Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

by

Retired New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Geoffrey Gaulkin released his report in State v. Henderson today June 21, 2010. . The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed judge Gaulkin in May 2009 to serve as special master and to hold hearings and issue a report “to test the validity of our state law standards on the admissibility of eyewitness identification.” According to news comments, the report suggests that eyewitness testimony should be treated more like physical evidence and be subjected to pretrial hearings to assess how reliable it is.

According to a June 21, 2010 New York Times article ” Use of Eyewitnesses in New Jersey Courts Needs Change, Ex-Judge Says” by Richard PÉREZ-PEÑA, the report recommends that”Courts should do more to gauge the accuracy of witnesses to crimes, and to let juries know how flawed their testimony can be, according to a former appellate judge assigned by the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the matter….In particular, [judge Geoffrey Gaulkin] wrote, judges should assess factors that might limit a witness’s reliability in picking someone out of a lineup, either in person or in a photo array…”

Click on the link below the see the complete report:

Continue reading

by

NOTE: This posting includes Professor Little’s perspective on City of Ontario v. Quon, the cfase whch includes interesting discussion about whether public employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding text messages went on government owned equipment during working hours.

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

This summary has been created by Professor Rory K. Little (littler@uchastings.edu), U.C. Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, who has long presented “Annual Review of the Supreme Court’s Term” program at the ABA’s Annual Meetings. It represents his personal, unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Continue reading

by

American Bar Association Judicial Division

Can judges give testimony before a legislative body? Is it permissible for judge to participate in a family business as the company’s lawyer? Can a judge charge for giving a speech to a civic organization? What role can judges play in supporting and participating in activities that promote a culture of pro bono and access to justice within the legal profession?

Off the Bench: The Ethics of Engaging in Extrajudicial Activity While Advancing Pro Bono

Continue reading

by

Ellen McGrath of the Charles P.Sears Law Library at the University of Buffalo has forwarded the following announcement from the National Information Standards Organization (NISO). We are posting it here in recognition and appreciation of the importance of NISO’s ongoing work to the library community:

David Badertscher

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:24:09 -0400 From: Cynthia Hodgson

Continue reading

by

This is indeed the season for presenting awards. The ABA Silver Gavel Awards honor those in media and the arts that foster a better understanding of the law. All are invited to the Gavel Awards presentation at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on July 7 at 5:00 p.m. The event is preceded by a reception and registration is required [http://www.abanet.org/publiced/gavel/presentation.shtml

Here are the event details sent to us by the ABA:

Event Details Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:00 – 6:30 P.M.

Continue reading

by

Catherine Lemann, President of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) has announced the winners of the 2010 AALL awards that will be presented at the AALL Annual Meeting in Denver. These awards provide recognition to achievements of law librarians based on services to the library profession and contributions to legal literature and materials. AALL is to be commended for this Awards Program. We offer our congratulations to all the winners.

Here is a list of the AALL Awards and nmes of the recipients::

The Marian Gould Gallagher Distinguished Service Award

Continue reading

by

On October 1, 2009 I posted an appalant brief for U.S.A v. Justin K. Dorvee on this blog. The Brief was prepared by Paul F. Angioletti, attorney for the defendant-appellant.

Mr. Angioletti has now informed me that the Court of Appeals Second Circuit issued an opinion on the Dorvee appeal on May 11, 2010. In this posting we are including a paragraph from the Second Circuit decision which summarizes the conclusion that the sentence imposed on Dorvee by the District Court was “substantively unreasonable”, therefore vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the District Court for resentencing.;

EXCERPT FROM OPINION:

Continue reading

by

According to George Prager, Head of Cataloging at the NYU Law Library, the examples offered by the Library of Congress illustrate differences between Anglo American Cataloging Rules Second Edition (AACR2 )and Resource Description and Access (RDA). Some examples have only a few fields; others are more complete. Some are made-up examples. Some examples illustrate more than one category but only appear in one category. RDA citations and other comments accompany some examples.

To see the various categories of examples offered, with commentary, go to:

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdaexamples.html

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
May 31 – June 4, 2010.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 01, 2010 Carr v. US, No. 08–1301 The Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of defendant’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in Indiana under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is reversed where 18 U.S.C. section 2250 did not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA’s effective date.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 01, 2010 Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08–1470 In a murder prosecution, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where the state court’s decision rejecting petitioner’s Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s more deferential standard of review because petitioner’s silence during his interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 02, 2010 US v. Roa-Medina, No. 08-2490 District court’s denial of defendant’s motion to modify his sentence of 72-months for crack and other drug related offenses is affirmed where: 1) defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that was “based on a sentencing range” of 120 months to 135 months, and his reduced sentence represented a 40% deviation from the bottom of that range; and 2) defendant’s sentencing range has not been “lowered” within the meaning of section 3582(c)(2).
Continue reading

Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design