Painted Bricks: Aviator statue. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

A recent edition outside of Cheyenne's Federal courthouse.

Painted Bricks: Aviator statue. Cheyenne, Wyoming.:  

Aviator statue. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of America...:  

Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

 Joe Biden, in an op ed in the Washington Post (a poor way to make major proposals, in my view) proposed some major structural changes to the framework of U.S. governance today.  The proposals are:

1.  A Constitutional Amendment making it clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.

2.  Term limits for Supreme Court Justices such that a President would appoint a justice every two years for a term of 18 years on the Court.

3.  A binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

On these, fwiw, I think a Constitutional Amendment would be justified, but I'd go further than what's stated.  I don't support any kind of immunity at all.

On term limits, I don't support that either, but would support age limits.  Once a Federal Judge reached age 60, or at least no older than 65, they'd be required to retire, including members of the Supreme Court.

On a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, it's a good idea, but I don't know how you impose one, given the independence of the judiciary.

 

The Jury.

The entire time I've been a lawyer. . . well, no, well before that, I've been told that one of the "greatest" things about "the world's greatest judicial system" is that it uses juries.

Most legal systems do not, and those that do, have tended to pick it up from the English Common Law system, often through American influence.  Save for Louisiana, we use the English system, and the English system has long used juries.  

The system has evolved over time.  Originally it was an effort to gather those from the area where an event occured, and was truly a jury of peers. The danger was that they actually knew you, and therefore may be inclined to judge your guilt or innocence based on that, which was part of why it was conceived of as a good system. Over time, while it was still supposed to be a jury of your peers, they were picked, through the voir dire process, for their fairness.

I'm not about to say that juries always get everything right. They don't.  But lawyers are taught to respect the process and the juries, and for good reason.  Frankly, more often than not, juries are right.  Not always, but holding them in contempt is wrong.

The jury that found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies this past week in Manhattan was made up seven men and five women, and included two attorneys, a software engineer, an e-commerce sales professional, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, an investment banker and a retired wealth manager.   That is a highly educated jury, and frankly that probably truly is a jury of Trump's peers.  Leaving two lawyers on the jury is bizarre, as lawyers only rarely make a jury panel, although I've known one who did.  I've been called for jury duty once and did not get picked, as I didn't expect to be.  Having two lawyers on the panel is phenomenal.

It'd be interesting to know how that occured.  Trump's defense team may have thought that the lawyers would regard the charges as strained in regard to election interference, which a lot of legal analysts did.  They may have, instead, helped the jury wade through the piles of stuff they had and arrive at the conclusion which they did.

Anyway you look at it, they arrived at the opinion they arrived at, and that needs to be respected.

Which Wyoming's elected officials are not.

The jury has been slammed by all of our Congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, the Governor and the Secretary of State.

It's tragic.

Wyoming makes frequent recourse to the courts as a state, and now it's attacking the judicial system.  There's utterly nothing whatsoever to question the nature of this jury on.  It appears to have been well qualified for its role.  There's no reason to suspect that New York's legal system is deficient in any way.

It's inexcusable to attack the jury.

The Norm.

From one of the numerous Trump tweets, or whatever they are called.

Why? 

Well because the prosecution, just like the plaintiff in a civil trial, has the burden of proof and hence the more difficult job.

Generally, the order of a trial is:

Plaintiff/Prosecution Opens.

Defense Opens.

Plaintiff/Prosecution presents evidence.

Defense presents evidence.

Plaintiff/Prosecution closes.

Defense closes.

Plaintiff/Prosecution rebuts, if there's something to rebut.

That's the norm.

Blog Mirror: A bucket-list tour of Nebraska courthouses yields some elevator insights

 

A bucket-list tour of Nebraska courthouses yields some elevator insights

 

Monday at the Bar: The Lawyer?

Monday at the Bar: The Lawyer?

 

Casper newspaper ad, May 13, 1924.

Painted Bricks: Stormwater drain, Casper Wyoming.

Painted Bricks: Stormwater drain, Casper Wyoming.:   

Stormwater drain, Casper Wyoming.

 

This stormwater drain is outside of the Townsend Justice Center in Casper, Wyoming.

Frankly, I really don't think that this send the best message . . . 

Blog Mirror: Wyoming Chief Justice calls for increased security amid rising number of threats

 

Wyoming Chief Justice calls for increased security amid rising number of threats

Why Law School Should Be an Undergraduate Program — Minding The Campus

Why Law School Should Be an Undergraduate Program — Minding The Campus: In most parts of the world, lawyers are formally trained in an undergraduate degree program. The Bachelor of Law (LL.B), is also an accelerated three-year curriculum. In the United States it takes over twice as long. First you need a 4-year undergraduate degree in any subject—a gratuitous requirement, as there is no such thing as […]

Thoughts?

I'm not sure that I agree, but there'es something to the suggestion. 

Meet the Press interviews Stephen G. Breyer

Meet The Press's host interviewed retired United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer on last weekend's episode.

Apparently Breyer just wrote a biography, which must have been his incentive for giving the interview.  It was awful.  He really didn't comment on anything.

The episode is worth listening to, but due to Chuck Todd and Kristen Welker going after their employer, NBC, for getting them set up in an interview of Ronna McDaniel after it turns out that NBC has hired McDaniel to be a pundit.  Suffice it to say, McDaniel won't be inviting them to any after work gatherings.  But the interview of Breyer was pointless.

Courthouses of the West: 2024 State of the State and State of the Judiciary

When I originally posted this item, Courthouses of the West: 2024 State of the State and State of the Judiciary, I hadn't yet listed to the speeches.  

I have since.

Chief Justice Fox's speech starts at about 59:00.  

It's probably a true "state of" type speech, something that's actually fairly rare.  A main point is that the judiciary is underfunded  and is not receiving the same staff wage raises that the rest of the state's employees are.

A short reference is made to some new judges, and the retiring Justice Kautz.  It's very brief, noting, with a hint of displeasure, that he's required to retire due to the age 70 statutory provision.

A really nice article on retiring Justice Kautz is in the current edition of The Wyoming Lawyer.

2024 State of the State and State of the Judiciary

Blog Mirror: Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

Which is huge legal news.

The court strongly hinted it might do this in one of its decisions last year.  Now it appears it is going to do it.