Appeals

Is it okay for a criminal-defense counsel to tell his (Black) client that if he goes to trial, the jury "would be culled of any minorities" and he'd be tried before an all-white jury? Tenth Circuit: No, it is definitely not okay. And given that misrepresentation about the right to a fair and impartial trial, the client's resulting guilty plea can't be said to have been knowing and voluntary. He gets to withdraw his guilty plea.

In 2020, federal investigators found that Springfield, Mass. cops were routinely using excessive force and then lying and withholding exculpatory evidence not only to cover it up, but also to obtain convictions against the very victims of their violence. Even so, the district attorney's office has continued to withhold from criminal defendants (past and future) that officers involved in their cases were implicated in these abuses. Unanimous Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Prosecutors have an "inescapable constitutional dut[y]" to investigate and disclose such info.

A prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument laced with homophobic invective constitute misconduct but fall short of warranting a new trial for the defendant, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday (

The Fifth Circuit — which covers federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — would be the first federal appeals court to adopt an AI rule, if implemented.

The proposed rule, floated last year, would require lawyers to certify that no generative AI program was used to draft the document, or if an AI program was used, that all text, including citations, “has been reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human.”

In highly unusual en banc news, the Tenth Circuit has decided following panel argument that, rather than issue a panel opinion, it will sit en banc to decide in the first instance whether a pretrial detainee's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the United States Attorney's Office obtained a recording of a phone conversation with his attorney.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the architect of the legal fight for equality and women's rights in the 1970s who subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, died Friday, September 18, 2020 (view full article). The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

As we commemorate Black History Month, it is crucial to reflect on landmark legal cases that have significantly contributed to the ongoing struggle for racial justice. One such pivotal case is Batson v. Kentucky.

At James K. Batson's 1982 state-court trial for burglary and receiving stolen property, the prosecution used “peremptory strikes” to remove four possible jurors who, like Batson, were black. The resulting all-white jury convicted Batson; he received a 20-year sentence.

Forty-three (!) Pennsylvania State Police SWAT team officers execute a pre-dawn, no-knock raid on the home of a Bangor, Penn. family. In legal parlance, they beat the snot out of the family—most egregiously striking a 76-year-old woman in night clothes in the face with a shield, breaking multiple teeth and a vertebra. Family sues under Fourth Amendment for excessive force. Third Circuit: "Policing can be rough business.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked Georgia's attempt to again prosecute a man who was acquitted for one charge in the murder of his adoptive mother despite conflicting verdicts on other charges, finding that "an acquittal is an acquittal" regardless of a simultaneous guilty verdict for the same offense.

In an effort to resume Louisiana’s death row executions that have been paused for 14 years, lawmakers on Friday advanced a bill that would add the use of nitrogen gas and electrocution as possible execution methods (view full article).