« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
Can you cook up sumpn' good?
If you were going to make a nice meal for some good friends who don't eat meat or dairy, what would you make? Fish may be ok (I have to find out); eggs are ok, too. Any suggestions?
Posted 08:03 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack | life generally
Mail? Like, with stamps?
In the ongoing saga of “where oh where is the imbroglio going to get a job!?”: I've had a fairly positive response from someone in the new Montana Public Defender's Office. It was basically “you look good, we're not hiring yet, but we will be soon, so if you don't hear from me in two months then check back.” That's a far cry from “you're hired,” but it's also a lot better than the handful of letters I've received saying “thanks, we're not hiring, we'll keep your resume on file.”
Therefore it seems wise to be at least prepared to take the Montana bar exam. I've known for some time that the deadline to apply for the exam was March 1, so over the weekend I sat down to finally download and complete the application. Except when I went to the cartel Montana Bar website I found this:
To obtain the application packet, please send a written request and a $15 check or money order to:
State Bar of Montana
P.O. Box 577
Helena MT 59624Or contact Jan Weber (406) 447-2202 or at jweber@montanabar.org with your Visa or Mastercard number.
Requests are usually processed within 3 working days.
Yeah, you read that right: You have to pay for the application and they mail it to you! As in the U.S. Postal service, snail mail, you know, with stamps and everything. Can you believe that? I mean, hello, what century is this?
Needless to say, this did not make me happy. I mean, I know it was totally irresponsible and stupid of me to wait to such a late date to finally sit down to apply, but I have already collected most of the info I think I'll need so I figured it wouldn't take me more than a couple of hours to complete the application, I could drop it in the mail today via overnight, and it would be there by Wednesday, easy. I never dreamed I'd have to pay just to get the application and also wait to have it physically sent to me. Honestly it makes me mad because it's so stupid. How easy would it be to post a PDF version of the application online for applicants to download? So easy. And how much would it cost? Virtually nothing. So why does the Montana Bar operate largely as if the internet doesn't exist with regard to applying for their bar exam? I think they just want to hassle me and make me mad. Well, can you think of a better explanation?
My complaining aside, I called Ms. Weber today and found her to be incredibly helpful. She's overnighting me an application (at my expense, of course, but thankfully no three-day wait) and she explained that as long as it's postmarked by March 1 then I'm fine. So I should still be able to make the deadline even if I do have to pay $45 for the privilege (the charge for the application plus overnight shipping).
So does anyone have any suggestions for how I can complete a fingerprint card in a big hurry tomorrow afternoon or early Wednesday morning?
Posted 10:20 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | 3L
Res Ipsa Ludificatur*
Congratulations to the cast of GW's Law Revue for putting on a terrific show last night. This was the second year I attended and once again I was astounded by the level of talent displayed by the cast. A special shoutout goes to the 5-man cast of my favorite number, “I Want to Get Paid” (sung to the tune of the Backstreet Boys' “I want it that way”), and also to the woman who sang the soprano solo in the first number of the Rent finale—awesome job there! That was also a great number that turned the Broadway show's “154,600 minutes” into “154,600 payments, 154,000 dollars I owe.” Funny, but sadly true.
As expected, not every performance was flawless and not every joke was funny (some were, in fact, undoubtedly offensive to many in the audience), but taken as a whole, another very entertaining success.
*Supposedly the title of the show means “the thing mocks itself.”
Ambivalent Question: Lexis or Westlaw?
This week's Ambivalent Question® asks: “Do you prefer Lexis or Westlaw for your legal research?”
This one is pretty self-explanatory. It was inspired by Bad Glacier's post about how much he dislikes Westlaw's interface. Some people seem to love that interface and find it much easier to use than what Lexis provides; others feel the opposite. Long-time readers of this blog already know where I stand on the issue but I'll save the rest for next week after you've all voted.
Meanwhile, the poll is open and I'd love to hear your comments about why you prefer one, the other, or neither. Vote and comment away!
Posted 08:30 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Domestic Spying? You're lovin' it!
The last Ambivalent Question was: “It's legality aside, does the U.S. need Bush's NSA domestic spying program?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 48.5% of respondents said “Yes. It makes us safer.”
