It took a little over a month. The Houston Police Department Chief's Command issued a memo of questionable legality forbidding cops from talking to defense lawyers without permission. Some 60 HCCLA members, incited and led by former president Robb Fickman, descended upon Houston City Council to protest (video). And the Chief rescinded the suspect order.Except he didn't call it a rescission. He called it a clarification. Because

Divorce lawyer John Clinton, running for criminal court judge, seems to be saying that when he was a Houston police officer he "amassed years of trial experience." [quicktime]https://blog.bennettandbennett.com/video/YearsOfTrialExperience.mov[/quicktime] (Full video here.) This could be true only in the sense in which a career criminal has amassed years of policing experience. Maybe Clinton spoke awkwardly, and meant to convey that as a lawyer he had amassed years of

Houston DUI lawyer Paul Kennedy, in Going for the Gut, calls to our attention this Boston Globe article by Drake Bennett about how disgust may shape our moral judgments. A few thoughts: First, one of the experiments discussed: In one study, [psychologist Jonathan Haidt] had some of his unfortunate test subjects respond to four vignettes related to moral judgment while sitting in a room that had been

It is unlawful, in Maryland, for any person to [w]ilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any . . .oral . . . communication[.] "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation. "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through

In regard to the search of a place, the United States Supreme Court has consistently favored the issuance of a warrant by a neutral and detached judicial officer as a more reliable safeguard against improper searches. See Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 2324, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979). The failure of the magistrate who issued the search warrant to act

(For more of Paladin's wisdom, buy the complete first season of Have Gun, Will Travel here.)

Every now and again some young criminal-defense lawyer on some listserv will suggest that we criminal-defense lawyers should "set everything for trial." If we set everything for trial, the theory goes, either the government becomes much more reasonable in the cases it charges and the offers it makes, or the system crumbles under its own weight. The underlying theory of cause and effect is correct. But, because

So I listed four big reasons blawgers should attribute ideas with which they disagree:For yourself;For your readers;For those with whom you disagree; andFor the blawgosphere.To illustrate the hazards of non-attribution, I pointed out a couple of Norm Pattis's and Jamison Koehler's unattributed statements, and asked: who said it, when, and where?Both Pattis and Koehler commented. Koehler agreed with me, but didn't answer the questions. Pattis, in a

Clay Conrad writes:[A]lmost nobody denies that, say, executing an innocent man would be a substantive injustice. So, if there can be a substantive injustice, then there must be, by elimination, substantive justice.Why does that follow?Say that it's unjust to execute an innocent man. Does that mean that every time an innocent man is not executed (three and a half billion times a day; seven billion if "man"

To do with it what he or she pleases.(H/T Patrick at Popehat)