New York Court Watcher

The GPS Decision--The Video

2012-02-13T15:48:00.003-05:00

Here's a brief TV interview on the troubling aspects of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v.. Jones: Albany Law’s Bonventre Explains SCOTUS Ruling on GPS Tracking [or paste on the browser: http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/01/albany-laws-bonventre-explains-scotus-ruling-on-gps-tracking/] _______________________________________ For The GPS Decision--part 2: Scalia's Dangerous Nonsense & Alito's

The GPS Decision--part 2: Scalia's Dangerous Nonsense & Alito's Rebuttal

2012-02-12T23:51:00.000-05:00

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit unreasonable searches--only unreasonable searches of the few items it specifically mentions. The 4th Amendment's fundamental concern is not even a search per se--it's concern is physical trespass. The 4th Amendment is not even concerned with all physical trespasses--but only a physical trespass of an item it specifically mentions. The Court's decisions

Supreme Court: Right on GPS Surveillance--But BEWARE! (part 1)

2012-01-30T14:12:00.000-05:00

(Back from end of semester + winter break + Arizona + beginning of new semester + other excuses for the respite.) Yes, it's a search! Electronically monitoring someone's movements by means of a tracking device, secretly attached to his car, is a search. That's what the Supreme Court ruled last week. It means that government must get a warrant before it attaches a GPS (global positioning

Judge Anthony V. Cardona, 1941 - 2011

2011-12-08T15:00:00.000-05:00

He was one of those rare human beings that gave you hope. That gave you reason to believe in genuine goodness. That made you proud to be a member of the same species. If there is a Creator, He got it right with Judge Cardona. Following a yearlong illness, Anthony Cardona ("Tony" to all who knew him) passed away this past Sunday. The Presiding Justice of New York State's intermediate appeals

Judge Anthony V. Cardona, 1941 - 2011 -- What Others Have Said

2011-12-08T14:00:00.000-05:00

(Albany Times Union staff photo by Lori Van Buren) Here is a collection of what others have said about Judge Cardona. Those by New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, Acting Presiding Justice Thomas Mercure, Former Clerk of the Court Michael Novack, Senior Law Clerk Michele McKay, and the Editorial Board of the Albany Law Review are from volume 73, issue #3 (2010), of that journal. They were

Double Jeopardy, Joe Bruno, and Basic Criminal Justice

2011-11-28T15:30:00.000-05:00

Imagine the government was prosecuting you a second time after failing in its first try. That's right. The government prosecuted you for a crime it claimed you committed. The government failed. Then the government wants to prosecute you again, hoping to get it right the second time around. No they can't, you might think. Wouldn't that be double jeopardy? Well, it might be. But there are

The Skinny on Roberts' Goat--What Did and Didn't Get It (Part 7: Conclusion)

2011-11-23T22:11:00.000-05:00

So, just what do John Roberts' dissenting opinions tell us? For the last several posts on New York Court Watcher, we've been looking at the Chief Justice's public disagreements with his colleagues. His public complaints about what the majority of his Court decided. What did he reveal about himself? What are the implications of what upset him--of what got his goat? Yes, what's the skinny on

Roberts' Goat (Part 6: Civil Cases [cont'd.])

2011-11-19T00:05:00.001-05:00

In the last post, we outlined the civil cases among the total of 15, criminal and civil, in which the Chief Justice authored his most recent dissenting opinions. We then looked a bit more closely at 3 of those civil cases. In this post we'll look a bit more closely at the remaining civil cases among that group. Recall that in the 3 civil cases already discussed: Roberts dissented against an

Roberts' Goat (Part 5: Civil Cases)

2011-11-07T20:20:00.000-05:00

We've already looked at the Chief Justice's dissenting opinions in criminal cases. Pretty revealing about what bothers him--gets his goat. So much so that he is driven to expend his time, resources, and collegial capital to take a public stance against the majority of his Court. (See Roberts' Goat (Part 4: Patterns in Criminal Cases), Oct. 25, 2011, and the immediately preceding 3 posts.) Now

Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 3, Conclusion)

2011-10-31T14:56:00.001-04:00

We've already discussed #1 through #7 on the list of Saratoga Highlights--my humble and untutored list, that is. (See Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 1), Oct. 28, 2011; (Part 2), Oct. 29, 2011.) [And we've been feasting on some magnificent photographs generously supplied by Bob Mayberger--who should seriously consider taking pictures full-time, except that he is too valuable a lawyer and

Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 2)