- 27.9% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 23.5% said “No. The costs to our civil liberties are not worth whatever benefits it may offer.”
So you're lovin' the spying. I'm hatin' it, but hey, I'm just one crazy person, I guess. Some of you in the comments explained your positions more completely and while I appreciate the distinctions you attempt to make and agree that we don't have full information about the program, I know enough to be certain that this program is not good for the country I want to live in. The Supreme Court has said our right to privacy is defined by our collective expectations—if we expect more privacy, the Constitution grants it; if we expect less, that's what we get. And a majority of those responding to this poll obviously expect and even want less privacy. That's awesome. Big Brother hearts you.
Posted 08:18 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Conviction? Oh, that's clever.
Dick Wolf, Mr. Law and Order, has a new show that sings the praises of the beloved prosecutor. The show is called “Conviction.” You know, that's what prosecutors get b/c that's what they have.
(Excuse me. I just had to pause there to get a drink because I was starting to gag a little.)
From the name alone you can tell this is just going to be a top-notch show. And the opening scenes do not disappoint, setting up the whole cliched sympathy story about Nick Potter, the hot-shot law student who went to a great school (NYU) and has rich and powerful parents and friends but who turns down the big money firm job ($150k/year!) because “I really want to try cases.” You might think that's a bit of a dropped ball; if the guy really had conviction, wouldn't his motivation be to protect the public and put the bad guys behind bars? Of course it would! But don't worry, the show knows what it's doing—Potter can't just be born with the required conviction, he's going to have to earn it.
As Potter goes about this task, the show makes sure to hammer us over the head with the righteousness of the prosecutor's profession just about as often as it can. Take, for example, our young hero's first meeting with his supervisor. As young Harry, er, Nick Potter is leaving his supervisor's office he points to a picture of a young, blonde, white girl pinned to the supervisor's bulletin board. “Is that your daughter?” Potter asks. “No. Murder victim,” the supervisor mutters. Hammer, meet head.
But it gets even better when a prosecutor is killed “in the line of duty.” (Because, well, you know, that kind of thing happens all the time.) The message is clear: Just like the cops, these valiant prosecutors are putting their lives on the line every day just to keep the streets safe for you, dear viewer. Don't you love and admire them?
To its credit, the show does not depict prosecutors as saints. They oversleep, drink too much, and have problems in their relationships. Sometimes they even make little blonde girls (there's a theme here, it seems) cry in order to make them testify so they can put the bad guys behind bars. Of course, that prosecutor had to make that little girl cry because of the cruel injustice that is the rule against hearsay and the defendant's right to cross examine witnesses against him. If not for that, the prosecutor could do the right thing and lock the bad guy up on the basis of videotaped testimony alone. Damn that pesky Constitution!
To further make the point that prosecutors are only human (but nobly so, because of their, um, conviction), one of them even leaves evidence laying around in a public place, thereby destroying the chain of custody and making the evidence inadmissible against her defendant. Lucky for us, the vulnerable and innocent public, the judge is there to save silly prosecutors like this from their own stupidity and help them keep increasing the prison population; the good judge just chooses to ignore this glaring violation of the rules of evidence. Hooray for the objective factfinder who is guided only by the rule off law!
In sum, the show is basically what you'd expect from the creator of Law & Order—another pean to the people that work so hard and sacrifice so much to keep us all safe. I for one, could hardly be more thankful. *cough*
Sarcasm aside, you know I'm going to keep watching the show. The over/under on Potter has him at three months. I'd say the over/under on this show is about three weeks. If you've seen it, would you take the over or the under?
Posted 04:05 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | crimlaw tv land
What a week! A.k.a.: What she said!
Isn't Saturday morning grand? The start of any day is a moment of possibility—you never know what might happen that day, right? But Saturday morning is possibility times two, or maybe three, or maybe twenty, because it's the start of two days during which maybe, just maybe, you'll finally have time to do all those things that have been building up on the fringes of your to-do list for the last week. Possibility. It's a wonderful thing.
This Saturday morning is especially great because the past week was so damned packed with stress and busy.
