Posted by William A. Jacobson
on February 15, 201428 Comments
Prof. KC Johnson, best known for his investigative work regarding abysmal university and faculty handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, has a post at Minding the Campus regarding a disturbing appointment at Dartmouth, 'Why Have a Hearing? Just Expel Him':
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" That astonishing question was posed at a conference on how colleges respond to sexual assault issues by Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth. According to Inside Higher Ed, Childress continued: "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege."
Give Childress credit for candor--even the campus spokespersons for increasing the number of guilty findings in campus tribunals usually aren't so bald in their disdain for basic principles of due process.
Childress' jarring remarks coincided with news that Dartmouth had promoted her, and given her additional power over the college's sexual assault policies. Last Friday, the college announced that Childress will head the newly-created Center for Community Action and Prevention, which Childress said would "be the focal point on campus for Dartmouth's sexual assault and violence prevention initiatives" and "drive the College's mobilization efforts around preventing sexual violence and increasing the safety and well-being of all members of our community." (All members, it seems, except students facing unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault.) Incredibly, Dartmouth theater professor Paul Hackett suggested that despite Childress' appointment, the college isn't going far enough on the issue.
Posted by William A. Jacobson
on February 15, 201420 Comments
As of this writing, we still have no verdict in the Michael Dunn "Loud Music" murder trial.
The jury now is in its 25th hour of deliberations, and has asked several questions about the law, including self defense. The verdict could come at any moment.
It's interesting to watch the Twitter chatter as the verdict is unknown. as people can project their feelings without knowing the result. Race is a prism for many, who are outraged that the jury is taking so long.
Here are just a few representative tweets:
The #DunnTrial will determine whether or not an unarmed black child's body is, in and of itself, a deadly weapon.
The lawsuit by Teresa Wagner against the former Dean of the University of Iowa’s College of Law has received a lot of attention, a tortured procedural history (including a prior appeal) and confusing results. In the latest twist, a judge has denied Wagner’s motion for a new trial (full opinion embedded at bottom of post).
The lawsuit concerns claims by Wagner that she suffered discrimination based on her conservative political views, resulting in her being denied a promotion (she’s still employed).
Paul Mirengoff of Power Line describes the outrageous facts behind the case:
Wagner was already the associate director of the law school’s writing center. Moreover, she had taught legal writing at George Mason University Law School, edited three books, practiced as a trial attorney in Iowa, and written several legal briefs, including one in a U.S. Supreme Court case. In addition, the faculty-appointments committee at the University of Iowa College of Law recommended her appointment as a full-time instructor.
Posted by William A. Jacobson
on February 14, 20145 Comments
The Times of Israel, based on communications with unnamed Palestinian Authority officials, reports that the Palestinians have conveyed their rejection of John Kerry's draft "framework" proposal:
The Palestinian Authority has informed US Secretary of State John Kerry that it will not accept his framework peace proposal as it currently stands, PA officials told The Times of Israel....
Central clauses of the framework deal as presented by Kerry, and rejected by the PA, the Palestinian officials said, are as follows:
Borders: The peace agreement is to be based on pre-1967 lines, but will take into consideration changes on the ground in the decades since.
Settlements: There will be no massive evacuation of “residents.”
Refugees: Palestinian refugees will be able to return to Palestine or remain where they currently live. In addition, it is possible that a limited number of refugees could be allowed into pre-1967 Israel as a humanitarian gesture, and only with Israeli acquiescence. Nowhere is it written that Israel bears responsibility for suffering caused to the refugees.
Capital: The Palestinian capital will be in Jerusalem.
Security: Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself.
The Jordan Valley: The IDF will retain a presence in the Jordan Valley. The length of time the IDF will remain will depend on the abilities of the Palestinian security forces.
Border crossings: Israel will continue to control border crossings into Jordan.
Definition of the countries: Two states will result, “a national state of the Jewish people and a national state of the Palestinian people.”
So what's the problem? Some of these issues probably are surmountable.
But one issue probably is not, the recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, as further reported by the Times:
Posted by William A. Jacobson
on February 14, 201445 Comments
Erick Erickson called Wendy Davis “Abortion Barbie” because of her cluelessness about the Gosnell shop of horrors at the same time she was fighting a proposed requirement that abortion clinics meet normal surgical center standards and abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hostpitals.
When Davis stepped back from that position the other day and declared that she could support a ban on late-term abortions if there were sufficient "deference" given to the doctor-patient relationship, I suggested the proper analogy was Gumby not Barbie because "infinitely flexible positions now are the hallmark of Wendy Davis’ campaign."
For that change in position on late term abortion, Davis was accused of "betrayal" by abortion advocates.
