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!” 

Free speech: A message for public universities (and their students)

For the universities, before you spend any more time and money expanding the university bureaucracy to implement that micro-aggression reporting system, read Matal v. Tam.  It doesn't say anything the rest of us didn't already know, but here are some quotes of interest from the decision, along with some concluding remarks to the universities and their students:

Roger Federer, Michael Cicchini, and Pennsylvania’s Burden of Proof

“Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Michael Cicchini.”  While that statement is true, it doesn’t really say anything.  It tells you nothing about how good Roger Federer is (or how bad I am) at tennis.  So at best, it’s a meaningless statement.  And if you don’t know much about the sport to begin with, the sentence is worse than meaningless.  It’s grossly misleading.  Why?  Because it gives the impression that Roger Federer and yours truly are somehow comparable or at least part of the same tennis universe.  If we weren’t, why would we be compared to one another?  After all, no one ever bothers to say that a Ferrari is faster than a Yugo or that Cal Tech offers a better physics education than Wisconsin’s Gateway Tech, even though both claims are true.  Yet, this type of highly misleading comparison is found at the heart of something far more important than tennis, cars, and even physics: Pennsylvania’s burden of proof jury instruction in criminal cases. 

Is the Marquette Golden Eagle an Endangered Species?

Much like the Golden State Warriors of the NBA, the Marquette Warriors were once the coolest name in their sport.  (And Marquette also had a history of being one of the most progressive teams in recruiting, in fashion, and in flat-out sticking it to the man.)  I was a Warrior in my graduate school days, before law school, back in the early 1990s.  But then in 1994, Marquette made the switch to probably the most common, generic nickname in college sports: the Golden Eagles.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve come to really like the Eagle, particularly after it evolved into its current form (pictured left).  It is probably the best bird logo in college sports: a cool, aggressive, and determined looking bird that is ready to get to business, stat.  And I still love my Marquette hoops—even post-Dwyane Wade, it is the bright spot during our long, cold Wisconsin winters.  But when Marquette changed its name from Warriors to Golden Eagles back in '94, I pointed out the absurdity of the thought process behind the move.  Now, that thought process has spread like a virus and no mascot (or person) is safe.