Public Defender Retreat?

I just learned there's a “6th Annual Public Defender Retreat” coming up in March in Las Vegas. Does anyone out there know anything about this?

UPDATE: Sanchovilla, the Public Defender Investigator, knows something about this conference. He writes:

its mainly a place for Public Defenders to earn some MCLE credits and party. Since I'm not an attorney, I don't have to worry about the credits but I will be hanging with friends, listening to some more great speakers, playing poker in the 2006 World Defender Poker Championship, and generally just taking a breather from the daily grind.

World Defender Poker Championship? Sounds very tempting, but I think I'll wait until I'm actually a defender before I try to buy in.

Posted 08:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L crimlaw

Grammar Peccadillos

Reading through a group of “notes” by some of the 2Ls on my journal staff reminds me of being a grader in grad school for both my own students and the students of actual faculty. I'll save those reminiscences for another day, but they also remind me of how much little writing quirks can get to me. Here are three of them I've just seen:

1. “Lessen” is a word I wish was not a word. In almost every context you can find a better replacement to express your meaning, usually reduce or decrease. “Lessen” is just a week verb and it obviously sounds like the much more common “lesson” and hence causes confusion, at least for me.
2. “Loosing” is not a word, but many people seem to think it is. Try “losing.”
3. “Irregardless” is also not a word, but again, many people seem to think it is. “Regardless” is what they are looking for.

On a happier note, I've finally finished reading all of these “notes” and therefore my work for the journal is nearly done. Now there's that little matter of finding a job still hanging over my head. Ugh.

Posted 03:32 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | 3L

I am the Rule of Lenity

Via Divine Angst via Citations, Which Canon of Statutory Construction Are You?

You are the Rule of Lenity! You interpret ambiguities in penal statutes in favor of the accused. You're a laid-back kind of rule and concerned with not being too quick to judge. You're soft on crime. (20% of people had this result.)

Big shock there, huh? I'm not sure “soft on crime” is a fair way to put it. How about “more concerned with fairness and due process than illusions of public safety”?

Posted 02:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw