Movie Daze

I've watched many movies in the last few days as part of finals decompression and just generally because I haven't had the energy or focus to do much else. Here's what I've seen recently:

• Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle: See it. Funny funny funny, combined with some biting social commentary mainly having to do w/racism, xenophobia, and various social stereotypes, plus more funny funny funny.
• Hotel Rwanda: Another must-see, if you haven't already. Don Cheadle is awesome. This movie is the opposite of funny. It's a blinding indictment of global politics, and especially the “Western world.” And it's happened/happening again in Darfur.
• The Final Cut: Possibly the worst movie ever. Do not see this. Trust me. The concept might have been good, but the execution? No.
• Garden State: Loved it. Sweet, funny, awkward, but definitely time well spent.

While three out of four were pretty good, I'm still feeling a little movied-out now. I was thinking about seeing that hitchhiker's movie, but maybe it will have to wait until the paper is done. If you've seen it, what do you think? Great, good, ok, or awful? Should I wait for DVD?

Posted 10:34 PM | Comments (6) | ai movies

Obligatory Post-Finals Post

Hi. Finals are over. Aren't you all glad? No more finals whining! The following recaplet is just a few notes so that when I get my grades I can return to this post and remember why they are what they are.

To put it simply: Thursday was long. It started with closed-book CrimPro where I spent the first ten minutes basically dumping the essential parts of yesterday's post onto scratch paper. I then tackled the one essay and it seemed like things were going well. My braindump contained just about every case and bit of law I needed for the answer and my discussion felt fairly complete and well-cited. Then I hit the multiple choice (2/3 of the grade) and my game fell apart. My long comment on DG's blog explains more about why I was not prepared for the multiple choice, but the short story is that I just didn't study for the fine distinctions between only very subtly different possible answers. So that really really sucked. About half the 60 questions I felt fairly certain about; the other half? A mix of no clue and educated guessing. But hey, it's over, right?

I tried to study for the six hours between CrimPro and PR, but I didn't have a lot of luck. My brain was like rubber and any information I tried to throw at it just seemed to bounce right off. So the PR final was a scramble through notes, the ABA Model Rules, and the Restatement of Law Governing Lawyers. I'm sure I got about 50% of what each question was looking for, but I'm also fairly confident I missed at least one issue one each question b/c of my lack of familiarity w/all the rules. My big hope is that most everyone else did the same, but that's always the hope on a curve, isn't it?

But again, I'm done with finals, and I keep reminding myself that at this point done is better than done well. I'm finished worrying about it all. Now I have a relatively fun 30 pages to write for Feminist Legal Theory, and it looks like I will be learning more about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and similar state laws than I ever expected I would know. It's likely I'll be posting about that a bit more in the next few days.

Posted 10:21 PM | Comments (2) | 2L

Whined-Up Toy

I am a wind-up toy that whines.
Finals are my winding mechanism.
Wind me up and hear me whine.
I am a whined-up toy.

But my days are numbered.
That number is one.
Today I will wind down.
Or up. I can't tell. Oh well.

Actually, yesterday's Fed Cts. exam wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I didn't own it, exactly, but it tried to give me that “juris-my-diction crap,” so I shoved that up it's... whoops! Actually, I already have forgotten what was on that test. I've been busily filling my head with crim-pro for my closed book (no notes, no nothin') final. Here's a taste of what I'm trying to make sure I have in my head:

Katz = search. Aguillar-Spinelli and Gates = probable cause = fair probability. Watson for warrantless arrests. Gerstein hearings for people arrested w/out warrant--McLaughlin says the hearings must be w/in 48 hours or less to be “prompt.”

Terry for reasonable suspicion and stop and frisk. Mendenhall to distinguish stop from seizure via the “free to leave” test. Bostick for the free to decline officer's request or otherwise terminate the encounter. Hodari D for “free to leave” applied to suspects who run -- when cops show force, suspect much actually submit to the force before it becomes a seizure. Florida v. JL for rejection of the “firearms exception” to Terry. Cortez to help define reasonable suspicion as “fair possibility.”

Weaver saying that race can be a lawful factor in cops' decision to approach a suspect (racial profiling), but should not be the sole factor. Wardlow for running alone is not reasonable suspicion. Chimel for search incident to arrest of grab area w/in immediate control of suspect. Also Robinson. Whren for pretextual arrests for purpose of search are permissible.

Carrol doctrine for no need for warrant to search car if you have probable cause, including trunk. Acevedo for police can search any container in a car w/out a warrant so long as they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

Exigent circumstances that mean no warrant is required for S&S: hot pursuit, police and public safety, risk of destruction of evidence. See also Dorman factors for determining whether circs are exigent. Special needs exceptions to warrant requirement (if only purpose in search is law enforcement, no special need and warrant still required for): safety inspections of homes, administrative searches, drug testing of employees or school children, police checkpoints and roadblocks. Cady v. Dombrowski for inventory searches. Schneckloth for determining whether D's consent to search was voluntary (totality of circs). Drayton for burden of proving voluntariness is on gov't -- preponderance of evidence.

Weeks for creating exclusionary rule, Mapp for applying it to states. Leon for good faith exception to exclusionary rule. Rakas for establishing standing to challenge violation of 4th amendment right (using Katz test of legitimate expectation of privacy). Wong Sun for excluding evidence that is fruit of poisonous tree. Murray for independent source exception, Andrade for inevitable discovery exception.

Massiah for lawyer must be present once you're formally charged. Miranda for requiring police to give mini-lecture in crimpro upon arrest and before custodial interrogation. Elstad for no cat out of the bag exception. Dickerson for making Miranda “a constitutional decision” that Ct. will not overrule (b/c of stare decisis) and which Congress cannot overrule. Public safety exception to Miranda. Berkemer for Terry stops are non-custodial. Innis for it's interrogation if police should know it is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect. To be valid Miranda waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Mosley for a cooling-off period gives cops second crack after suspect invokes right to silence. Edwards for per se rule if you invoke right to counsel, cops must leave you alone unless you initiate. Oregon v. Bradshaw for initiation means D indicates willingness and desire for generalized discussion about the investigation.

Powell v. Alabama for D in capital case has right to counsel. Gideon for right to counsel for indigents in all felony cases. Abersinger for extending right to counsel for anyone facing imprisonment.

Wade for identifying suspects -- impermissible suggestiveness can cause in-court ID to be excluded unless it's independent of tainted pre-trial ID. Manson v. Brathwaite for reliability is lynchpin of ID.

Whew. I have a lot of that in my head (and more detail about each point so I can talk intelligently about it), but not all of it. Once CrimPro is over, it's on to PR this evening, but that's open note so who cares?

See you when my finals are over when I hope to no longer be a whined up toy

Posted 06:55 AM | Comments (4) | 2L

Ridiculous Dilemma

Look! It's more of The Usual!

But specifically at this point, what really bums me out about this particular round of finals is that I think I could do pretty well if I didn't have to take all three exams in two days. Unlike last semester, this semester I went to class, I read (most of the time), I took good notes, I paid attention and I actually cared about the subject matter of these classes. All of those factors suggest I should do just fine on the finals, but that's looking really unlikely since I practically have to cram the material for all three classes into my head at the same time. And yeah, I know that for the bar exam you have to cram info for many more subjects into your head at the same time, but this isn't the bar exam. This is finals, and this finals schedule puts me at a disadvantage in the curve b/c the majority of my peers will not have had such a compressed study schedule. For the bar, everyone is basically in the same boat as far as having to cover so many subjects at once.

My professors and the GW administration tell me to suck it up. That's how things work at GW—you pick your classes and by doing so you pick your finals schedule. If your finals schedule blows, that's your own damn fault and your own tough luck. So add this to the list of reasons I'm less than satisfied with my law school experience at GW. If you're still choosing between law schools, consider one that does not force its students to make the ridiculous choice between either taking the classes they want, or having a sane finals schedule. The solution to this dilemma is to offer conflict exams, but that would just be too easy, wouldn't it?

Does any other school operate this way w/finals? Does yours?

Posted 06:22 AM | Comments (12) | 2L

Fed Courts Fu

Remember that moment in The Matrix when they're training Neo how to fight? At one point, supposedly after ten hours straight, he wakes up and looks at Morpheus and, somewhat shocked, he says “I know kung fu!”

I wish studying for law school finals was like that. I would love for someone to plug something into the back of my head that would allow me to wake up three minutes later and say “I know fed courts!”

Unfortunately, the matrix has me so I guess I'll just have to keep studying.

Posted 09:17 PM | Comments (3) | 2L

Choosing a public interest law school

A reader wrote in recently with a dilemma: He has been offered a “full-ride” scholarship at a school at the higher end of the top 50 in the U.S. News rankings, or no aid but admission at an upper top-20 school. He'd like to do international public interest law related to poverty issues. Which school should he choose? Also, more generally, what factors should he look at for each school to compare them and make this decision?

If you have any thoughts, please share. For starters, here's a slightly edited version of my response to this reader:

First: Congratulations! Getting a full-ride to a top-50 program is an awesome accomplishment!

Second: Knowing what I know now after two years of law school, I would definitely take a full-ride at a top 50 school with a very solid reputation in my desired area of specialty. No question. Why? Because my impression has been that school rank or prestige are probably helpful—even in public interest law—but the difference between upper top-20 and upper top-50 is just not worth the $90-$150k dollar difference involved in a choice like yours. That said, I really don't know what a PI employer (esp. one in international poverty law, for example) would do when faced with a selection of candidates from these schools. My guess is that, most things being equal, the employer would likely want to hire someone from the higher ranked school. Yet, it wouldn't be that simple because you've obviously already distinguished yourself enough to get this scholarship, and I bet whatever earned you that (your previous work in the field, I'm guessing) would also earn you special attention from employers.

So, another way to put this: You're clearly shoulders above the average upper top-50 student, which is why you got the scholarship. That distinction will show through to employers, so I would say your career chances at the upper top-50 school will be nearly as good (if not exactly as good) as at the upper top-20 school. If you were going into BigLaw, the choice would be much harder. But in PI law, my impression is that school rank just isn't that huge a factor. Your resume will be strong from either school so employers will give you a serious look, either way.The quality of your legal training probably won't vary much between the two. Graduating with zero debt (or very little -- I assume “full ride” includes room and board) is huge because it makes you more flexible -- you'll be able to consider a wider variety of jobs w/out making your heavy debt load a major factor in your career decisions. From where I sit, your choice is clear: I would choose the full ride at the upper top-50 school.

HOWEVER, I'm just a 2L and what do I know? Not so much. I'm just speaking for me. You may have different considerations. How do you feel about the possible debt you'd accrue at the top-20 school? Do you see any differences in the two programs (besides the obvious factors of cost and location) that make you lean one way or the other? You may have tried this already, but what if you did this: Remove cost from the equation; assume both schools would cost the same. Which would you attend and why? Now remove cost AND rank from the equation—which would you choose? Doing this will force you to focus on other, possibly more important factors, such as:

• Classes: Look at the courses offered at each school and make a list of 8-10 courses you think you'd really like to take. Does one school have more classes that sound great? Also, call the registration people and ask how often your most desired classes are offered. Many schools list a number of courses in their curriculum materials that are actually only offered rarely. If that's the case, you may choose a school partly hoping to take one or two classes that won't even be offered in the two years you'll be there and taking electives (you probably won't get electives in your first year). The registration people should be able to tell you if this is the case.
• Faculty: Then look at who teaches the classes that really appeal to you. Read their bios. Do any of them sound like people who have done things you want to do and/or who are connected to institutes, nonprofits, gov't orgs or NGOs that you'd like to get connected with? Look at what they've published; you may not be able to read much of it, but you could skim some of the papers and/or read abstracts (many are online via SSRN and other places). Are any of these people doing interesting work? Do any of them make you say, “Yeah, I really would love to know that person and maybe have him/her as my mentor”? In your first year, faculty won't matter nearly as much, so look beyond to the electives you'd want to take.
• Journals: You may have no interest in being on a journal, so this may not be an issue. But if you have even a vague interest, you should look at the journals at each school and also at how you qualify to be on staff of one. If there's one that especially appeals to you (like the “Journal of International Poverty Law” or something), you should contact someone on that journal (phone or email or whatever) to find out how you could get on staff. Do they choose based on grades or writing competition, or both? If grades are a factor, how big a factor? How competitive is it? How prestigious is the journal in its field? Being on a journal in a subject area in which you want to work can be very fun and very helpful to your education b/c you'll read and write on specialized topics in that area.
• Clinics: Clinics are important to PI law and if either school has a clinic or two that grabs you, you should give that school extra points. If there's a clinic that would let you do exactly what you think you want to do, that's a huge bonus. It'll look great to employers and again, it will be excellent training for you. If you want to go further with this, call the clinic director and ask to speak with students who are in or have been in the clinic. Then ask those students what they did in the clinic and what they are going to do for their summer jobs or careers, and whether the clinic was helpful or worthwhile, etc.
• Career services: Does either school have someone one staff who is dedicated to helping PI students get PI jobs in summers and after graduation? GW has a person who does this as part of her job. This is nice, but it means that there's no one working full time year-round to maintain connections with public interest employers, research jobs and connections for you, and generally help you in your PI career building. In contrast, Georgetown has an entire PI office dedicated to this sort of thing. The more resources the school gives to this, the better it will be for you. In addition to what the career services office tells you, try to talk to students who are doing things you think you'll want to do. The career services people should be able to give you a couple of names you could email so you could ask about their satisfaction w/the school's career services, etc.
• Summer funding: As a PI student, you are not so likely to find summer jobs that pay; therefore, it's good to know what grants will be available to you in the summers. For example, GW gave out $165k this summer, spread among approximately 50 people; at least 100 people applied for this pool, meaning only 50% who wanted funding got it. You should be able to find those kinds of numbers for each school. This shouldn't be a deal-breaker factor for either school, but it's one more piece of data that might help you make a choice.

Those are all the big factors I can think of now. I think if you gathered as much data you could get on these variables and tried to compare the programs, you should be on your way to making an intelligent and informed choice here. I don't know how much time you have, but even if you can only surf their websites and make a couple of calls for each school, I think doing so would be worth your time. Once you have some data on these points you'll have to make the choice about what the debt means to you. Before starting school, I figured the debt was no big deal. Perhaps that will prove to be true, but now it looks like a huge deal. Even if it doesn't affect my life or career too much, it weighs on my mind and adds a sort of general anxiety to the future. Living without that would be worth a lot to me, but that may just be me.

Posted 10:10 AM | Comments (14) | advice law school