Can the Supreme Court Still Rule On Johnnie Cochran's Freedom-of-Speech Case?

Johnnie Cochran, the all-star attorney who defended high-profile clients such as O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Snoop Dogg, died yesterday of a brain tumor. Just last Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Tory v. Cochran, a case in which the famous lawyer was the respondent. Will the court go ahead and make a ruling now that he's dead?

Maybe. For a criminal case, there would be no ambiguity�the death of a criminal defendant makes a case moot. But Tory v. Cochran is a civil case concerning freedom of speech, and the way in which it was decided by lower courts makes it quite peculiar.

Details here from Daniel Engber at Slate. (via How Appealing)

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog reports: "We're advised (by a student in Erwin Chemerinsky's class, who sent along a helpful note) that the Court has called for briefing on the mootness question, with a brief from Cochran's lawyers in seven days and Tory's lawyers three days after that."

Fred Korematsu Dies at Age 86

Fred Korematsu, the unassuming Oakland draftsman who unsuccessfully challenged the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II -- but was vindicated 40 years later -- died Wednesday of respiratory failure at the Marin County home of his daughter.

Korematsu was 86.

To many Japanese-Americans and other civil libertarians, Korematsu was a civil rights icon who risked not only the legal wrath of his own government, but the scorn of his own people when in 1944 he challenged the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans.

Details here from the San Jose Mercury News.

Firm Promotes Lawyer After Reprimand

Holland & Knight makes the lawyer chief operating partner just months after he was ordered to attend a sexual harassment seminar.

A Tampa lawyer has been promoted to the top ranks of Holland & Knight just months after an internal investigation recommended he be reprimanded for harassing young female colleagues.

Douglas A. Wright, 44, is now chief operating partner of the powerful 1,250-lawyer firm, a position that ranks third on the corporate ladder and puts him atop all business operations, including the firm's human resources department. . . .

[L]ast year, nine female lawyers at Holland's Tampa office complained that Wright was a bully who constantly demeaned women with sexually suggestive comments, according to confidential company documents obtained by the St. Petersburg Times. According to the documents, he badgered the women with pointed questions about their sex lives, sometimes in front of other lawyers at the firm, and insisted that people feel his biceps or "pipes."

"Pipes"? Details here from the St. Petersburg Times. This can't be a good move for Holland & Knight, which is among the top firms in the business of defending employers in discrimination and harassment cases.

UPDATE (4/11): Wright has stepped down. (via the St. Petersburg Times)

La. Judge Doesn't Go Far for Jury Duty

Ville Platte, La. (AP) -- Judge Thomas Fuselier didn't have far to go to report for jury duty � he just walked across the hall.

Fuselier was summoned for possible jury duty in the trial of a Morrow couple accused of killing and then dismembering a Texas couple.

The only other judge in the 13th Judicial District is the one presiding over the trial � Judge Larry Vidrine.

Alas, Judge Fuselier was not selected. Details here from the AP via the San Francisco Chronicle.

U.S. Barred From Sending 13 Detainees Abroad

A federal judge yesterday barred the Bush administration from transferring a group of detainees from the U.S. military prison in Cuba to the custody of foreign governments without first giving the prisoners a chance to challenge the move in court.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. said he was preventing transfers without advance notice to bar the government from "unilaterally and silently taking actions" to move detainees outside the reach of U.S. courts. The government must give detainees' lawyers 30 days' notice of any proposed transfer, the judge ruled, so their lawyers have time to object.

The judge also chided the Justice Department for arguing it was giving detainees what they had originally requested: freedom from U.S. control at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About 540 men are held at the prison based on the government's claim that they are enemy combatants or have ties to terrorists. Some have been there for three years.

Details here from Carol D. Leonnig of The Washington Post.

Longtime Boy Scouts Official Charged

(AP) - DALLAS-A former high-ranking Boy Scouts of America official has been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr., who as program director coordinated scouting programs with schools and churches, was accused of receiving images over the Internet in February of children engaging in oral sex, intercourse and other sexually explicit conduct. The charges were filed by federal prosecutors March 21.

"We're shocked and dismayed to learn of this," said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts, based in the Dallas suburb of Irving. "Smith was employed by the Boy Scouts for 39 years and we had no indication of prior criminal activity."

Details here from the AP via FindLaw News.

