Posted by brightcoast on May 10, 2011
Great article here about renowned professor Yale Kamisar ‘s retirement(yes he’s that important he has his own wiki page). He’s also sometimes referred to as the father of Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona), which created the reading of Miranda Rights or Warnings to criminal defendants, preceding any custodial interrogation. It’s the notorious Cops catch phrase, “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you…” which stems from your Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination.
Although I never had the pleasure of taking a class with professor Kamisar, I have heard many stories of his legendarily intense lectures, which sound to me more like custodial interrogation than anything else. What strikes me the most about prof. Kamisar, aside from his legendary writings, is his inquisitiveness and realness when it comes to legal issues. He seems like the exact sort of professor that would inspire his students to follow in his footsteps of greatness. His retirement shall be strongly felt, and USD Law will be hard pressed to replace him. (Which is not to say that certain other quasi-celebrity Criminal Procedure profs aren’t similarly entertaining and noteworthy– the phrase “no thank you officer, I’d rather not say” comes to mind.)
On behalf of USD Law students I’d like to thank Professor Kamisar for his 11 years of service.
Posted in SCOTUS, The Law, U.S. Statutes, Uncategorized, USD Law | Tagged: custodial interrogation, Famous USD Law professors, Gideon v. Wainright, Miranda Rights, Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda Warnings, right to have counsel appointed, Self-incrimination, The Fifth Amendment, Yale Kamisar, Yale Kamisar Retiring, You have the right to remain silent | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brightcoast on March 22, 2010
I feel as though in times of heightened political excitement, those of us trained to study the law sometimes have a tendency to follow or agree with a popular perception of the thing that we need to read and interpret for ourselves. In the spirit of that sort of democracy, I present you with the following link, HR 3590
Posted in Politics, The Law, U.S. Statutes | Tagged: HR 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brightcoast on December 9, 2009
very close to my heart and just in time for finals studying distractions. (Hat tip TPB)
Posted in U.S. Statutes | Tagged: awesomeness, law, lawscool, rap | 1 Comment »
Posted by brightcoast on May 8, 2009
A real life Evidence hypo. I’m surprised the defense attorneys are attempting to challenge the Illinois laws on the basis of their constitutionality, since it the argument for allowing her statements (assuming Peterson killed her) appears strikingly similar (if not identical) to FRE 806(b)(6), and the letters might come in to prove her then existing mental/emotional state under FRE 803(3). Maybe there’s also an argument for admitting her statements under 804(b)(2)–if she believed she was dying, though the imminent argument might be tricky to prove. Then, of course, there’s always the 807 catchall argument. Interestingly, neither the article nor the select remarks from Peterson’s attorneys, make any mention of the Federal Rules.
Posted in U.S. Statutes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brightcoast on October 1, 2008
I thought I’d start a separate post to respond to the call to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley because of its “unnecessary” costs to business. Below is only a tiny portion of perhaps the most “un”important parts, especially as related to us future lawyers:
Under section 7245 Rule of Professional responsibility for attorneys
The SEC “shall issue rules, in the public interest and for the protection of investors, setting forth the minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers, including a rule—
(1) requiring an attorney to report evidence of a material violation of securities law or breach of fiduciary duty or similar violation by the company or agent thereof,…”
Because I mean what do we need to protect investors or the public interest for right? And who cares if businesses violate the law, that’s what golden parachutes are all about right? And who cares if all businesses end up like Enron and literally bankrupt Americans’ pensions, etc. ? The invisible hand will save us all right?
Posted in U.S. Statutes | Tagged: Statutes | 7 Comments »