Post-Bar To-Do List

In a shameless ripoff another Boalt blogger, I present a list of things I intend to do post-bar, in no particular order. The comprehensive list at Cause and Defect is better (and obviously more original) than my own. Next week can’t come soon enough.

1. Spend Macy’s gift cards that are last vestige of “free LexisNexis” halcyon days.
2. Read something with pictures in it.
3. See Simpsons movie; rekindle old love; vow to stage “favorite episodes” marathon; never actually do it.
4. Wake up in cold sweat, panicky about forgetting “cy pres” doctrine; realize it will never matter again; take deep breath.
5. Watch Nancy Grace; work self into angry fervor; despair at prospect of her procreation.
6. Bask in sun at Lake Tahoe; try not to think about easements in gross.
7. Stop obsessively reading “contracts” entered into with parking garages by pushing green button.
8. Watch ‘Entourage’ DVDs; try not to compare own career arc to that of Vincent Chase.
9. Begin “dry clean” era of laundering everyday wardrobe; ruefully watch jeans collection gather dust.
10. Let @berkeley.edu email account expire; kick self for not copying address book in time.
11. Witness advent of David Beckham era of American soccer; try not to compare own career arc to that of Becks.
12. Try to come up with use for self-made Bar/Bri flash cards; realize there is none; chuck in trash; fall to knees; scramble to collect scattered, soiled cards from trash in contingency for crippling bad news in November.
13. Listen to new(ish) albums by Interpol, T.I., White Stripes; pretend I was down from day one.
14. “I do love scotch. Scotchy-scotch-scotch. Theeeeere it goes, down into my belly.”
15. Watch ‘Bronx is Burning;’ revel in idle disappointment.
16. Order diploma from school; receive diploma; let diploma collect dust on office floor as it waits to be hung up.
17. Consider skipping country to dodge payment of student loans; reconsider, given poor quality of public restrooms abroad.
18. Pass by dreadlocked-beard-guy sitting on sidewalk one final time; pretend to be happy to never see him again; walk away stoically as single tear rolls down cheek.
19. “Conviser Mini-Review, meet Mr. Bonfire.”
20. Play. Station. 3.

Gracist At Heart

Today's Gracism of the Day is brought to you by my utter hatred of Nacy Grace. Thank you for reading.

While discussing Anna Nicole Smith's will, which apparently has not been perfected, "I can write a will on this paper and say Howard K. Stern is the executor and throw it up in the air. And that's all that's worth." The concept of holographic wills, much like binding treaty obligations, eludes Grace.

Abrams in the Outfield

The only legal commentator that I remotely respect is Dan Abrams of MSNBC. I don't like the shrill prosecutor that's often on with him, but he actually understands the issues, dumbs it down for people, and tends to get things right.

Nancy Grace, on the other hand, took exactly 3 seconds to remind me why I hate her so much. This is roughly the exchange between the commentator and her regarding the Cal court order requiring DNA testing of the kid, and the potential enforcement of that order in the Bahamas.

Grace: "That's like a French court telling a Georgia court what to do. I won't even tell you what that Georgia judge would do to that French order."
Commentator: "Well there's actually a convention on this, if there is another court that's heard the issue and it's reasonable then generally you follow the other court."
Grace: "Jack...I like you...but come on, a 'convention?' There are lots of 'conventions.'"

Memo to Grace: Treaties ratified pursuant to the U.S. Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Although I don't doubt you when you say a Georgia judge would not follow the constitution or federal laws.

Oh and I hate Rita Cosby. To paraphrase Skipper J: She has the looks for radio and the voice for print.

Season's Graces

Thanks to commenter Michelle from Madison in the Nancy Grace post, I want to pass along these SNL skits: here and here. Also, here's the LA Times story on the release of the final 10 pages of FBI files on John Lennon that were withheld because they came from a foreign government and their release might lead to a military strike against the U.S. Note: they seriously made this argument, just like they are seriously arguing that those we detain cannot be tried in open civilian courts.

EDIT: And the TV link I posted seems to be down, but here's alt.