I wasn't the only one with a week like this. But while the busyness of the week made it seem long to Kristine, all that action made the week fly by for me. And it really was a whirlwind of a week. Monday I prepared for trial, which turned into a motions hearing, which turned into a “motions denied!” and a plea. I thought that was a pretty bad day. I mean, it felt crappy, even though it was a good day in terms of all I learned.
Then there was Wednesday—yet another rough day in court. But again, I wasn't the only one — Energy Spatula summarized both our Wednesdays perfectly: Your Honor, as it turns out, I am a moron. I apologize. Deeply.
What made my Wednesday so rough was a combination of the sort of lack-of-confidence hangover from Tuesday and the fact that the client I've worked for all year, my very first client ever, refused to talk to me. That wasn't really new—he hasn't really been talking to me for about two months now, which has made representing him kind of difficult. But during that time, he was pronounced incompetent to stand trial so I just had to tell myself that he didn't like me because he didn't really understand what was going on.
On Wednesday my client was found competent and he was pretty clear about the fact that he did not want me to represent him anymore. He said he didn't want any student—he wanted a real lawyer. So, faced with a client who wouldn't talk to me and in fact accused me of actively working to keep him locked up, I moved to withdraw as his assigned counsel. I was sort of prepared for the judge to at least have a little discussion about this motion to at least test out my client's certainty that he did not want me as his counsel, but that didn't happen. Instead, without a blink the judge granted my motion, called out an attorney who was waiting for her matters to be called, and appointed her as my now former client's representative right there on the spot. Just like that, bing bang, I was minus one client.
I still don't know what to think of that. It sucked because it shook my confidence further even though I know I did everything I could for that client and there's no rational reason he would not want me to represent him. In fact, I was able to get some great results for this client previously, such as getting him released on his own recognizance after his first, second, and third charges, winning a probable cause hearing that my supervisor assumed was not winnable, and negotiating a plea offer that would have had him out of jail last November w/barely more than time served if only we'd been able to make it through the plea colloquy. So I know I didn't fail this client, but still, it sucks that he doesn't understand that.
Then there's the fact that the judge that granted the withdrawal w/out hesitation was the same judge who denied my motions so profoundly the day before, so I had to wonder whether she also questioned my competence—either based on my performance the previous day, or on the fact that I was making the motion at all. Was she disgusted w/me that I would just throw up my hands and give up on a tough client? Is that what I did?
Always the second-guessing. But it just seemed that if he felt like I was his enemy and didn't want to work with me, it would be better for him in the long run to work with someone he likes or trusts or at least doesn't actively dislike. I want what he wants—for him to be free and out of the criminal system as soon as possible. It just seemed like getting him new counsel was going to be the best way to achieve that for him.
But Wednesday wasn't finished with me yet. I also had a simple set date that turned a little sketchy. After the preliminary hearing where the judge barely found probable cause, I thought we were just going to set a date for trial. But no, that would be two easy. Instead the two attorneys for the codefendants wanted to set a status date to possibly accept plea offers, and doubtless those plea offers would include their clients making statements against my client, which means if they take pleas and I don't, my client could get screwed. Awesome. Thanks, guys. I know you've gotta do what's best for your clients, but if it's good for your clients to plea guilty to crimes the government is just not going to be able to prove then I'm a monkey's uncle. Grr.
Thursday was all about making a zillion phone calls and investigating the above case, as well as preparing for Friday in court. Friday was not that big a deal. I had two matters that should have taken about 5 minutes each, which meant I was in court from 9:00 a.m. to about 3 p.m. So yeah, pretty typical.
In all, it was an action-packed and stressful week, but as I've said before, I learned tons of good lessons and nothing really bad happened to my clients as a result of my learning experiences so it's all going to work out, I think. Still, I'm so glad it's Saturday!
p.s.: I know if you're a public defender or other trial attorney reading this you're probably thinking, “quit yer whining.” I know the day-to-day life of the full-time public defender is packed with much more of this kind of thing and I'd better get used to it. So this isn't whining; this is me getting used to it.
Posted 11:28 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L crimlaw
Another song about the rain
Crap. It's raining. And I have to go to court again. I do not like this one bit. Snow? Fine. Rain? Not so much.
Grrr...
p.s.: The title of this post is also the title of a song. Can you name the artist? No fair using Google, cheater.
Posted 07:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | 3L
You lose, suckaaaah!
I argued a suppression motion (statements and evidence) today and at the end of it that's what the judge said to me: You lose, suckaaaah!
So let's see what we learned today:
- You can never prepare too much for any court proceeding that requires questioning witnesses and/or making arguments. I repeat: There is no such thing as over-preparation!
- Cross examinations are hard. When the witness doesn't say what you were hoping/expecting, you have to pick up and keep moving or you'll look really stupid. More preparation (e.g., investigation) might reduce the chance you'll get answers you don't expect or don't want. See lesson number one, above.
- Asking leading questions without sounding hostile or petulant is an art.
- Remember: If a judge overrules your objection, it's generally a fairly bad idea to make it again just to see if she's changed her mind in the last 30 seconds.
- When the judge makes and sustains her own objections to your questions w/out any prompting from opposing counsel, that's probably a good sign you're seriously screwing up. It is also a sign that the prosecutor may be incompetent or asleep at the wheel, but forget about that—it will only make you feel worse when you eventually lose.
- Judges believe cops. Get used to hearing the words, “the court credited the testimony of the police officers.”
- Judges do not believe defendants. Get used to hearing the words, “the court did not credit the testimony of the defendant.”
- Innis may not be as handy as it seems to defense attorneys.
- Pulling together arguments on the fly and incorporating all of the important evidence just elicited at a hearing is crazy tough. There were at least three big things I forgot to say in my final argument, dammit. They almost certainly wouldn't have changed the outcome, but I still wish I'd said them.
- It takes concentration and constant vigilance not to make faces at judges who insist on spending five minutes describing in painful detail why they are basically ignoring everything you've been saying for the last two hours.
In the end, although it was tough to hear how absolutely my motions were denied, my client got a pretty good sentence of all suspended time and a few months supervised probation. He was pleased to be staying out of jail so all's well that ends well, more or less.
And hey, tomorrow's another day, and in front of the same judge, too. You're jealous, aren't you?
Posted 09:03 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | 3L crimlaw
Good Luck, Bar Exam Babbies
I know several people who are taking a February Bar Exam this week—Tuesday (tomorrow!) and Wednesday, to be exact. If you believe in a higher power or some other force that might be able to help them, please request any and all available assistance on their behalf. I hope it works because I'll be asking them (and the rest of you) to do the same for me in July....
Posted 09:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Beginning of the End
Congratulations to Monica who has finished her last class of law school! Her last class came a bit early compared to the rest of us graduating this spring because dhe attends Northeastern, which is on a quarter system and also requires that students spend every other quarter (I think) working. So she has a quarter left but will spend it “working” Florida. Sounds pretty good, no?
And so the end begins—the end of law school for the Blawgging Class of 2006. According to the calendar, I still have 13 weeks, but three of those I'll be spending on vacation in Wyoming, so it's really 10 (my one and only final is May 4th). Kind of hard to believe it's so close to over—especially when I have so much to do right now.
So I wonder: What is going to happen to this Blawgging Class of 2006? Will the blawgs live one? Will they be abandoned? Destroyed? Will the blawggers keep in touch? Blogging as a lawyer seems, in many ways, more challenging than blogging as any other sort of person b/c there's so much about what you do that's confidential. That said, lots of lawyers have great blogs, so it's obviously possible.
Here's another question: Can anyone think of a good example of a law student blog that has successfully transitioned to a lawyer blog? A couple of examples: L-cubed and Sua Sponte apparently hung up the keyboards (although I sort of suspect they're still posting somewhere and I'm just not privy to the info), and the blogger behind A Mad Tea-Party started blogging at bk! after a year or so hiatus. Andrew Raff, Screaming Bean and E. McPan have all continued blogging, but will that change when they all get the legal job of their dreams?
Do law students quit blogging after graduating because they are afraid to continue? Do they quit because they no longer find it enjoyable? Do they quit because they no longer have the time? Or is there something else going on?
Whatever the case, it will be sad if/when so many of the blogs I read regularly end up on permanent hiatus. That's not to say the imbroglio won't suffer the same fate. We can never tell what the future holds, can we?