Federal Judge Awards $31 Million in Fees -- Again

A federal judge has once again awarded more than $31 million in attorney fees to the team of lawyers who secured a $126 million settlement from the accounting firm KPMG for its alleged failure to blow the whistle on financial shenanigans at Rite Aid Corp.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania comes just two months after an appeals court ruled that the fee award may have been too generous because Dalzell erred in his application of a lodestar "crosscheck" by focusing only on the hourly rates for the top lawyers.

The appellate panel found that "in all respects but one," Dalzell had "performed an exemplary analysis" in his rulings on the fee award, and rejected nearly all of the challenges to the fee lodged by a sole objector.

Details here from The Legal Intelligencer via Law.com.

In Broadband Case, Justices Seem Attuned to Internet Services' Arguments

In a high-stakes dispute over the regulation of Internet access, the Supreme Court struggled Tuesday over how much deference it should give to a 2002 Federal Communications Commission decision freeing cable modem providers from the rules that govern telephone companies.

The outcome of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services could affect the cable industry's share of broadband Internet access and whether cable will have to offer competitors' Internet services on an equal footing with their own.

Details here, also from Tony Mauro of Legal Times, via Law.com.

High Court Divided in Grokster Case

The Supreme Court appeared wary Tuesday of punishing peer-to-peer downloading services like Grokster for copyright violation. The Court was clearly divided, with several justices expressing frustration over the dearth of factual findings about the magnitude of infringement. Several justices voiced a concern that shutting down downloading might keep future innovators from developing a market for noninfringing uses -- a market that might not emerge until after the illegal uses establish the software's brand.

Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times via Law.com.

Lawyer Accused of Murder Plot to Start Sex Club Enters Plea

You can't make this shit up:

DOYLESTOWN, Pa. (AP) � A lawyer who was accused of plotting a murder because a real estate deal to start a sex club went awry pleaded no contest to attempted murder Monday.

Joseph P. Guarrasi, 38, of Warwick, also pleaded guilty Monday to attempted aggravated assault, attempted kidnapping, attempted burglary and related counts. In exchange, prosecutors dropped charges of soliciting the same offenses.

The judge postponed sentencing for up to 90 days for an evaluation of Guarrasi's mental condition.

Good idea! Details here from the AP via PennLive.com.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Judge Child Porn Case

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a former California judge accused of storing child pornography on his court computer.

Without commenting, justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling in favor of prosecutors who want to present graphic images allegedly taken from former Orange County Superior Judge Ronald Kline's computers.

Details here from KESQ NewsChannel 3.

Cool Site for Teachers: "Landmark Supreme Court Cases"

From the site:

This site was developed to provide teachers with a full range of resources and activities to support the teaching of landmark Supreme Court cases, helping students explore the key issues of each case. The "Resources" section features basic building blocks such as background summaries and excerpts of opinions that can be used in multiple ways. The "Activities" section contains a range of short activities and in-depth lessons that can be completed with students. While these activities are online, many of them can be adapted for use in a one-computer classroom or a classroom with no computer.

That's a pretty cool idea. In fact, it's an absolutely fantastic idea. Landmark Supreme Court Cases was put together by Street Law and the Supreme Court Historical Society. If you blawg, please consider linking to Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Spread the word to any teachers or educators you might know. (hat tip to Macando Law)

BlawgCast.com

Interested in podcasting about law? Look no further than BlawgCast.com, hosted by Kevin J. Heller's techlawadvisor.com.

Disbarred Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Forging 11 Judges' Signatures

A former Chicago bankruptcy attorney pleaded guilty Thursday to fraud for forging the signatures of 11 Bankruptcy Court judges on bogus orders allowing him to garnish wages of at least 40 clients.

Prosecutors contend that Michael G. Roberts, 53, of Evergreen Park pocketed more than $145,000 in the scheme.

Now he faces four years in prison. Details here from the Chicago Tribune.

Opponents Fight Calif. Domestic Partners

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - A California law that gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses should be overturned because lawmakers undermined the will of voters, lawyers for two groups argued Friday.

The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes. That includes access to divorce courts, automatic parental status and responsibility for each other's debts.

The law represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights after Vermont's recognition of civil unions for gay couples. New Jersey and Maine also have domestic partner registries.

Opponents of the law told a three-judge appeals court panel the law violates a California ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Supporters said the law was unrelated to the ballot measure. Proposition 22 passed five years ago with 61 percent support.

The panel that heard arguments against the law did not seem impressed. The 3rd District Court of Appeal now has ninety days to decide the case. Details here from the AP via My Way News.