In Your Face, Grace

The latest chapter in the saga of my favorite scavenger-journalist is taking shape. The family of the woman who took her own life only hours after appearing on Nancy Grace’s TV show is suing Grace and CNN. (Barebones) story here. (Oddly, as of this writing, cnn.com is not reporting this development!) To refresh your memory, a couple months ago, Grace coaxed Melinda Duckett, whose two-year-old son had gone missing, onto her show, promising Duckett that her motive was to create national awareness of the case. Once the cameras were rolling, Grace railroaded Duckett, clearly passing her own judgment based on her own barely veiled theory of what happened. After the foaming-at-the-mouth, fist-pounding tirade was taped, Duckett went home and committed suicide. Then CNN ran the episode anyway, with the classy touch of a ticker telling viewers about Duckett’s demise. (By the way, authorities are now saying they believe the boy is alive.)

Based on what I’ve read, which is admittedly limited, it looks like an IIED claim against Grace and the network. Part of the claim is that Grace misrepresented her intentions to a clearly emotionally distraught woman. I’m no expert on civil liability, but I’d say wrongful death would be a stretch, and there is no mention of it in what I’ve seen anyway. I’m guessing a quick juicy settlement will result (hooray for the looming specter of punitive damages), but maybe it could turn into a full-fledged free speech crusade. I’d welcome comments/predictions from readers more well-versed in tort liability than I.

Sometimes I love the law.

Dis-Grace-ful

Crazed media jackal Nancy Grace has reached a new low. Long accustomed to feeding on the carrion of personal tragedy in front of a national cable audience, the despicable Grace has now crossed definitively the line between observer/reporter/commentator and vigilante. Last Friday, CNN aired a taped interview with 21-year-old Melinda Duckett, a woman who, in all fairness to Grace I guess, was a suspect in her two-year-old son’s disappearance. Grace, never one to let the formalities of decency hinder her style, stood up on her hind legs and put the screws to Duckett with a typical fist-pounding inquisition about her possible involvement in the disappearance, proclaiming at one point “You’re not telling us where you were for a reason! What is the reason?” This kind of thing is nothing new. Grace, a former Georgia prosecutor, could badger a witness in her sleep. The twist is that after taping the interview, Melinda Duckett went home and shot herself.

In classic cable-news fashion, CNN not only aired the interview anyway, it RAN A TICKER DURING THE INTERVIEW informing fans of the “development” of the suicide. Classy move. The suicide actually seems to have heightened police suspicion about Duckett’s involvement, so through one twisted perspective, Grace was right to nail Duckett to the wall. After all, Grace’s only objective is to “find that little boy,” and whatever casualties happen along the way are just collateral damage. In denying any culpability for the suicide, Grace shrugged off the blame on her show by saying “sometimes the truth hurts.”

Huh? What truth is she talking about? The one at which she unilaterally arrived?

If you take a step back, this is all pretty disturbing. Nancy Grace is a TALK SHOW HOST. She is not acting as part of the judiciary or executive. Yet CNN defends its decision to air the show by citing its primary goal of “bringing attention to the case in hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett.” Again I say: never mind procedure! Never mind the constitutional protections we afford defendants! Actually, Melinda Duckett was not even a defendant yet! But never mind! CNN is on the case! Totally disinterested, I might add. I’m sure their own ratings never entered their consideration.

I could go on about all the things I find wrong with this chain of events, but I’m trying to keep this relatively short (and failing as usual). Many commentators are focusing on the ethics of CNN’s decision to air an interview with a young woman whose suicide may or may not have occurred in part BECAUSE of that interview (but I certainly can’t say it did for sure, and hey, why let tact stand in the way of CNN’s relentless pursuit of justice anyway?) However, I don’t find the news channel’s move particularly surprising.

What concerns me most as a student of the law is that Grace, both a former lawyer and ostensibly a journalist, effectively played the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury (if not executioner) on national television without anything like due process. No procedural checks are in place to ensure a fair trial in the court of public opinion, and I imagine Melinda Duckett walked onto the set that day without fully appreciating that fact. Grace describes her show as a justice-themed interview show, but this kind of justice reeks of lynch-mob mentality. I really have no idea if Duckett was guilty or not, or whether Grace’s inquisition really factored in her suicide, but that doesn’t really matter to me. There are any number of possibilities, and they all turn my stomach. Take for instance, the “best” case scenario: that Duckett was guilty in some way, that she was trying to escape prosecution, but that Nancy Grace pinned her down on live television and force-fed her the guilt she had been dodging, leading to the inevitable crushing weight of conscience that forced her hand to suicide. Should we as a society be comfortable with this? Is this a suitable way for “guilty” parties to be exposed and dispatched?