Posted 02:34 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack | law school
Battlestar Runway Survivor
Let's set aside the fact that I watch too much tv and focus on these important questions: 
One: Why is Battlestar Gallactica becoming a right-wing propaganda machine? First they make peace activists into terrorists, then they make abortion illegal. What gives? Did Karl Rove take over the show, or what?
Two: Who is going to win Project Runway? As I learned here, you can find all the collections online (Santino (much more dignified and even plain than expected), Chloe (nice!), Daniel (snore), Kara (much better than expected, but unfortunately it's only a decoy). Based on those collections, I'm thinking it's going to be a close race between Santino and Chloe. I've liked them both throughout the cycle so either would be good as far as I'm concerned. If I had to choose, I'd give it to Santino b/c he really seems to want it, whereas Chloe is definitely more ambivalent about it.
Three: Is Shane the most insane Survivor contestant ever? It's almost hard to watch Survivor after the impressiveness that is Project Runway. The designers on Runway are seriously talented and accomplished people, while the “survivors” are a real mixed bag. I guess it's a little like comparing apples and oranges, but in many ways it just seems that Runway is much more difficult than Survivor. And there's less to talk about with Survivor. I mean, the new exile island twist definitely is adding an interesting element and the Courtney tribe is crazy town, but otherwise? Well, we basically know what to expect. It's still just unpredictable enough to keep me watching, but just barely.
Posted 01:48 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | tv land
Alaskablawg Hangs 10
Speaking of trials, Steven Wells, a blogging public defender, just won a hung jury in the murder trial of Rachel Waterman, “a Southeast Alaska teenager accused of plotting with two former boyfriends to murder her mother.” Wells writes about the verdict on his own blog, saying in part:
As Skelly puts it, “A great lawyer blogs among us.”
For more information about the Waterman case, CourtTV has been following it pretty closely. One of the angles that makes the story especially interesting is that, like her lawyer, Waterman was a blogger:
Her last blog entry before the police seized her computer and took her to jail said:
I have a feeling that final post did not make Wells' job any easier, which is all the more reason for him to be proud of the hung jury.
Posted 09:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | crimlaw
Close, but still no trial
Surprise, surprise! I didn't actually end up having a trial today after all.
I knew I shouldn't have posted about it beforehand.
So the judge ended up being too busy. We sat around for about 4 hours before he got around to telling us it was highly unlikely he'd get to our trial today and did we want to reschedule? So yeah, I guess I'll be saving my stellar sneaker arguments for a couple more months.
It was still a somewhat exciting day. You'll just have to trust me on that one, I guess.
I have two more trials scheduled in the next few weeks so I'll be sure and let you know if either of those actually happens. Of course, I probably won't be able to say much more than “I finally had a trial!” but at least that's something.
Posted 11:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
The Secret of Today's Success
Everyone say it with me now: An average, everyday tennis shoe cannot be a “dangerous weapon” in DC unless its manner of use inflicts “serious bodily injury.”
That's what all the cases I read say, anyway. Let's hope the judge agrees with me.
Unfortunately, even if the judge agrees on that point, there's another charge for which I have no such neat response. Ok, I know what I'm going to argue about it, but, well, I'm a bit less confident that my argument will carry the day.
Anyway, unlike my last “first” trial which ended in a failed plea agreement, this trial is almost certainly going to go today. In, like, a couple of hours. Am I really ready for this? I guess I'll find out soon enough....
Posted 07:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L crimlaw
Bite Me, Lexis!
Dude, I have a trial in the morning and this is what Lexis is telling me every time I try to pull up a case:
Sweet.
Posted 10:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Lover's Rock
In honor of Valentine's Day:
“Lover's Rock,” by The Clash, is a great song, but its lyrics are nearly indecipherable.
Discuss.
Posted 08:34 AM | TrackBack | life generally
Heartowie: Please Send Anti-Valentines
Energy Spatula, everyone's favorite superhero, has had a little romantic setback. Don't you think she deserves a card from you?
Posted 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
Graduation Application & Information
If you're a 3L at GW, heads up! You have to fill out a “graduation application” (PDF) and turn it in to the Records Office by February 15th.
It's nice that they put the form online, but why not make it a webform that we can submit online, too?
The school has also put up information about its graduation ceremonies. I have to say I don't feel like I'll be missing much, and I'm quite glad to not have to worry about “tickets and regalia.”
Regalia? Get over your bad selves, people.
Posted 09:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Ambivalent Question: Do we need the spying?
This week's Ambivalent Question asks: “Its legality aside: Does the U.S. need Bush's NSA domestic spying program?”
Here is the basic background: Shortly after the attacks of 9/11/01, President Bush authorized the NSA to begin eavesdropping on telephone and email conversations between Americans in the U.S. and Americans and non-Americans outside of the U.S. This program remained secret until last December, when the NY Times published a story about it (after holding the story for nearly a year). There is great disagreement over whether the program is legal, but the latest chorus I'm hearing is that if it's illegal, Congress is more than happy to change the law to make it legal. So the Ambivalent Question sidesteps the legality issue to ask: Is this a necessary program? Does it do us any good? Do its benefits (real or potential or theoretical) outweigh its costs (again, real or potential or theoretical)?
Voting and comments are open, so whadyathink?
Posted 11:22 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Cartoon Poll: Publish w/restraint
The last Ambivalent Poll asked: “What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 28.6% of respondents said “The media have the right to publish, but they probably should not do so.”
- 28.6% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 25.7% said “A cartoon, no matter what it depicts, can never justify violence.”
- 17.1% said “Western media should publish such things; it's a matter of free speech.”
- 0.0% said “Western media should *not* publish such things; doing so is insensitve to Muslims and Islam.”
I was in the majority on this one; it's probably best to exercise restraint in publication of these cartoons and yes, we should definitely impeach Bush. As L. pointed out, the original motivation for the cartoons could very well have had a large racist component, so while reprinting them might seem like an expression of support for free speech, it also ends up reinforcing whatever racism might have motivated the cartoons in the first place.
These are hard questions. I'm tempted to agree that cartoons alone should never justify violence, but it's hard to say that the violence we've seen is really a result of these cartoons. The cartoons may have been the touchstone, but it's clear the anger and resentment were there already. What to do about that is the gazillion-dollar question.
Thanks to all who voted. A new Ambivalent Question will be up soon.
Posted 10:22 AM | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
Blawg Wisdom: Updated
Just FYI: Blawg Wisdom got a few updates this week thanks to great posts from Songius, Funny Yet Accurate, and Divine Angst. Check it out.
And, as always, if you see any great advice for law students in your reading 'round the web, please share.
“We live in a different world now.”
In an article about his experience of being harassed by security for taking pictures at airports, Patick Smith writes of the phrase “we live in a different world now”:
The most important part of this is that, if our world is different today, it's less because of “the terrorists” than it is because of our response to them. Fear fear fear. I'm really no Hillary Clinton fan, but she sometimes cuts through the middle-of-the-road mediocrity of the “New Democrats” to say something that needs to be said, like this:
“Two weeks ago, [White House political director] Karl Rove ... was telling the National Republican Committee 'Here's your game plan, folks, here's how you're gonna win -- we're gonna win by getting everybody scared again,'” Clinton said. “This crowd 'All we've got is fear and we are going to keep playing the fear card.'”
The pattern is so well-established it's etched into our daily lives. I pray the Democrats will retake at least one house of Congress this fall if only to hold this administration accountable for all the damage it has done to our society and world.
*sigh* It's hard to to be so much of a pollyanna.
Posted 09:04 AM | TrackBack | general politics
Out-of-Placeness
Chief Justice John Roberts was at GW yesterday to judge a moot court competition. I could have gone to see the event except I only heard about it the day before and by then the tickets were long gone. Law-Rah had a ticket and couldn't go. I could have gone and didn't have a ticket.
But the thing is, I don't really care that I missed it. I have little idea of what is really going on at “my” law school and that doesn't bother me. I feel very little connection to the school, and it's pretty clear that I don't appreciate much of what it has to offer, all of which tells me one thing: I never should have come here for law school. Hindsight and all that.
Maybe this is just general law school burnout.
