2. Joe DeMaria is rightfully fighting the mask protocols in Miami for trials. It's impossible to cross examine a witness wearing a mask. Here's his petition in the 3rd DCA (Law360 subscription necessary) and the article in the DBR (subscription necessary). The argument section starts out like this:
The constitutional right to due process in judicial proceedings requires that a party be allowed to examine a witness in a form that allows the factfinder to fully assess the witness’s credibility. Under the circumstances of this case, the process due to Dresser includes the right both to testify unmasked, and to require to her witnesses to testify without a mask.
3. Who is the greatest Supreme Court Justice of all time? SCOTUSblog ran a pool and your winner is... Earl Warren. Here's the intro to the post:
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren.
After three rounds of the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, only two justices remain. Both held the title of chief justice. Both reshaped American law and society. Both are legal titans who defeated a string of worthy contenders to reach the championship. But only one can be chosen by SCOTUSblog readers as the greatest justice in the court’s history.
To see how we got here, you can review the first-round results, the second-round results and the semifinals. We explained our original seeding and selection criteria here. Of course, no March Madness tournament is without controversy, and a few malcontents have sneered at ours. Too triumphalist? Lousy seeding? Skewed in a liberal direction? Skewed in a conservative direction? We heard those complaints and more. Our bracket even inspired a rival tournament with a slightly different agenda – an event premised on underachievement that no one should be proud of winning. Kind of like the NIT.
But enough with March Madness melodrama. This is the final round of the Big Dance, and it’s time to vote. Here’s the championship match-up.
3 comments:
Last week's en banc on the Epstein victims is interesting. 7-4 ruling that the Epstein victims couldn't bring a freestanding action to seek judicial enforcement of their CVRA rights. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.enb.pdf
Look at this mix:
In the majority you have:
- Newsom, male;
- Wilson, male;
- W. Pryor, male;
- Basher, male;
- Tjoflat, male;
- Luck, male;
- Lagoa, female;
In dissent, you have:
- Branch, female;
- Martin, female;
- J. Pryor, female;
- Hull, female;
Another way of seeing this case is: 6 out of 6 men said there is no cause of action, but 4 out 5 women said there is a cause of action.
(there is also a party line story here, but that story gets enough ink)
CHAUVIN VERDICT!
TO BE ANNOUNCED BETWEEN 4:30 AND 5:00.
GUILTY!
Post a Comment