Today's lesson in law practice:

How not to leave a law firm.

Cereal and the nature of reality: "natural" does not equal "organic."

The USA Today, a paper Homer Simpson described as "the only paper in America that's not afraid to tell the truth, that everything is just fine,"  has a story about how some folks are distressed to learn that Kashi cereals are "natural" but not "organic." 

The Minnesota Legislature also knows how to disappoint children.

A few days ago I posted about how Wisconsin ended up with a state dog.  Perhaps unhappy that Wisconsin received some attention for disappointing children,  Minnesota's legislature has decided to get in on the action.  According to Vicki Froslee's opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a group of first-graders from Andover, Minnesota was rebuffed in their efforts to name the black bear Minnesota's "state mammal."  Among other indignities, the kids were promised a hearing before one of the committees in the Minnesota House of Representatives but the hearing never took place.  According to Ms. Froslee the hearing was "held up by House leaders."   

You will like this even if you think you won't.

The New Yorker recently unlocked these fantastic pieces of writing by Robert A. Caro.  I heartily recommend them.

Something I have never heard of before: a Federal district court judge files for bankruptcy.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that Judge Otis D. Wright II, a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California, has filed for bankruptcy.  The post says that Judge Wright's bankruptcy petition (which was filed late last year) lists assets of $833,426 and liabilities of $895,292. Evidently the judge and his wife have more than $70,000 in credit card debt, including $12,740 on a Nordstrom card, according to the filing.  The post says that Nordstrom is suing the Judge and his wife over the debt.

He parked where?

Excellent post, Mr. Torvik; speaking of law-related books, I am reading Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion by Seth Stern & Stephen Wermiel.  The book has been a good read so far and I recommend it.  I am just at the part where Warren Burger replaces Earl Warren as Chief Justice.

"...smiles, coquetry, shrugs, sauciness..."

I recently moved into a new office that has a small "library" in the common area. This library has a number of very old books in it. One of them is called Cross-Examination of Witnesses, first published in 1929. Since I was preparing for a trial, I decided I'd see if this tome had any useful nuggets in it.

Well, not exactly.

It is official, Connecticut has banned the dealth penalty.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has signed into law a bill banning the death penalty in Connecticut.  We posted about the proposed ban here.  Governor Malloy's statement said the signing should prompt "sober reflection, not celebration."

In my post on this topic, I noted that Connecticut has only executed one person since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.  Governor Malloy's statement points out that in the twelve years prior to Furman v. Georgia (the United States Supreme Court cases that led to a moratorium on the death penalty between 1972 and 1976), Connecticut also executed one person.  That is, Connecticut actually carried out the death penalty on two people in the last 52 years.  Apparently in both cases the prisoner dropped his appeals and requested execution.  Governor Malloy points to the fact that death penalty cases involve a lot of appeals as one of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty (as opposed to abolishing the appeals).  The governor also notes that the eleven men currently on death row in Connecticut (the new law does not repeal the death penalty for them) "are far more likely to die of old age than they are to be put to death."

To be fair, Governor Malloy also mentions moral opposition to the death penalty as well as concerns over putting an innocent person to death.  Both of these concerns are legitimate reasons to oppose the death penalty.  Is a lengthy appeals process on par with these other concerns?  I am skeptical.  After all, one would think that the length of the appeals process might help alleviate the concern over mistakenly putting an innocent person to death.

"Hot Dog, yep that's me. I've got no shame in my game."

Thus spoke Wayne County, Michigan Circuit Judge Wade H. McCree.  What prompted Judge McCree to discuss the lack of shame in his game?  He was asked by Detroit's Fox News affiliate to discuss this picture

Unanimity (in judgment) on the Supreme Court

As any Supreme Court reporter/pundit will tell you, the Supreme Court is hopelessly divided into 5 conservatives crushing the little guy versus 4 liberals trying to keep America safe for individuals as opposed to corporations and/or the government.  The exception to this storyline, the pundits tell us, is the rare occassion when Justice Kennedy decides to vote with the four liberals.  This storyline is often wrong.