learned that there is no justice when racist cops are involved. But I don’t suborn support killing people.

Acquittal via the race card, conviction via the race card … seems fair to me.

Simpson guilty on all charges in robbery trial [AP]
O. J. Simpson Found Guilty in Robbery Trial [New York Times]

Earlier: Do I Smell A Fuhrman?

Just to give you fair warning, O.J. Simpson could get off again.

The Juice is on trial for storming into the Palace Station hotel in Las Vegas and “liberating” some sports memorabilia at gunpoint. The prosecution would like to make the case about the largely inescapable facts that O.J. and his friends stole the goods and had guns.

O.J. and his lawyer Yale Galanter would like the case to turn on some other factor: persecution, “justifiable” larceny, wookies.

After the train wreck that was Mark Fuhrman, you’d think that any cop investigating O.J. would be on his best behavior. But there seems to be something about police officers losing their collective minds when it comes to O.J.

In testimony last week, detective Andy Caldwell essentially admitted that he turned into the great Cornholio when he found out that O.J. Simpson was prominently involved:

Jurors who have been told to refrain from judging O.J. Simpson on his past heard a recording Thursday of a police employee exulting: “This is great. … California can’t get him. … Now we’ll be able to.”

The recording was made by Thomas Riccio, the star witness for the prosecution.

Nice.

Maybe this will still work out for Vegas PD. After all, finding 12 people who have not already pre-judged Simpson is practically impossible. But the heart of Simpson’s first brush with the law was shoddy and untrustworthy police work.

Here we go again.

Update (10/04/08): See here.

Vegas police talked of ‘getting’ O.J. on recording [My Way News]
In Session [CNN]

Along with his colorful co-defendant, private investigator Anthony Pellicano, prominent entertainment attorney Terry Christensen is now a convicted felon. Earlier today, a federal jury convicted the pair on conspiracy charges relating to illegal wiretapping.

Not a great way to kick off a holiday weekend. And not good news for the 110-lawyer firm that Christensen founded — Christensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro.

(That firm name may ring a bell. Name partner Robert Shapiro famously served on O.J. Simpson’s victorious defense team.)

Private eye Anthony Pellicano, attorney Christensen convicted of wiretap plot [Los Angeles Times via WSJ Law Blog]
Terry N. Christensen bio [Christensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro, LLP]

This just in, from a West Coast tipster who has been following L’Affaire Halverson obsessively:

Halverson passes out at hearing; adjourned due to medical reasons. Based on live observations…

Update: More details from the AP:

A disciplinary hearing for a suspended Nevada state judge has been postponed, after she reported she felt ill.

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended the hearing in its fifth day after Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s lawyer said the diabetic judge experienced a hypoglycemic, or low blood sugar, episode.

The hearing is due to resume next Thursday and Friday in Las Vegas.

Further Update: More from our Halverson-obsessed tipster, after the jump.

Apologies to Drudge, from whom we have shamelessly lifted the alliterative headline. He has now replaced it with the more accurate, but less sexy, “Split Verdict at Gitmo.”

Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was cleared of a conspiracy charge. But he was convicted of “supporting terrorism,” which carries a potential life sentence.

Military jury convicts bin Laden’s driver [AP via Drudge]
Breaking News: Gitmo Jury Returns Split Verdict in Hamdan Case [WSJ Law Blog]

We’ve been following the controversy around Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit after the discovery of sexually explicit material on his personal website. Our posts are collected here.

Given the firestorm of coverage in the last few days, this latest news may not be surprising:

A federal appeals court judge today recused himself from a closely-watched obscenity trial in Los Angeles, three days after acknowledging that he had posted sexually explicit material on a publicly accessible personal website.

“In light of the public controversy surrounding my involvement in this case, I have concluded that there is a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial,” said Alex Kozinski, chief judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. “I will recuse myself from further participation in the case and will ask the chief judge of the district court to reassign it to another judge.”

Yesterday, Kozinski called for an investigation of himself. He continues to handle this with dignity, or as much dignity as one can when there’s talk of cow porn.

