Our friend Scott Greenfield's Simple Justice blog is nominated for Best Law Blog in the 2007 weblog awards. He's competing against much more general blogs with broader readership. Go vote for Scott and SJ; you can do so once every 24 hours. A vote for Simple Justice is. . . a vote for Simple Justice.

Norm Pattis writes about lawyers who won't help people snitch (hat tip to Scott Greenfield); he draws an analogy to the practice of medicine: I would not consider myself well served by my doctor if he were to announce that a life-saving treatment was available, but that he would not prescribe it because, well, it offends his sensibilities. I want options from my doctor. I want intelligent

So you chose a narrow field of inquiry on which to cross-examine the State's expert, and you gathered a list of journal articles that might relate to the narrow field of inquiry. What next? Find a good medical library. Any medical school should have a a library that has most of the publications we'll be looking for; if you don't live anywhere near a medical school or

The Center for American and International Law in Plano, Texas is presenting a cross-examination and impeachment seminar for the criminal defense bar December 13-14, 2007. Terry MacCarthy is the lead speaker. I recommend this seminar highly. Most of us could use more cross-examination training, and Terry is one of the best teachers. I would plan to attend if I weren't going to be in Paris (France, not

New York Criminal Lawyer Scott Greenfield, always on the ball, brings us news out of Texas: In Collin County (criminal-defense lawyers' Thunderdome), criminal-defense lawyer Chris Hoover, faced with a judge who refused to recuse himself or to refer the recusal motion to the presiding judge (as required by statute), deliberately refused to participate in his client's trial. Chris moved for a continuance (denied); he announced "not ready";

I haven't posted in a few days because I went from having family in town and celebrating my son's fourth birthday, to preparing for a resisting arrest trial, to installing Leopard. What better way to get back into the flow than another exploration of the Tao? Here's Chapter 4; as usual, I'm using the Mitchell version: The Tao is like a well: used but never used up.

I have written a couple of times about a lawyer taking the position that he will not help criminal defendants cooperate with the government in exchange for the possibility of lighter sentences. My contention is that a lawyer who feels that cooperating with the government in exchange for a possible sentence reduction is unethical should, if possible, not help clients do so. I say "if possible" because

A few weeks ago, inspired by the Brandon Mayfield case in district court in Oregon, I wrote about the myth of fingerprints. This week, inspired by the Brandon Mayfield Case a Baltimore Circuit Court judge in Maryland v. Bryan Rose, following a Frye hearing, excluded the testimony of a forensic fingerprint examiner because the "ACE-V" methodology of latent fingerprint examination is more likely than not "a subjective,

Here is what I now put in my contracts on federal cases. (I cribbed it from another lawyer who has had the no-snitches policy for a long time.): I do not represent people who “snitch,” “rat,” or cooperate, which means giving information against others to the government in order to avoid criminal charges, receive leniency, or get some other type of consideration. Three major reasons exist for

Courtesy of CharonQC, this Times Online column by Raymond Tallis of "observations" about neurolaw and the inclination to blame someone's brain for his behavior. Tallis's observations are in response to Simon Myerson, QC's column from yesterday's Times Online (Simon's blog). Professor Tallis observes: The brain is usually blamed for actions that attract moral disapprobation or legal sanction. People do not normally deny responsibility for good or neutral