Margaret Colgate Love, “Evolving Standards of Reasonableness: The ABA Standards and the Right to Counsel in Plea Negotiations” (“Padilla v. Kentucky underscores the defense bar’s stake in participating in the ABA standard-setting process to guide the development of their obligations in plea negotiations.”).
“Will Robots Steal Your Job? Software could kill lawyers. Why that’s good for everyone else.” (“The trouble is that the path from here to there will be rocky—many firms will be shuttered, an ever-larger number of newly minted young attorneys will fail to find work, and a huge industry’s economic prospects will fade.”) As the post title suggests, other industries may benefit.
ABA, “Advising Clients Regarding Direct Contacts with Represented Persons.”
Richard Friedman: Illinois v. Williams. (Issue: “Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.”)
Perry v. New Hampshire (“whether due process prohibits the admission of all eyewitness identification testimony made under suggestive conditions, or whether it bars only eyewitness testimony in which the police were responsible for those conditions”).
Preview, Howes v. Fields (“Is a prisoner always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when the prisoner is isolated from the general prison population for questioning about conduct that occurred outside the prison?”)
Mike Sacks, “Justice John Paul Stevens Talks Death Penalty, Citizens United, New Memoir.”
Michael O’Hear, “What Must a Defendant Do in Order to Go It Alone?”
“Government Unchecked: The False Problem of ‘Judicial Activism’ and the Need for Judicial Engagement.” (“The Supreme Court rarely strikes down government enactments or overturns its own precedents—and this is consistently true over the past 50-plus years.”)
“I’m Under Arrest for What? Fifty Bizarre U.S. Laws.” (Wisconsin’s entrant? “Unless a customer specifically requests it, margarine may not be substituted for butter in a restaurant.” The reference must be to sec. 97.18(4). Keep your chin up, Bucky: 2011 SB 183 would repeal Wisconsin’s status as a national laughing stock … unless the Brewers lose to the Diamondbacks and Bucky to the Cornhuskers.
