“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ ” the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., wrote to Mr. Paul. “The answer to that question is no.” Car­ney added that, “if the United States were under attack, there were

"May all those you love get what they deserve."

So what about the charge for which DPS issued subpoenas to Twitter? ((It appears that DPS has withdrawn one of the subpoenas by agreement (PDF).)) § 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT.  (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (1)  cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer

We all know the rule that ex parte communications between counsel and the court are generally forbidden. We also know that judges—even judges of good will—who know the rule break it all the time. This week I got a little bit of insight into how this might happen when a Harris County jurist, someone who has been a judge for longer than I've been a criminal-defense lawyer,

The San Antonio Express reports that Jason McMurray, a Texas Department of Public Safety Agent ((Is there really such a thing?)) out of Tyler sent an administrative subpoena to Twitter in San Francisco for records of two Twitter accounts, @deniseromano and @prisonforbush, including the IP addresses used from July 17 to July 19, 2013:     Twitter sent one of the account holders (and presumably both of

Yesterday I wrote about stand-your-ground laws generally. I did so because I didn't know the mechanics of such laws, and there is a great deal of talk about such laws from people who seem to have no greater understanding of them than I have. In the Zimmerman jury instructions, the jury was instructed on the stand-your-ground law: If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity

Forget George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Forget any specific case. You're going to design the best society you can, and I'm going to offer you two (and only two) options for a self-defense law. Option A: A person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, but may not resort

Zimmerman Verdict Exposes Deficiencies in U.S. Self-Defense Law, by "television correspondent and attorney" Amy Dardashtian. I hate it when the person who writes something like that describes herself as an attorney because it conveys the impression that her notions have some basis value. I don't even know where to begin, and I don't want to spend much time on it lest reading it make me dumber. I'll

The verdict in a criminal trial is a dismal medium for sending a message. Seldom does anyone outside the criminal courtroom care what has happened inside. Even if people are paying attention, criminal jury instructions don't ask "what message would you like to send?" but only whether the government has proven its case. A verdict that is issued to send a message is not based on the

I have advocated (Lizards Don't Laugh) getting jurors laughing to get them out of their lizard brains and make them less likely to convict. Conventional courtroom wisdom is that a laughing jury does not convict. But humor in the criminal trial has to come with some rules.  Herewith, ten commandments for humor in the courtroom. I Thou shalt probably not. This is a maneuver to be attempted