As I mentioned Sunday, I went to Atlanta Sunday night, locked myself in a hotel room, and spent all day Monday and several hours early Tuesday morning preparing for an argument in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, I am very behind in my work and need to concentrate on it today.
Back in the saddle tomorrow!
Sorry, folks, but I do not have time for a post today. I have an oral argument in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Tuesday and I am busy getting ready. I will post tomorrow morning.
I confess to being somewhat of a law geek. After almost 25 years of practice, I still enjoy reading opinions and getting my head in the books. I readily confess to not doing much legal writing in my practice anymore – I have several bright young lawyers who help with that part of preparing a case for trial. But I still love to read opinions, and still get a real thrill out of an extraordinarily well-written opinion.
This is one. It is written by Judge William Bedsworth on the California Court of Appeals. The opinion involves a probation revocation hearing; the defendant lost and got sent to prison for seven years. To get a feel for the opinion, consider this, the first paragraph of the opinion: “Occasionally, we see a case that “fell through a crack.” This case fell through a chasm. And no one, not the trial attorney, not the prosecutor, not the court – and certainly not the probation officer – can escape some degree of responsibility for the existence of that chasm. When the issue is whether a defendant goes to prison for seven years or to a drug rehabilitation program, someone should be paying attention. In this case, it appears no one but the defendant really was.”
This is the last paragraph of the opinion: “Finally, we must emphasize that if this case is not an utter anomaly, it is a
frightening example of what can occur when all the participants forget how high the stakes are in a probation revocation hearing. We have no problem concluding Gayton’s counsel had the primary obligation to review and present the evidence that might have assisted his cause. But prosecutors always bear some responsibility for the evidence they offer. And when it became clear during the hearing that the facts were so hotly contested, and that the probation officer had neither brought the file nor reviewed it in the last three months, it was perhaps incumbent upon the court to consider issuing an order to produce the file on its own motion. In short, it must be remembered that everyone in this case had a stake in getting at the truth: All failed.”
Rep. Duke Cunningham got sentenced to prison yesterday for accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes. He was looking at a maximum ten-year prison term and actually received eight years, four months.
Cunningham solicted and obtained bribes from defense industry contractors. He used his position to help his co-conspirators get contracts from the Department of Defense.
So, why is this on a blog about torts? Well, this sentence has nothing to do with torts but makes me think about Anna Alaya. She got nine years in prison for attempting to extort a personal injury settlement from Wendy’s.
Isn’t this nice?
I discovered this at Home Office Lawyer.
The United States Supreme Court does not hear many tort cases. However, the Court released a tort opinion on Wednesday that held that the U.S. Postal Service is subject to personal injury lawsuits if they do not use due care when leaving mail at people’s homes.
The Pennsylvania plaintiff tripped and fell over mail left on her porch. She sued the Post Office, which claimed immunity. The Court reversed two lower court decisions dismissing the case, holding that that a federal law giving the post office immunity from certain claims was only intended to cut off lawsuits that arise from delivering the mail late or in a damaged condition.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter. Justice Alito did not participate.
Do you have a smoking gun not covered by a protective order? The folks at Slate want it. Read about it here.
The AP just issued a story at 9:30 P.M. today that is titled “Cheney Apparently Breaks Key Hunting Rule.”
A quote from the article: “It’s incumbent upon the shooter to assess the situation and make sure it’s a safe shot,” said Mark Birkhauser, president-elect of the International Hunter Education Association and hunter education coordinator in New Mexico. “Once you squeeze that trigger, you can’t bring that shot back.”
Of course, you saw that analysis here before 7:00 A.M. this morning.
The Vice President accidently shot another man – a lawyer – during a hunting trip this weekend. Read about the hunting trip here.
The owner of the ranch has placed comparative fault in play: the injured man “”came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn’t signal them or indicate to them or announce himself.”
Mary Matalin’s take on it: “[The Vice President] felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to do.”
Joy and I got back from Phoenix last night after spending a long weekend there at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, the parent of which is now known as the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification.
After the meetings ended Saturday afternoon we drove to Sedona with Steve Croley and Bridget McCormack to watch the sunset. Steve is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Bridget is the Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs at the University of Michigan Law School. (Bridget also serves on the NBLSC Board.) They are great people, and we had a great time both in Sedona and at the Spirit Room in Jerome.
Steve is writing (another) book but I am not sure if I can mention the exact topic or not so I won’t. I will say that Steve is just the right person to write a book on this topic and I look forward to its publication.
Day on Torts