Or maybe Melinda Duckett was guilty and was going to kill herself anyway, but decided to stop off for a TV appearance beforehand. Are we any more comfortable with that? Never mind the chilling possibility that Duckett, totally blameless and fragile, was pushed over the psychological edge by a frothing-at-the-mouth Grace. In any case, this all rings of both a dystopic, Orwellian future, and a barbaric vein of human history that includes public executions and gladiatorial entertainment. Personally, I find both worth avoiding to any extent we can manage.

You may find that I have overstated things here, but even accepting the news media’s ever-expanding role in our lives and actions, I find this kind of social development alarming. You may believe that events like these are anomalous and exist in a sphere separate from real justice, but I find it difficult to have learned what I have about the painstaking evolution of our system, and then see events like this unfold on national television.

Grace la la land

As a comment below points out, Prof. Kerr at VC points out that Grace has had her ass handed to her on a platter by the 11th Circuit. This does not come as a bit of a surprise. I took note of a 5th Circuit opinion last year that admonished the DOJ for impropriety and compared that to Grace's philosophy of justice. This is a good chance to go on a post-exam harp on how much I STILL hate Nancy Grace (not the previous sentence will probably attract a bajillion hits based on google searches...to those fellow Grace-hater [Graters?] I say rock on!)

First I'm not so sure if it's Grace who pisses me off more or the callers with the southern twang singing her praises (while not having a substantive question to follow up). Umm I think it's Grace. I think Grace was one of those people in law school who has a specific goal in mind and all they do here is just confirm their previously held biases and beliefs and march on into the real world. The following concepts are completely alien to Nancy Grace as best as I can tell:

1) Innocent till proven guilty. I mean really, the prosecutor says they have the right guy...do they REALLY need to do anything more to get a guilty verdict? (Remeber, confirming biases).

2) Adequate representation of counsel. Typically the arguments run like this:

Some Defense Attorney on Larry King: "Umm Jackson's defense shouldn't allow testimony about battered women's syndrom."

Grace: "How can you say that Bob? This is what the case is about all along. Jackson's lawyers would practically be molesting the victim themselves if they fought this evidence. They're evil."

3) Criminal acts--harm against society, civil action--harm against people. The distinction blurs for Grace. Somehow the concept of what the victim would want, feel, ask for, enters her mind frame. Now don't get me wrong, this is an IMPORTANT part of criminal justice, i.e. making sure victims are not harmed even more through investigation process, or that they have no fear about cooperating and testifying, or using their or their family's testimony during the sentencing. BUT, I don't think the entire criminal justice system is a sort of quasi-private retribution deal. The harms that are criminalized are against SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. That's who Grace and other prosecutors are supposed to represent. I really don't know how many times I can stress this to those who are gung-ho about becoming prosecutors, it is THE PEOPLE v. criminal name. Not Grace v. Jackson, or Grace v. Peterson. Somehow the concept of just sending everyone arrested to jail for the maximum amount of time becomes the underlying assumption of the profession and takes off from there.

As Kerr has said before, she's just uberannoying.

More Disgrace

I've made it abundantly clear how much I hate Nancy Grace. Here's a couple from yesterday's Larry King Live (ugh, why did I leave the TV on CNN when studying?)

GRACE: ...And I'm still trying to get my head, Larry, around this videotape that surfaced yesterday. Videotape that some of Jackson's people had taken of this boy walking in and out of his school in his little school uniform. Of the mom going in and out of her apartment. Why was the king of pop, literally, the king of pop, worldwide an icon, videotaping this kid going in and out of school?

***

KING: Raymone Bain, a spokesperson for Michael Jackson. What's the talk about taking the stand?

BAIN: Well Larry, before I answer that, let me just say that earlier some one on the program indicated that Michael Jackson videotaped the kids. That is absolutely incorrect. An accusation was made on the stand that someone under Mr. Jackson's employment -- however, we can't even determine if that's true or false. But for the pronouncement to be made that it was Michael Jackson to videotape, I think is absolutely outrageous.

GRACE: That's not what I said, Larry.

BAIN: That's what you said, Grace.

GRACE: Check the transcript, Ms. Raymone -- no ma'am. I said some one in the Jackson camp or worked for Jackson.

BAIN: That's not what you said.

GRACE: Yes it is.

BAIN: You said Michael Jackson videotaped.

GRACE: No, ma'am, he never leaves Neverland. He's always holed up in his bedroom. I don't believe he was out taking video.

BAIN: That's what you said.

KING: We'll check the tape and see what she said. Let's check the tape. Let's check the tape.