2011-10-29T04:00:00.000-04:00

In the last post, we began with Havre de Grace beating the boys in the Woodward Stakes as #1 on the list of Saratoga Highlights for this past summer's meet. That triumph has placed her among the top candidates for Horse of the Year. As of today, trainer Larry Jones still has the 4 year old filly targeted for the Breeders' Cup Classic next weekend at Churchill Downs. That race will almost

Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 1)

2011-10-28T15:55:00.001-04:00

Like painted kites, Those days and nights, They went flyin' by. --Sinatra, SUMMER WIND Yes they did. For six and a half magnificent weeks. July 22 thru September 5. Like Joe D. at the plate--or in the field. Like Mantle hitting the upper deck. Like Ali dancing and stinging. Like Frank Lady-is-a-Tramp'ing with Ella. Like Nonna's eggplant parm. A thing of the Creator's beauty. That's what it

Roberts' Goat (Part 4: Patterns in Criminal Cases)

2011-10-25T22:56:00.001-04:00

In his NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS lectures, Benjamin Cardozo spoke of the "stream of tendencies" in a judge's decisions. Like his predecessor, Oliver Wendell Holmes, [Not too shabby a duo!] he spoke of "inarticulate" (i.e., unpoken), "unavowed," even "subconscious" views and perspectives that underlie a judge's work, keep it consistent on those bases, and form common threads. This is what

Roberts' Goat (Part 3: Criminal Cases--Immigration, Domestic Violence & Victim Restitution)

2011-10-24T23:52:00.000-04:00

Immigration, domestic violence, and victim restitution. That's what's involved in the 5 dissents of the Chief Justice we'll now discuss. They're interesting. Even peculiar and curious. Among John Roberts' 15 most recent dissenting opinions--the 15 we're looking at in this "Roberts' Goat" series--he wrote 2 in cases involving immigration deportation proceedings. He wrote another 2 involving

Roberts' Goat--What Gets It? (Part 2: The Chief Justice's Dissents in Criminal Cases)

2011-10-15T01:21:00.000-04:00

In the last post, we took a quick look at John Roberts' most recent 15 dissents. Just the bare bones bottom line description of the disagreements he had with the majority of his Court. Disagreements about which he felt so strongly that he was driven to author a dissenting opinion. (See Roberts' Goat--What Gets It? (Intro: The Chief Justice's Dissents), Oct. 7, 2011.) Let's look a bit more

Roberts' Goat--What Gets It? (Intro: The Chief Justice's Dissents)

2011-10-07T18:25:00.000-04:00

What gets John Roberts' goat? What does the Chief Justice feel strongly about? In the last few posts, we explored "Lippman's Goat--What gets It." (See Lippman's Goat--What Gets It? (Part 3: Civil Cases), Sept. 21. 2011, and the preceding 2 posts in the series. See also Justice Alito's Goat--What Gets It? (Part 4: One Last Thing), March 7, 2010, and the 3 preceding posts in that series.) Looking

Lippman's Goat--What Gets It? (Part 3: Civil Cases)

2011-09-21T13:52:00.000-04:00

We previously looked at Jonathan Lippman's dissents in criminal cases. Let's now take a look at the ones he wrote in civil cases. In the last post, we saw that the Chief Judge of New York authored dissenting opinions in 10 criminal cases during the Court of Appeals' 2010-11 term. In each dissent, he sided with the accused. In each, he disagreed with the majority for not protecting the rights of

Lippman's Goat--What Gets It? (Part 2: Criminal Cases)

2011-09-19T19:09:00.000-04:00

New York's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, authored 10 dissenting opinions in criminal cases last year. Let's take a look at those disagreements with his court, and see what kinds of issues moved him to split with the majority of his colleagues and to do so in a public writing. As noted in the last post, Chief Judge Lippman authored a total of 15 dissenting opinions during the course of the 2010-

Lippman's Goat--What Gets It? (Part 1: Introduction)

2011-08-30T23:34:00.010-04:00

New York's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, has been dissenting quite a bit. In fact, he has been dissenting more than any of his colleagues. That's what a survey of the 2010-2011 term (August 2010 through July 2011) shows. [Some of my findings have already been reported in the New York Law Journal: "No Predicting 'Common Sense' Court Open to Dissenting Voices," by Joel Stashenko, Aug. 8, 2011.(

Supreme Court: Wrong on Violent Video Games for Minors

2011-07-27T11:08:00.003-04:00

Selling violent video games to minors is protected free speech under the First Amendment. Yes, selling games, in which players engage in such video conduct as decapitating girls, urinating on victims, and burning enemies alive, is free speech. Absolutely no exaggeration. That's what the Court held. Well, that's what happens with a mediocre Court. One that takes a principle (a misconceived

SPEECH vs. EMOTIONAL INJURY--Supreme Court: Right on the Funeral Protests, Part 4