Posted 10:48 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | 3L
30-year-old gag
Sitting in forensics I just remembered: Last week my professor brought an exhibit to class. It was a clear glass jar about 1/3 full with about 6-8 oz. of brownish liquid that was thicker than water but still very liquid. He shook it around and told us it was a piece of evidence used in a case in 1975. He kept lifting it up and swilling it around, shaking it, setting it down on the hard table, talking about it, lifting it up again, swilling it around. Then he told us what the liquid was; it was “stomach contents.” From 1975.
Just thinking about it makes me want to gag.
Aren't you glad I shared?
Posted 04:27 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
Clearing the decks: Blonde Jokes, PDs, and statementizing
The semester is kicking into higher gear these days so I haven't had time to post. Instead, here's a list of things that have been occupying my snippets of free time recently.
- Just joking: Have you seen the best blonde joke ever?
- The more the merrier: Defending those People is a new blog by a public defender in southeast Florida.
- Bite your toungue! Advice for young public defenders: “please count to ten and inform your supervisor before you send a letter to the county sheriff like this one (pdf file).”
- Organizing the troops: Montana isn't he only state to recently make moves toward a statewide public defender system—NY may be moving that way, too.
- Organizing the troops II: The piece above links to this great editorial by David Feige explaining why public defender systems are preferable to relying on more ad-hoc assigned-counsel systems for representing indigent criminal defendants.
- Credit where it's due? In law school blogging, 3L Epiphany appears to be the first blawg for law school credit. “This semester I will demonstrate how a law student blog can be an ideal tool for 1) conducting significant research projects, 2) exhibiting marketable skills in an untraditional way, and 3) providing a beneficial service to the larger legal community.” Sounds ambitious, doesn't it? And it sounds like a number of law student blogs that already exist except that its author has been able to convince someone to give him credit for his playtime. Hmm.
- This would be funny if it weren't true: “It has come to my attention that some people are using the ”word“ STATEMENTIZE as though it were a real word.”
- Advice to legal interns: Even if you were “poor white trash and [were] once attracted to bling,” never challenge your supervisor's parking prowess. Never.
- I'm stoopid: What does this t-shirt mean?
Posted 02:25 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack | lists
But Montana's PD reform continues
As Arbitrary and Capricious notes, Montana's new public defender has just told all chief and deputy public defenders in the state that their jobs have been eliminated. This makes sense because the state is moving from a public defender system in which PDs were county employees to one in which all PDs will be state employees.
So what does this mean for a soon-to-graduate law student who would like to become a public defender in Montana? I have no idea. The one report we have of this says that “The terminated chief and deputy chief public defenders can apply for the regional and public defender jobs, according to Hood's letter.” So I assume that most—it not all—former chief and deputy PDs will end up doing much the same thing they do now; the only difference is they will report to the state's chief public defender rather than to a county board. If that's the case, this move won't create any PD vacancies in the state, meaning this move won't change my chances of getting a job there.
I could be wrong, though. I hope so. Fat Tire is widely available throughout Montana.
Other posts about Montana's new public defender system:
Posted 09:23 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | Montana crimlaw
Chicago is about to get a bit better
As the job search continues, Chicago (or the general “chicagoland area,” as locals seem fond of calling it) is starting to look more and more likely. That's not because I'm thinking I'll find a public defender job there, because frankly, finding a PD job anywhere is no longer something I'm counting on—at least not before I've passed a bar exam somewhere. No, Chicago is looking better because it's a place L. wants to go and it's a place we can both find some kind of work (probably). The current Chicago idea is that I could do document review or volunteer at a PD's office or legal aid office while waiting for my bar results, then be well-positioned for fall/winter hiring at one of the many relatively large public defender offices in the area. Theoretically that could work ok. It's an option, anyway.