Unfortunately, Grace kinda covered her ass, but then she also asked why literally the king of pop made that tape. Good observation Nancy. She had another brilliant observation that was dealt with rather well by Michael Cardoza (whom I now greatly respect not only because he makes Grace look like the fool that she is but he's also worked on both sides and offers honest no-shit, non-emotional assessment of cases). Here it is for you to enjoy.

GRACE: I think they're going to rest next week, that's what they're intimating. Of course, I don't know if that's going to happen. In California, Larry, it always takes longer than it does in any other state in the union. It's a phenomena.

***

CARDOZA: ...And I want to address something that Nancy said, and that's the speed of California courts. I know that she takes shots at our courts here a lot. I have never understood why do we worship speed. I mean, here Jackson is facing 20 years plus in state prison. The case is important, to both the district attorney's office, the alleged victims and to Jackson. So why do we have to do it quickly? Isn't it more important to get it right than to achieve speed.

KING: Well, what she -- Michael, was she saying, they have to do it quickly or was she just commenting they take it slow. Nancy, you want to respond? Let's let Nancy respond.

GRACE: The question it's more important to get a speedy verdict rather, as opposed to a true verdict is ridiculous. And if Michael can prove to me that California courts are not slower in their trials. Same trial, tried here in New York, Georgia it would move more quickly. I don't know what that ingredient is in California courtrooms. I've been there. I was there last week for Pete's sake. I feel strongly about justice being sought in California courtrooms. So, that assertion is ridiculous.

CARDOZA: Well, Nancy...

KING: David Willis -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Michael.

CARDOZA: That's right. And you always talk speed, and say we do it slow.

GRACE: No, I don't. I don't talk about speed.

CARDOZA: Look at what the judge is doing here. He's working -- he's working these attorneys awfully hard. I mean, they get 10 minute breaks. They're doing a forced march in this trial. So, why is it so slow? Why do you keep commenting on our courts?

GRACE: Because Larry asked me.

CARDOZA: (INAUDIBLE) done correctly here. It is done correctly here, and we get justice in our courts.

GRACE: OK. Michael.

Less This Grace

In honor of someone running this search and getting a hit to this blog, I'd like to point to the gentle readers that Nancy Grace will now grace us with her presence on a permanent show on CNN. I've had 4 heart attacks from frustration boiling over whenever she gets herself on Larry King Live, and now a permanent show. The bright side is that she won't sneak up on me by surprise, and I can actually return to watching Larry King without peaking to see if she's on the show.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the reason I don't like her is because (1) the southern twang pisses me off to no end, and (2) she forgets that she's no longer a prosecutor when informing viewers about important legal cases. The reason for no. 2 is that her fiance was killed I believe 2 weeks before their wedding. Tragic. Really. But to allow that to color your judgment...?

So I propose the Nancy Grace rule for HR managers at any DA's office: If a person would not be empaneled on a jury for a criminal trial, then they should not be hired as prosecutors.

Simple enough? The likes of Grace represent THE PEOPLE, not victims. As much as she likes to think of herself as a victims' advocate, that's really not part of her job description as a prosecutor. Should she do the best she can for the victims? Yes. Should she see herself as a sort of vigilante with a license to prosecute? Umm, not quite. I'll have more to say on this once I go through the Larry King transcript from last night...she had quite a few gems in there.

Peterson's Grace

I have gone on rants against Nancy Grace thrice before (see here, here, and here) and today I noticed Orin Kerr of VC write the following about the matter:

If you read the VC, you probably don't care about the Scott Peterson trial. It doesn't raise any interesting legal issues, and worse, gets the UBERANNOYING Nancy Grace on TV all the time. (emphasis added).

As a law professor, Kerr has far more expertise about the legal profession than this lowly 1L who just took his first exam (thank you thank you, and no, I haven't yet clicked to check my grades). However, I have a sneaking suspicion that those of us who can't stand Grace find fault with her on a much more personal level than anything else. I mean I wrote before about how her perspective does not encompass what prosecutors let alone all lawyers should strive for, but after watching her yap on and on and on about the jur-rawrs I'm convinced I don't like her as a person. Nancy, you're more fucking annoying than Carrot Top. (The only reason I'm not going off on a tirade about her ATTEMPTED use of literary devices is because I'm too lethargic, but suffice it to say, some of the metaphors she chooses would make Robert Browning look like a good poet.)