Davis, however, has changed her stance again, and now is back to opposing any ban on late-term abortions, because there is no amount of "deference" that could satisfy her, after all.
Via San Antonio Express, Wendy Davis says it would be 'impossible' for Legislature to devise appropriate 20-week ban on abortion:
Posted by David Gerstman
on February 14, 20145 Comments
Previously we noted that the New York Times has a tendency to play up the successes of the BDS movement and to play down the true nature of the BDS movement.
The New York Times has since carried two more articles about BDS; one in the news section and one op-ed. Surprisingly, the opinion article took a critical look at BDS. Unfortunately the news story was consistent with previous New York Times coverage of the issue.
In the news section, Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren wrote West Bank Boycott: A Political Act or Prejudice? For the most part Rudoren treats the issue "evenhandedly," giving each side equal time and not judging either side. In the course of the reporting Rudoren interviews BDS activist Omar Barghouti.
“He can say anything he wishes, but immoral? Resistance to his immoral policies can never be immoral,” Mr. Barghouti said of Mr. Netanyahu. “The litmus test is are you boycotting a group of people based on their identity, or are you boycotting something — an act, a company, a business — that you disagree with.
“We have three reasons,” Mr. Barghouti said, citing the movement’s goals of ending the occupation; ensuring equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and promoting the right of return for Palestinian refugees. “End the three reasons and we won’t boycott.”
Barghouti, who got a degree from Tel Aviv University is a pretty good example of equality of Israel's minorities. That degree also makes Barghouti a hypocrites as his boycott would affect Tel Aviv University too. Rudoren ignores these inconsistencies. She also remains silent about Barghouti's demand for the right of return. Everyone knows that the point of that "right" is the destruction of Israel.
In fact, Barghouti's claim confirms that the the goal of the BDS movement is an assault on Israel's right to exist is correct. Rudoren doesn't appear to grasp this.
Oddly, it is columnist Roger Cohen who got things right about BDS. In The B.D.S. Threat, Cohen writes:
Posted by edgeofthesandbox
on February 14, 201415 Comments
I generally dislike Olympic ceremonies because, staged on immense stadiums with numerous extras, they lend themselves easily to a totalitarian aesthetic. The 1980 Olympic opening ceremony in Moscow was an exercise in totalitarianism: pyramids of humans erected on the stadium, extras marching lockstep, etc. Likewise, the 2008 Beijing Olympics showcased loyal subjects moving around on cue.
Russians learned their lessons and sought to wow foreigners in Sochi through high art and high tech. Producer Andrei Boltenko was faced with the uneasy task of presenting the authoritarian extravaganza that is Russian history in some kind of truthful but positive light, and he did it through celebrating culture, not politics. Cue the cuckoo clock speech.
Russians opened up the program with a walk through the Cyrillic alphabet that highlighted Russia's contributions to civilization. A quaint idea that a bunch of white men (save for Pushkin, and Russians don't dwell too much on him being part black), most of them dead, did something worth treasuring.
I thought the list of great Russians was a bit heavy on emigres: Nabokov, Chagall, Kandinsky. I'm not sure Kandinsky belongs to that short list anyway -- personal opinion, I know. Considering that Russia nurtured so many chess champions, maybe the producers could had Kasparov stand for the letter K. OK, never mind.
In the best Soviet tradition, Russians couldn't help exaggerating. For letter T, for instance, they had "television". While the word is Russian in origin, Russians (and Russian emigres) only invented some of the technology that went into it.
Posted by Jack Park
on February 13, 201418 Comments
In a decision issued earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California law conditioning the right of “responsible law-abiding” citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense purposes on a showing of “good cause” unlawfully restricts Second Amendment rights.
California prohibits the open carry of firearms and imposes limits on concealed carry. In particular, San Diego County requires applicants for concealed carry permits to produce supporting documentation to establish not just that the applicant is concerned for his or her own safety, but that the applicant can identify “circumstances that distinguish [him or her] from the mainstream.”
As the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Ninth Circuit explained, “[C]arrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.” Accordingly, it concluded, “[I]f self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to ‘bear arms’ and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision contributes to a split in the circuits that makes Supreme Court review likely.
The Seventh Circuit is on the side on the Ninth, but the Second, Third, and Fourth go the other way.
A petition for certiorari seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision has been filed in the Supreme Court. In addition, a petition for certiorari that raises the question whether there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms in public has been distributed for the Supreme Court’s conference on February 21.
Posted by William A. Jacobson
on February 13, 201421 Comments
The reaction to Wendy Davis' statement that she could support a ban on late-term abortion if there were more deference given to patients and physicians has caused angst in a Democratic base already upset over Davis' support of Open Carry laws.