2011-07-12T13:00:00.416-04:00

[Back! Semester's end, exams, grading, tedious admin chores, time with the youngest son graduating from college and preparing for graduate school, etc., etc., etc. And yes, some R & R, including a trip to Kentucky for a visit to Churchill Downs and for some local bourbon. Now it's back to this blog. So much to discuss: New York's Marriage Equality (If we can get it done here, we can get it done

UNPROTECTED "SPEECH"--Supreme Court: Right on the Funeral Protests, Part 3

2011-04-20T14:14:00.001-04:00

[Been swamped with other matters since the last post. Among those of possible interest to the readers of New York Court Watcher is the Center for Judicial Process. The now reorganized and reactivated Center, accessible through the link on this blog or directly at http://www.judicialprocessblog.com/, is a forum for research and the publication of studies on courts, judges, judicial

Supreme Court: Right on the Funeral Protests [Part 2--"SPEECH"]

2011-03-18T15:39:00.002-04:00

Thank God, the Court has NOT heeded the nonsense about "strict interpretation." Yes, thank God, when it comes to free speech (as well as other constitutional rights and liberties), that the Court has NOT strictly interpreted the Constitution (but instead has done so rather "loosely"). That the Court has NOT applied the letter of the law (but instead has applied its spirit). That the Court has

Supreme Court: Right on the Funeral Protests

2011-03-07T15:13:00.006-05:00

[The first few lines here are from the previously posted Intro.] Yes, these people are despicable. What they are saying is moronic, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, vicious. If there is a God, and if He is just, he may have a special place for these people. At least some hereafter reform school as a stopover enroute to eternity. But governments and rulers are not God. And though they must regularly

INTRO: Supreme Court-- Right on the Funeral Protests

2011-03-03T11:37:00.000-05:00

Yes, these people are despicable. What they are saying is moronic, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, vicious. If there is a God, and if He is just, he may have a special place for these people. At least some hereafter reform school as a stopover enroute to eternity. But governments and rulers are not God. And though they must regularly make judgments, it is an essential ingredient of our American

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 16--Full Disclosure in Graphs: My Hypothetical Voting Patterns)

2011-02-21T15:14:00.000-05:00

This post continues and concludes my full disclosure cum self-therapy and self-awareness. I've collated the Justices' votes, added my own hypothetical ones, and depicted the resulting patterns graphically. Without delay, here goes. Which Justices would I have voted with the most, and which the least? The graph: GRAPH 1 Voting Agreement and Disagreement (click to enlarge) Yes, I

Great Women, Great Chiefs

2011-02-11T00:39:00.001-05:00

p, pre {margin: 0;} input.blogger-ie-hack {position: absolute; left: -9999px;}hr.more {border-width:1px 0 0 0; border-style:dashed; border-color: #666; height: 8px; background:#ddd}table.tr-caption-container {padding: 6px; margin-bottom: .5em} td.tr-caption {font-size: 80%; padding-top: 4px} img {cursor: move} On Wednesday, February 16, 2011, the Albany Law Review will host it's annual Chief

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 15--Full Disclosure in Pics: How I Would Have Voted )

2011-02-07T11:05:00.004-05:00

I've previously noted my agreement with Justice William O. Douglas's view that legal analysts and commentators ought to disclose their predilections. At least from time to time. In this way, the reader or listener has a better idea of the possible biases that might be influencing what is being presented. (See William O. Douglas, Law Reviews and Full Disclosure, 40 Wash. L. Rev. 227 [1965]. And

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 14--Restraint vs Activism?: GRAPHIC Recap of All)

2011-02-01T12:00:00.005-05:00

As we did last post, here's the graph without delay. GRAPH 1 Restraint (deference) vs Activism (invalidate) (click to enlarge) Which Justices practiced judicial restraint? That is, judicial "modesty and humility"--as Chief Justice Roberts said he would at his confirmation hearings. You know, deference to the lawmakers. Respect for the choices of the Congress and the States. Reluctance to

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 13--Partisanship?: GRAPHIC Recap of All)

2011-01-29T11:27:00.001-05:00

Without delay. Here's the bottom line--graphically. GRAPH 1 Politically Conservative vs Politically Liberal (click to enlarge) Justices Scalia and Thomas, perfectly politically conservative. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, very much so. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, perfectly politically liberal. Justice Stevens (now retired), nearly so. Justice Kennnedy, typically the

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 12--GRAPHIC Recap of Criminal Cases [Restraint? Partisanship?])