Judge Alex Kozinski recuses himself from obscenity trial [Los Angeles Times]

Earlier: Coverage of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (scroll down)

Apologies for the downtime. We were off being interviewed by CNN Headline News about the controversy surrounding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit. We’ll post a link to the interview if and when it becomes available.

Speaking of Chief Judge Kozinski, here’s the latest news:

The 9th Circuit judge, who posted sexually explicit material on his own site, according to a Los Angeles Times story yesterday, has just released this statement:

I have asked the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to take steps pursuant to Rule 26, of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability, and to initiate proceedings concerning the article that appeared in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. I will cooperate fully in any investigation.

Is it unusual for a judge to call for an investigation of himself? Sure. But it’s a testament to Chief Judge Kozinski’s integrity and forthrightness; he’s not trying to hide anything underneath his robe. This is a smart move, a lesson in good crisis management.

Kozinski Calls for Investigation of Himself [WSJ Law Blog]
Judge wants panel to investigate his porn postings [Associated Press]

UPDATE: Judge Kozinski has suspended the trial for 48 hours, to allow the prosecution to explore “a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a… sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here.” [Los Angeles Times; New York Sun; New York Times; AP]

Congratulations to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is currently presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles. In addition, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, for some time he “has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.” Accordingly, he is our Judge of the Day.

A number of you emailed us about this Los Angeles Times article, which contains some colorful details about the materials that were available on Chief Judge Kozinski’s website until recently (it’s now under lockdown). We previously linked to and discussed the L.A. Times story here. Please note that when we refer to material “after the jump” or “below the fold,” you need to click on the little “Continue reading” link to read the rest of the post. Sometimes we save the juiciest material for after the jump.

In any event, we reached out to Chief Judge Kozinski for comment. He sent us the following email:

David: I can’t comment on the trial.

As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was — I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he’s pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don’t remember putting some of that stuff there.

I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I’d have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.

Should Chief Judge Kozinski recuse himself from the Ira Isaacs trial as a result of his website coming to light? Thus far, ATL readers vote no, by a 60-40 margin. The poll is still open; you can access it by clicking here, then scrolling down.

We’ll continue to monitor the situation and bring you news of any developments as they occur.

Earlier: An L.A. Jury + Hours of Hard-Core Fetish Porn + Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Presiding = Total Awesomeness

One of our favorite members of the federal judiciary — the brilliant and hilarious Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — is in the headlines once again. Interestingly enough, it’s not for any appellate decision, but for a trial he’s presiding over (sitting by designation as a district judge).

And it’s no ordinary trial. From a tipster:

The Hon. Alex Kozinski, the (still-reigning?) #1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary, will be presiding over a trial — yes, you read that right — in an obscenity case involving a fetishist named Ira Isaacs.

More details, from the Los Angeles Times:

Ira Isaacs says his films, which feature bestiality and defecation, have artistic value. Federal prosecutors say they are criminally obscene. Hours of footage will help jurors decide who’s right.

Fun stuff. This is one jury that won’t need Sudoku to stay awake.

In an article on Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported:

[Chief Judge Kozinski’s] involvement in the case may be a stroke of luck for Isaacs. That is because Kozinski is seen as a staunch defender of free speech. When he learned that there were filters banning pornography and other materials from computers in the appeals court’s Pasadena offices, he led a successful effort to have the filters removed.

Perhaps even luckier than expected? Learn why, after the jump.

We’ve always had pleasant experiences with employees at Starbucks. But we only order simple drinks like iced coffee, so our interactions tend to be limited. After an extended encounter with a Starbucks manager, a Portland woman had a bit of a coffee tantrum. Prosecutors tried her for misdemeanor harassment, but she’s been found not guilty.

From the Oregonian:

The prosecutor turned toward the woman on the witness stand and began her interrogation: Is it or is it not true that you flung the iced venti mocha with extra hazelnut and caramel at the defendant out of anger?

No, answered the woman.

And isn’t it true that you also lobbed a capful of whipped cream toward another employee?

No, the woman insisted once again.

And so went the criminal trial of a Starbucks customer accused of throwing a $4 drink onto a manager during an argument last September.

Mocha, hazelnut, and caramel? That’s getting a little crazy.