Amanda Marcotte at Slate.com called it a betrayal (emphasis added):
Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis made her name and kick-started her campaign for governor by filibustering an anti-abortion omnibus bill, standing and talking for 11 hours straight in support of abortion rights. So it comes as a surprise — and frankly, a betrayal — to learn that Davis told the Dallas Morning News on Tuesday that she could support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, if it gave "enough deference between a woman and her doctor" to make the decision to abort after that point for medical reasons....
You may have bought her sneakers, but when it comes down to it, Wendy Davis is a politician.
This week, Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis delighted her detractors and confounded her pro-choice supporters when she appeared to support the very same 20-week ban she spent 11 hours filibustering.....
It’s far too late for Davis to shy away from abortion rights, including the more politically uncomfortable parts, after confronting them head-on in her filibuster. Regardless of what she was trying to say, a political campaign isn’t a great place for complex or nuanced moral conversations. On the campaign trail, Davis would likely be better off if she stuck to the broader point she made in her filibuster: “The alleged reason for the bill is to enhance patient safety. But what [the provisions] really do is create provisions that treat women as though they are not capable of making their own medical decisions.”
Posted by Andrew Branca
on February 13, 2014364 Comments
NOTE:REFRESH SCREEN FOR LATEST UPDATE!
UPDATE (2-15): GUILTY! Michael Dunn has been found guilty on most counts, but not the murder charge for the shooting of Jordan Davis. On that one count the jury was hung and unable to reach a verdict. The State is free to re-try Dunn on that charge.
However, Dunn was found guilty of three counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of throwing missiles at an occupied vehicle.
UPDATE (2-15): 652PM JURY VERDICT PENDING ON ALL COUNTSUPDATE (2-15): 6:15PM Jury question: If we cannot agree on a count, is the entire case mis-tried or just the count? Judge brought jury in, clarifies that's not the case. No mistrial at all, would just be hung on that last count (which State could re-try at their discretion). Jury still has more to consider, they noted, so back to deliberations.4:41PM Note from jury. Jury has verdict on four of the five counts--the one they can't decide is the first charge, the murder charge for death of Jordan Davis. Healey to read them Allen charge. Bringing the jurors on in. Healey reads them the Allen charge, sends them back to deliberations.
[caption id="attachment_78892" align="alignnone" width="450"] ("Loud music" murder trial "Allen" charge.)[/caption]
UPDATE (2-15): 9:50AM Jury questions:(1) Is the defense of self-defense separate for each person in each count? A: "Yes."
(2) Are we determining if deadly force is justified against each person in each count? A: "Yes."
(3) Or if we determine deadly force is justified against one person, is it justified against others? A: "No. Self defense and justifiable use of deadly force applies separately to each count."
UPDATE (2-15): 9:00AM Court came briefly into session. Jury was starting deliberations only now, or within a few minutes. Court in recess until they hear something from the jury. Keep eyes here for breaking news.UPDATE (2-15): 8:38AM Can hear audio techs in court room 406, "Test 1, 2." No video yet. UPDATE (2-15): 8:30AM Judge Healey is expected to pro forma bring the court into session at 9:00AM, but it was anticipated that the jury would already be in deliberations by that time. We're here covering the court live, all day.UPDATE (2-14): 6:50PM Jury requests to be dismissed for the night, saying they have "hit a wall for tonight." Judge allows, no objection. He thanks jury, says he'll let THEM decide what time to start tomorrow. Healey suggests, 9:00, 9:30, and one juror responds, "7:00". The court room breaks into laughter. Healey decides jury can arrive when they wish, he'll be there but rest of court need not, at 9:00AM he'll call court into session and announce what time the jury actually started, just so everyone knows. That's it for tonight, folks.UPDATE (2-14): 6:40PM Several of Dunn's jail house phone recordings--the cause of so much pre-trial litigation over "open records" disputes with the media--have just been released. These include:
UPDATE (2-14): 5:00PM Two questions from the jury. First question involves getting a 30 minute break, Healey of course says yes. Second question more substantive: Is it permissible for them to agree on several of the charges, but not on other of the charges. Answer is also yes. Verdicts would be rendered on the ones where unanimous agreement, the others would be hung, and State could re-prosecute on any hung charges at their discretion. (As a reminder, there are five indicted charges--Murder 1, three counts of attempted Murder 1, and hurling missiles. Also the jury is free to consider all lesser included charges.)UPDATE (2-14) 9:00AM Court in session. Discussion in court about simply sending jury straight into deliberations, no formal morning greeting in court. Healey: "This is a working group." Also announced that people will no longer be able to sit in the court room during recess while