How much do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

Hail 5th Circuit Full of Grace

I've been ragging on Nancy Grace for a while now (see here and here). As I've explained below, my main gripe with her is that her view of justice is simply getting a conviction regardless of evidence and anyone defending a criminal is evil. Well now I can say that such a position has support from higher authority.

The government’s brief, which argued stridently that every one of the district court’s decisions actions was justified, is surprising to this court, because the responsibility of the Department of Justice, in its representation of the United States in criminal proceedings, is to do justice and to see to it that the law is followed, not to obtain the highest possible sentence in every case. United States v. Andrews (5th Cir. 2004)(The opinion has not been published yet and I'm too lazy to blue book it).

Hat tip Bashman for linking the opinion for other reasons (Three judge panel removed the trial judge from the case because he's gone past the maximum sentencing allowed on previous occasions. In fact the holding reads, "The judgment of sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings before a different district judge, in accordance with this opinion."

Court TV

The realm of reality television has hit a slide ever since the popularity of CBS's "Survivor." During the before-Survivor era there were such shows as Road Rules (minus the gender/sexual tension based challenges), Cops, Sightings, Rescue 911, Unsolved Mysteries, etc. Since Survivor, every reality based show is a slight change in the cookie-cutter forumla of framing everything as though a challenge to "survive." Bachelor? Well good luck with that first impression in a pointless effort to miss the first round of cuts as if you really are THAT interested in her. Harvard MBA? Good luck dealing with other, worse prima donas. A reckless billionaire who wants to get in on the action during the basketball off-season? Welcome aboard. A rebel billionaire who has just returned from another attempt at setting the world record in hot air ice skating and doesn't want to miss out on a good trend? There's also a place for you. And we can't leave the worm-eaters, angry college students who have no idea how privileged they are, and LAWYERS away from the dinner table.

That's right, lawyers. The latest addition to this crap is FOX's "The Partner." In case you're wondering how this might be different from the Apprentice, well here it is.

1) There are two teams of lawyers
2) One team consists of "polished ivy league graduates." The other, graduates from "lesser pedigrees."
3) "They will argue real cases ripped straight from the headlines."
4) "And each weak one member will be kicked off the team."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! There aren't enough screams in the world for this one.

Why must the network that broght us The Simpsons, Married with Children, Melrose Place, Models, Inc., In Living Color, Family Guy, X-Files, Wildest Police Chases 1-589, among others, be so evil? Why must their number 1 cable guy be the biggest pervert? Why must THEY create this lawyer reality show? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?????

I actually think I'm framing the issue incorrectly. Why must people from LA (aspiring actors, the whole lot of us) go to law school? All I know is that one way of putting out a fire is cutting down the fuel.

***
Asides:

1) Two of the shows I listed are there as a joke. I actually hated them. As a hint, I also hated Party of Five.

2) I hate Nancy what's her name from the real Court TV. She's always on Larry King Live talking about how every not guilty verdict is an injustice. I wouldn't be so troubled if callers actually called in to say, "Hi Nancy, I've actually been watching for a while and I still think you're an idiot." NO! They call in to praise her.

Larry: "Smallsville, South Dakota...Yer on dee aaaair."
Caller from Smallsville: "Hi Nancy, I just want to say we love you here..."

Just so I don't sound like a fool, the reason I hate her is because regardless of the issue, the case, the person, she's ALWAYS FOR A CONVICTION AT ALL COSTS. Gee Nancy, I wonder if you're a former prosecutor. But that's no excuse. Defense attorneys on Court TV and on Larry King routinely talk about both sides...or how an outcome could reasonably go both ways. The prime example of this is Mark Geragos. When Peterson was first arrested, he AGREED WITH NANCY, that Peterson is screwed based on the evidence. What did he do? Turn around and defend him. Newsflash to Nancy Grace, that's her last name, Grace, about as unfitting as Impartial..."PROSECUTORS DEFEND THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE, AND THIS MEANS JUSTICE...NOT JUSTICE TO ONE SIDE."

3) Jon Stewart will be featured on 60 Minutes tomorrow at 7 PM on CBS. I'm thrilled.

4) Lastly, with respect to this Fox show about lawyers, it will have nothing close to reality, but it will do about as much harm to the practice as John Grisham over the course of 8000 novels turned movies by creating misconceptions.

5) In the interest of equality, I will now draft a proposal for a reality show based on the daily workings of network TV executives. Any suggestions about how to go about this would be greatly appreciated.