The trial of 38-year-old Latasha Curry included accusations of racism, a cover-up, and bad coffee. Kash must disclose that she is a Starbucks shareholder before admitting that the coffee is just too bitter sometimes. But it’s the jet fuel that gets us through the day.

It all began last fall when Curry called a Starbucks in Southeast Portland to complain about the bitter taste of the iced mocha she had just bought there.

An employee on the other end of the line offered her a free replacement, and when Curry stopped by the store two days later to pick it up, a store manager accused her of running a scam. The manager stood soaking in caffeinated beverage moments later….

On Thursday, Starbucks released a statement after a spokeswoman declined to comment about the case: “Providing great customer service is part of (the company’s) commitment and if a drink isn’t perfect, we want customers to let us know and we’ll make it right.”

Or you can pour it on our employees.

Dispute over spilled Starbucks mocha ends up in Portland court [Oregonian]

Today’s Lawyer of the Day would have had a great “Behind the Music” story, if only had his ploy worked. From Friday’s Chicago Tribune:

A lawyer was booted from the Cook County Criminal Courts Building today after attempting to foist his own music CD on R. Kelly in the courtroom where his trial is taking place.

Attorney Mike Roman approached Kelly on Friday morning while the singer was sitting alone at the defense table. With his lawyers and the prosecutors meeting privately in the judge’s chambers, the R&B superstar was left to fend off the man’s overture.

Roman — a local criminal-defense lawyer who fronts the Latin rock band, Mike Roman and the Tellstars, in his spare time — offered Kelly a free copy of his CD “Cha Cha Time.” Kelly, 41, is considered one of the music industry’s most prolific songwriters and producers….

“I’m a lawyer and I’m musician,” Roman told the authorities. “What’s wrong with that?”

Do you really want us to answer that? We’ve been to your website.

Roman cooperated with his removal — but not before trying to sell a “Cha Cha Time” CD to one of Kelly’s defense attorneys for $15.

From the snippets on Mike Roman and The Tellstars website, we doubt R. Kelly would have dug the music even if he’d taken the cd.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s Cha Cha time.”

Attorney’s musical overture hits sour note [Chicago Tribune]

* Yesterday at the Supreme Court: South Africa damages case will go forward (because SCOTUS has no quorum — four justices recused); 8-1 ruling holds that federal magistrate judge may preside over jury selection in a felony trial, with defense counsel’s express consent; cert granted to appeal by Virginia death row inmate. [SCOTUSblog]

* Clear Channel buyout being renegotiated; litigation will settle. [DealBook / NYT; WSJ Law Blog]

* Emperors Club booker expected to plead guilty to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit interstate travel in aid of racketeering. [New York Times]

* The shady business of litigation finance. [Daily Business Review]

* Jury selection begins in R. Kelly kiddie porn case. [CNN]

* Earthquake in southwest China leaves 12,000 dead, with thousands more still buried under rubble. [New York Times]

For the record, here’s some follow-up on two Bay State lawyers previously discussed in these pages, who have been cleared of the charges against them. At least to some extent.

First, remember Carl Stanley McGee (right), who was arrested after being accused of going down on a 15-year-old boy? Earlier this week, Florida prosecutors decided to drop the case.

Apparently the teen had trouble identifying McGee. But maybe he also learned that it’s bad form to complain about getting a BJ. Unless teeth are involved.

Second, remember the handsome Gary Zerola (below right), named a “Most Eligible Bachelor” by People magazine, and accused of rape and attempted rape by three different women? One of the cases against him went to trial, and he was acquitted (back in January; we missed the news when it came out).

A second trial is currently underway. In that case, as reported in today’s Boston Herald, Zerola’s defense team argues that the victim wanted to shakedown their client for $150,000.

The third incident, which is the one that we wrote about, has not yet gone to trial.

Sex Case Against MA Guv’s Aide Dropped [AP]
‘Most eligible bachelor’ acquitted in attempted rape case [Boston Globe]
Zerola team: Alleged victim sought $150G [Boston Herald]

Earlier: Lawyer of the Day: Carl Stanley McGee
Most Eligible Bachelor Becomes Considerably Less Eligible