Look to your left; look to your right

Back in the days of The Paper Chase, there was a little speech that, at least according to legend, the Dean made during law school orientation.  “Look to your left; look to your right. One of you won’t be here next year.”  The message, of course, was that law school was not only tough to get in to, but would also be tough to complete.  And one out of every three of you will fail.  But in today’s softer, gentler world, the calculus has changed.  Well, sort of. 

Today, almost everyone gets admitted to law school, and even students with a mere 2.0 GPA in college can get scholarship money at some law schools.  Several forces have conspired to create this state of affairs.  Law schools have expanded in number to over 200, the student applicant pool has shrunk due to sliding demand and plummeting pay for lawyers, and a greater number of law schools are therefore competing for the smaller number of student loan conduits prospective students.

The Appearance of (In)Justice

As fans of Making a Murderer know, a 16-year-old kid named Brendan Dassey was railroaded into confessing to a murder that, by every measure, he had nothing to do with.  Not surprisingly, the elected Wisconsin trial court judge found that his “confession” was “voluntary” and therefore admissible against him at trial.  (Never mind the interrogators’ dozens of threats and false promises of leniency.)  Equally unsurprising, the jury bought the prosecutor’s sophistry — he famously but falsely claimed that innocent people don’t confess — and convicted Dassey as a “party to the crime” of murder and other offenses.  And once again, unsurprisingly, the state appellate court rubber-stamped Dassey’s conviction in a superficial, two-paragraph “analysis” of the facts and law.  But after that, things got really interesting. 

Baseball, Subs, and F-Bombs

Knightly enjoys a sub

I absolutely loved Tommy Lasorda subs in the late 90s.  With all due respect to Hungry Head -- Kenosha's oldest and finest sub shop -- few things were as enjoyable as going to Tommy Lasorda's Dugout on 22nd Avenue for a delicious sub made fresh, right in front of your eyes.  I recently tried to replicate the experience from memory using store-bought ingredients, but my attempt fell flat.  My effort was, at best, a foul tip.

Much like a home run ball, Tommy Lasorda's Dugout is long gone.  Last I read, the chain went out of business which proves, much like the old Betamax, that the best products don't necessarily survive.  But thanks to two email attachments I recently received from the Irreverent Lawyer, we can still enjoy some absolutely amazing clips of the legend Tommy Lasorda himself.  

Enough of Sister Jean

Surprisingly, I find my March Madness experience being dampened by an underdog.  Not an underdog that knocked my beloved Marquette out of the tournament.  (My Warrior-Eagles didn't even make the Big Dance this year).  Rather, it's eleven-seed Loyola-Chicago, an underdog I would normally cheer for if not for the media's constant and inane coverage of "Sister Jean."

Today, for example, the babbling Dick Vitale took the hype to a new level.  Of course there was the usual allusion to "the power of prayer," as if the woman who didn't even pick her own team, Loyola-Chicago, to get past the Sweet 16 somehow has the ear of a supreme being.  But Dick -- an annoying but knowledgeable college basketball analyst -- now says (hopefully jokingly) that he relies on her for "scouting reports" and even wants to cast his wife aside so he can "date" Sister Jean.  And of course, Dick declares that she'll be a "major factor in the game" tonight against Michigan.

More law review fun

My last post discussed a new -- well, new to me -- law professor publishing trick: the bait and switch.  And now for some more law review fun.  Over at Outside the Law School Scam (OTLSS), there's a post about a Kentucky law prof who not only denies that professor scholarship raises the cost of legal education for students, but who also wrote this on the twitter:

The Law Professor Bait-and-Switch Trick

I’m convinced that law professor misbehavior is driven by the group’s rather unhealthy obsession with rank and prestige.  More specifically, many law profs have never practiced law, and most of those who have practiced have done so for very short periods of time (1.4 years, according to one study) in very sanitized settings (e.g., writing briefs but never meeting a real-life client, let alone representing one in a business transaction or jury trial).  Without any law practice experience to draw upon, this leaves the law profs to judge each other by the U.S. News ranking of their law schools and of the law journals in which they publish.

Responding to more criticisms of the empirical studies on Wisconsin’s reasonable-doubt jury instruction

Prosecutors insist that Wisconsin’s jury instruction 140 on the burden of proof — which concludes by telling jurors “not to search for doubt” but “to search for the truth” — does not lower the burden of proof.  This raises the question: If it doesn’t lower the burden of proof, then why are you fighting so vigorously to preserve the offending closing mandate?  Why not just join the other 49 states that don’t use such qualifying language when instructing their juries on reasonable doubt?

Truth, doubt, and “whack-a-mole”

Before I can finish debunking one misconception about my studies on Wis. Jury Instruction 140 — studies available here and here — another misconception pops up.  It’s like playing a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole.”  It’s easy and virtually cost-free (in terms of time) for prosecutors and judges to launch these attacks.  But their criticisms are often so far off-base, or even bizarre, that it takes a lot of work to respond to them.  Pretty soon, however, I’ll have written so much on this topic I will simply be able to respond: “See law review article C, page six.”  Later this year I will publish the recently-completed Educating Judges and Lawyers on Social Science Research: A Case Study.  In it, I will address the latest set of attacks.  But if you just can’t wait — or if you can wait but you have a motion hearing coming up to modify J.I. 140 — you’ll find a bullet-point list debunking these new criticisms after the jump. 

Brendan Dassey, Wisconsin state courts, and the state of legal education [updated below]

The 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals recently affirmed the reversal of Brendan Dassey’s conviction.  The decision is 128 pages.  The main reason it’s so long is this: the Wisconsin appellate court failed to do any actual analysis when it originally affirmed Dassey’s conviction; instead, it merely repeated the applicable legal standard and then jumped to its conclusion — all in two very short paragraphs.  Therefore, the Seventh Circuit had to analyze everything from scratch.  This is something we Wisconsin criminal defense lawyers have to deal with regularly from some of our state’s trial and appellate courts: judges reaching their decision first, and then saying anything — or in Dassey’s case, nothing — to justify their predetermined outcome.  But what if I’m wrong?  What if the Wisconsin appellate court judges didn’t make up their minds ahead of time and were actually doing their best to reach a reasoned conclusion?

How far does the Wisconsin state bar bureaucracy reach?

After sorting through my email inbox today, I learned that the mandatory-membership Wisconsin state bar has something called a “leadership development committee.”  And for the low, low price of $300.00, Wisconsin lawyers can take part in the “G. Lane Ware Leadership Academy.”  This is the second annual gathering; the inaugural event “was a huge success!”