When Mark Shuttleworth (you know, the wealthy space tourist) returns from space, everybody dress in ape suits. Sshh. Pass it on...
EHOWA is ranked right below me on top Google hits for "Ernie" and thank God for that. An interesting site, but not suitable for minors or a lot of other people who might be easily offended. Still, his idea about dressing up in ape suits is compelling. Can we pull it off?
When a Pennsylvania federal judge handed down a one-page order dismissing a hotly contested trust dispute between two brothers the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to write an opinion setting forth his legal reasoning. The court has revived the case once again after finding that the trial judge's 43-page opinion "was a minimally modified version of one of defendants' legal memoranda." [Law.com]
I haven't read the opinion by the 3rd Circuit, but I'm glad to see that judges are being encouraged not to rely too much on what they receive from the lawyers. Non-lawyers would be shocked at how often, when the parties are asked to submit proposed findings of law, the judge basically completely adopts the brief of the side that he or she agrees with.
The judge I worked for would never have done that. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to think independently, and not to rubber-stamp what they are given by the lawyers.
A Texas jury has rejected the claims of victims of a courthouse shooting that happened 10 years ago. The victims claimed that Wal-Mart was liable for selling a semi-automatic handgun to the shooter -- a mentally unstable attorney. The plaintiffs argued that store clerks should have asked "screening questions" that might have provoked a suspicious reaction from persons suffering paranoid disorders. [Law.com]
Well, at least now Wal-Mart won't have to pay for its store clerks to take study the DSM-IV, which is the medical bible for mental health professionals. I can't believe this case even made it to trial. Under the famous Tarasoff case, even psychiatrists aren't liable for bodily harm caused by their patients unless there is some form of specific threat to harm someone.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a proposed change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow live video testimony of witnesses in federal criminal trials. The Court took the rare step of deciding not to pass on to Congress the Judicial Conference's proposal due to concerns about a criminal defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." [Law.com]
I'm sorry that the issue has come up first in the criminal context, where the court tends to be ultra-cautious. I think with today's video technology, and with people being accustomed to looking at video, it is clearly useful to have some witnesses testify in this fashion. There are time savings, cost savings (travel costs), coordination of schedule issues that all favor use of video testimony in certain cases. But, this ruling will bode ill for acceptance of video testimony as a whole. Federal judges have long been wary of cameras in the courtroom and I suppose this rejection of this proposal may be shadowed with that concern as well.
I realize the O.J. Simpson case was a fiasco, but cameras belong in the courtroom. When they become prevalent (and they will one day) it will be a good thing overall. Everyone will stand a little taller (so to speak) if they know the public is watching.