2011-01-26T11:51:00.096-05:00

There is so much talk about the need for judicial restraint. Politicians (especially Senators during the Supreme Court confirmation process), commentators, and some Justices themselves, speak about it passionately, religiously, robotically. You know: judicial restraint good; activist judges bad. The dichotomy is largely nonsense. It is also an extremely poor proxy for what the restraint partisans

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 11--GRAPHIC Recap of Criminal Law & Related Voting)

2011-01-12T15:33:00.000-05:00

In the last several posts, we examined the Justices' voting in the criminal law and related cases included among last term's "Top Ten" highlights. Now let's collate what we've seen. And let's do so in graphs. We'll combine the data from the 5 cases, consider that data from several angles, and then depict the results in graphs. Indeed, this post's center of gravity will be graphs. Not the least

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 10--Even More Criminal Law: "Honest Services" and Guns [continued])

2011-01-08T15:26:00.002-05:00

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court ruled that the recently recognized 2d Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms was applicable against state and local laws, not only against federal ones. This is the last of the 5 criminal law-related cases among the "Top Ten" highlights of last term. The Court had previously decided, in D.C. v. Heller (2008), that the 2d Amendment guarantees the

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 9--Even More Criminal Law: "Honest Services" and Guns)

2011-01-06T11:05:00.001-05:00

The remaining 2 cases included within the "Top Ten" highlights of the Court's last term are a bit different than the first 3 previously discussed. These 2 cases do not deal with street crime, violent crime, crime typically committed by undesirables or in parts of town that they have made undesirable, crime that strikes fear in the citizenry and stokes calls for government-sanctioned violence

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 8--More Criminal Law: Miranda)

2011-01-04T13:02:00.319-05:00

Miranda warnings and rights have been the subject of unrelenting debate, Court interpretations cum vacillations, and near death experiences ever since the landmark decision inaugurating those interrogation safeguards in 1966. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was rendered by a bitterly contentious 5-4 vote. The most recent variation on the Miranda theme, Berghuis v. Thompkins, was likewise a

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 7--More Criminal Law Decisions)

2011-01-03T12:38:00.006-05:00

Among the highlights of the Supreme Court's last term was a case involving a life-without-parole sentence for a crime committed by a minor. As with every other case discussed in this series, the Court was sharply divided. In the last post, we began a closer look at the criminal law decisions among those "Top Ten" highlights. We discussed the Court's ruling, in Padilla v. Kentucky, about an

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 6--Criminal Law Decisions)

2010-12-14T13:46:00.027-05:00

In the last few posts before the hiatus [See block, next paragraph.], we were looking at the highlights of the Supreme Court's most recent, completed term--2009-10, aka the October 2009 Term. (See the several posts from Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 5--Church & State Decisions), Nov. 9, 2010, back to Supreme Court: Highlights, Patterns & Implications from Last Term (Part 1), Sept. 29, 2010

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 5--Church & State Decisions)

2010-11-09T14:00:00.012-05:00

We now turn to the "Highlights" decisions of last term that dealt with religion and the law. In the previous posts in this series on New York Court Watcher, we identified what, in my humble opinion, are the "Top Ten" decisions of the Supreme Court's 2009-10 year.We then took a closer look at the 4 of those 10 decisions that resolved free speech and related issues. (See the several posts: Supreme

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Disclosure--How I Would Have Voted in the Free Speech Values Cases)

2010-10-29T11:03:00.022-04:00

Justice William O. Douglas proposed that authors of law review articles and, by extension, other legal analysis and commentary, ought to disclose their predilections. In this way, the reader has a better idea of the possible biases affecting what the author has written. (See William O. Douglas, Law Reviews and Full Disclosure, 40 Wash. L. Rev. 227 [1965].) I have done so from time to time, in

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 4--GRAPHIC Recap of Free Speech & Related Decisions)

2010-10-28T17:00:00.002-04:00

In the previous 2 posts in this series on New York Court Watcher, we looked at those 4 decisions among last term's "Top Ten" highlights that dealt with free speech. More precisely, they dealt with free speech and related issues of political activity, association, and open government. The specific issues in those 4 cases involved corporate spending on political communications (Citizens United),

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 3--More Free Speech & Related Decisions)

2010-10-19T15:00:00.004-04:00

In the last post in this series on New York Court Watcher, we explored the Court's decisions in Citizens United (corporate spending on political communications is constitutionally protected free speech) and Humanitarian Law Project (teaching human rights and peaceful advocacy to designated terrorist groups is not). [See Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 2--Free Speech & Related Decisions), Oct.

GUEST POST: People v. Wrotten--Televised Testimony in NY Criminal Trials

2010-10-12T12:00:00.002-04:00

Guest Contributor: Michael S. Quinn