jury deliberations going on. People have said it might be possible for people in court room to hear talking from jury deliberations, and vice versa. So 5 minutes before reconvene will allow people back into court room. Healey: "Happy Valentines Day to everybody, we'll see you all when we get some word from the jury." Court recessed.UPDATE (2-14): 8:00AM The jury is scheduled to return to deliberations at 9:00AM. We'll be covering the events in the court room all day, real-time, right here at this post on Legal Insurrection.UPDATE (2-13): 6:20PM That's it for tonight, no jury decision yet, we start again at 9:00AM US EST tomorrow. Legal Insurrection's live-coverage will be AT THIS PAGE, so bookmark to come back.UPDATE (2-13): 4:30 Court back in session. Jury asking when letter exhibit #201 written? One of Dunn's jail house letters. Court looks through transcript, identifies as June 2013. This is the "Black Friday" letter, though obviously not written that date. Jury now retiring back to jury room. Healey tells all four alternates they'll be held overnight tonight, but tomorrow can be sequestered in hotel room rather than in court house, more comfortable for them.Update (2-13): 2:25PM Jury reports that one set of jury instructions is missing pages 32-41. (Holy cow, that's a lot of instructions.) Weighing the evidence, defendant's statements, rules for deliberations, cautionary instructions, verdict, submitting case to the jury, not substantive discussions. We didn't change any of these from the model instructions. Just sending back the missing pages. No objections from State or defense. Jurors also requested a dry easel or large paper, which will be sent back to them. Back in recess.UPDATE (2-13): 1:45PMJury asks if they can see "Bendie," the dummy with the trajectory dowels. Normally such demonstrative evidence would not go back to jury. Healey suggests he'll allow if the defense has no objection. Strolla doesn't initially object, but then turns out that the dowels in Bendie were moved around since last seen in court, no longer representative, so objects. Bendie won't go back. Healey writes out explanatory note for bailiff to give to jurors. Calls jurors into court room, reads them the note, "can't send dummy back because it was demonstrative exhibit for demonstrative purposes, not entered into evidence." Sends them back to continue their deliberations.UPDATE (2-13): 1:20PM Jury asks if they can be provided with the "trajectory-rod dummy." Problem is, dummy is demonstrative evidence only, normally would not go back to jury room. State has no objection. Strolla and Dunn discuss briefly in separate room, return and say they also have no objection. Healey, in abundance of caution, recesses for 15 minutes so case law can be reviewed, ensure they don't inadvertently make a move that could result in reversal.UPDATE (2-13): 11:50AM Defense counsel Cory Strolla speaking to reporters in live feed.UPDATE (2-13): 9:43AM. Healey speaks with the four alternate jurors. They were held over in sequester last night, both from the public and the other jurors. He tells them he's not inclined to keep all them overnight again if there's no verdict again, and is inclined to let one or two of them go home even if no verdict. Seems he'll decide later in the day.
UPDATE (2-13): 9:39AM. Healey welcomed the jury back. They were not scheduled to start until 10:00AM, but are present and ready to go, so he is not going to hold them up. Last night they requested the gas station market surveillance video, and this morning they have been provided with that video and instructions on how to play it. Court is now in recess until it receives either another jury instruction or a verdict. (As this update was being typed the juror requested an external monitor on which to view the video.)
Today Legal Insurrection is on real-time Verdict Watch in the "loud music" murder trial of Michael Dunn in the shooting death of Jordan Davis. Dunn is charged with 1st degree murder for the death of Davis, three counts of attempted murder in the first degree for firing at Davis' three friends with him in the SUV, and one count of firing a missile into a vehicle. He will also be subject to Florida's "10-20-Life" statute, as well as all lesser included offenses of the primary charges. Dunn claims he acted in lawful self-defense.
We will update with breaking news as it happens in real-time.
The jury is will re-start deliberations at 10AM US EST. Before breaking last night they asked to be provided with the surveillance video from the gas station market. The video is 20 minutes long, and consists of 6 distinct camera angles. At 9:30AM the State, defense, and Judge Healey will meet to finalize the protocol for providing the jury the video.
The Florida Model Jury Instructions for all these criminal charges as well as justifiable use of deadly force can be found here:
“Loud Music” Murder Trial: Relevant Florida Jury Instructions
Profiles of the 12 jurors currently in deliberations can be found here:
“Loud Music” Murder Trial: THE 12 FINAL JURORS
Immediately below are three live video feeds from the court room, and below the live video feeds is a live Twitter feed with my live tweets and those of others reporting on the trial.
Posted by A.F. Branco
on February 13, 201414 Comments
Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source. To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...