And that option just got a little bit better because I just learned that, as of February 10, 2006, Chicago area residents will be able to buy Fat Tire Amber Ale from their local purveyor of fine hopped beverages. Fat Tire is high on my list of favorite beers, but until now it has only been available in the Rocky Mountain west—hence my desire to find a job in that part of the country. Now that New Belgium Brewery is expanding its distribution area, my domiciliary options have expanded, as well!*
* I'm obviously kidding. I mean, who would make a decision about where to live based on the selection of beers available in local stores? ;-)
Posted 03:49 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack | 3L
Blawg Wisdom Issues
If you haven't visited Blawg Wisdom recently you've missed a few great updates from myself and Kristine, including a request for input on the future of the site. If you have thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them, but here's something perhaps even more important:
Someone has somehow embedded some crappy pop-up ad on Blawg Wisdom! I don't have a clue how they did this except that the site was hacked around the new year and I assume they got this in then. The trouble is I can't see how to get rid of it. It's an embedded image on the page; you can't see it b/c it's an invisible gif but it triggers a popup. You can see it's there if you use Firefox and choose “Page Info” from the tools media, then click the “Media” tab.
So there it is. The question: Do you know how I can get rid of this? Looking at the page source doesn't reveal it, and it's not in the MT template, so what the heck? Any ideas?
Posted 02:27 PM | Comments (7) | meta-blogging
Ambivalent Question: The Cartoon Conundrum
The right column should now feature a new Ambivalent Question, namely: What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?
I'm sure you know the basic situation, but I'll recap briefly as I understand it: A year or so ago a Dutch newspaper published some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Many Muslims believe “it is forbidden” to depict the Prophet in any way. (I put that in quotes b/c I'm not clear where this prohibition originates. Is it in the Koran? Did some religious figure make this rule up? Is it tradition? I don't know.) A group of Dutch Muslims brought these cartoons to the attention of some Imams and other Muslim religious leaders and when they were recently republished in France many Muslims began protesting and much violence has been threatened (although I don't know of any actual violence yet).
UPDATE: Danish embassy torched in Syria.
So that's my understanding of the situation. Tony has helpfully published a collection of the cartoons in question. So what do you think? The poll and comments are wide open...
Posted 11:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
I, Postmodernist?
This quiz brought to me by Lyco: What is Your World View? You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.
What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com |
Posted 09:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | life generally
How not to get out of jail
A DC jail inmate tried to escape on Tuesday and ended up dead. I happened to be in court that morning for a status hearing and saw all the police, backed-up traffic, and general chaos. Inside the courthouse everything ground to a halt as all detainees were locked down for a headcount. No one knew what was going on, but everyone suspected something like this. Sad.
Luckily, my client was out on a PR bond and actually showed up for the hearing so all was good as far as we were concerned. This client is another homeless man, but he's definitely not crazy. In fact, he just got a pretty good job and things are really looking up for him. That makes me like him more (it's easier to work for someone who seems to also be working for himself), but what really makes me like him is that he calls me to keep in touch (he doesn't have a phone or address so I can't call or visit him), and most important, he shows up for court. Obviously it doesn't take much to make this student lawyer happy...
Posted 09:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Survivor Trippin'
The new cycle of Survivor started last night with a whole new cast and several new twists on the theme. I'm thinking the whole “exile island” thing might be interesting, the immunity idol hidden away for secret surprises later is fine, and the grouping of people by age and gender is lame. But what really threw me for a loop was the fact that, for the first time ever, I actually know one of the contestants on the show!
Yes, indeedy, I used to work with Courtney Marit. I recognized her right away but couldn't be sure until I saw her name was Courtney. Sure enough, her biography describes her as a highly unconventional woman who's done a little of everything in terms of world travel and the paper-pants hippy lifestyle, and:
It was the biking/hiking guide part where our paths crossed—we both worked for Backroads. I don't remember if I ever actually led a trip with her, but I do remember hanging out with her at one or two leader houses and drinking with her at company events. In fact, I'm pretty sure we went through training together, but my memory is so hazy I can't be sure. Funny how time flies, huh?
Anyway, I wish Courtney lots of luck. If she doesn't go ga-ga over any more dead turtles maybe she'll be all right.
Posted 07:58 AM | Comments (3) | tv land
State of the Union, 2006
Wow, what a great speech the President gave last night! This was my favorite part:
Brilliant, don't you think?
But don't listen to me. Many others are saying it better:
- Salon War Room: Duty to speak with candor. And more on the same theme.
- Suburban Ecstasies: Observations (with jokes)
- Think Progress: everything from they posted yesterday.
- The wackiest 27 words from Bush's address.
Damn! I just feel so much safer and more hopeful, don't you!?
Posted 09:14 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack | general politics
