Access to Justice

Email Updates Blogs RSS Link
Some high profile criminal trials and/or cases are driven by that search.  It’s improper, and that’s on the prosecution, but never mind that for now.  The reality is clear enough. So there are two such cases dominating the “news” cycle this week:  the trial of Harvey Weinstein and the post trial proceedings of Roger Stone. It’s a strange drive, if you ask us.  Convictions and stiff sentences will constitute highly emotional validation for the partisans…
A very thoughtful article here, from a periodical that no doubt would like to see a conviction but acknowledges that it’s a “weak case”. We here at LoS?  Not so sure.  We like this quote from The Nation article: In bringing this case the way it did, however, the state has also invited jurors to contend with issues that criminal law is too blunt an instrument to resolve. That’s insightful. The outcome of a…
You get Bagley expounding on Agurs opining that a “Napue” violation – which really should be termed a “Mooney” or “Pyle” violation – and this is what you wind up with in a District Court in 2020, in this case the District of Maryland: However, a Napue violation is evaluated under the harmless-error standard, Bagley, 473 U.S. at 679 n.9, while a Brady violation is not; instead, an alleged Brady violation only requires reversal if a reasonable probability exists that, had…
…from this morning caught our attention here at LoS. First, although we have been somewhat aware of the CIA’s MK Ultra debacle we had never seen it associated with the notorious Whitey Bulger.  Charles Manson, yes. It raises the question of just how many poor souls had their lives ruined in what should have been recognized even at the time as a highly unethical – indeed criminal – experiment on unwitting human beings.…
…the term “liquidity trap” was popular and being discussed around here.  It’s still an issue requiring discussion.  Beyond that, we could still use a jubilee and a return to the gold standard.  There is still no other permanent solution.  Presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders are discussing the former; nobody in media land is discussing the latter.  That’s a disservice to the public, but only one among many at this point. In any event, if people…
Apparently Weinstein’s lawyer is a “#MeToo Skeptic”.  This designation, we assume, is a Bad Thing in the narrative. If the casting couch is now a criminal matter instead of just a sordid open secret of the entertainment industry, wherefore is the Ke$ha – Dr. Luke case?  We’ve asked about that before.  Repeatedly.  Why does Weinstein get criminally prosecuted but New York judges won’t even let Dr. Luke get sued for money?…
So.  Should he testify? Follow the link.  It’s a good case study in standard arguments about defendants testifying when they are on trial.  But there’s one quote from the “expert” they trot out, right at the end, that at least hints at the truth of the matter: “I tell my clients once you take the stand you have lost your shield, which is me, and you are on your own,” said McMonagle, who was…
https3A2F2Fcdn.cnn_.com2Fcnnnext2Fdam2Fassets2F180918223116-grant-robicheaux-and-cerissa-riley-split.jpg
But it turns out the charges were fabricated by the then District Attorney for political and personal gain. What are these beautiful Californians supposed to do now?  Their attorney realizes what the problem is: “I don’t want to be overly dramatic or hyperbolic, but the mere filing of this case has destroyed irreparably two lives,” defense lawyer Philip Cohen told reporters. “He has become persona non grata with an entire city, an entire state—and I…
It’s a sign of interest at the SCOTUS.  The Petitioner files his petition.  The Respondent doesn’t have to respond.  He has a right to respond.  But he doesn’t have to. The Respondent can also explicitly waive his right to respond.  He’s supposed to do that within 30 days after the petition is filed.  The quicker he does that, the quicker the petition will be “distributed” for consideration at a conference of the SCOTUS, where the…
From Pyle v. Kansas: These documents elaborate the general charges of the application, and specifically allege that “one Truman Reynolds was coerced and threatened by the State to testify falsely against the petitioner and that said testimony did harm to the petitioner’s defense”; that “one Lacy Cunningham who had been previously committed to a mental institution was threatened with prosecution if he did not testify for the State”; that the testimony of one Roy…