The Yin Blog

Why I didn't ask for a Blackberry during my last at a law firm

This story sums it all up.

Roman Polanski, a flight risk?

Hmm, the Swiss Justice Ministry has denied Roman Polanski's request for bail, apparently because he's a "high flight risk."

Why, there's no reason to believe that he would ever flee a jurisdiction . . . oh wait. . . .

Just when I thought the Polanski saga couldn't get more disgusting

It's bad enough that there are people -- including French government officials -- who are jumping to defend Roman Polanski the fugitive.  It's bad enough that his underlying crime, to which he pled guilty, is pretty heinous.  What's even worse is that, per this news story, that (1) Polanski agreed to pay his rape victim $150,000 but then apparently never actually paid her; and (2) that he fled the U.S. because he didn't want to serve an additional 48 days in jail:

Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse and a judge sent him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country the night before he was scheduled to be sentenced, Feb. 1, 1978.

That's why he fled the country?!?  He was so spoiled that seven additional weeks of prison was too much for him to bear?

And you have to love this -- when his lawyer was asked about whether Polanski had ever paid the victim the amount he agreed to to settle her case, the lawyer apparently responded like this:

Polanski's attorney, David Finkle, said he couldn't remember details of the case and declined comment.

"It's ancient," Finkle said.

You can't remember whether your client ever paid off a settlement that he agreed to?!?

Democracy -- does it mean what the NY Times thinks it means?

The New York Times has an editorial today against the death penalty that reiterates what seems to me to be the best argument against capital punishment: its cost.  As the Times notes:

Perhaps the most extreme example is California, whose death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life. The state has executed 13 people since 1976 for a total of about $250 million per execution. This is a state whose prisons are filled to bursting (unconstitutionally so, the courts say) and whose government has imposed doomsday-level cuts to social services, health care, schools and parks.

I find the fiscal argument quite compelling.  But why does it cost so much to try to execute someone?  There are penalty phase trials (to decide whether the sentence should be life imprisonment or death), there are statutory rights to appeals and post-conviction relief, and there are rights to counsel.  What I found puzzling in the Times editorial was this observation:

There is also a 15-to-20-year appeals process, but simply getting rid of it would be undemocratic and would increase the number of innocent people put to death.

Did the Times mean that it would be undemocratic for a state government to abolish the right to appeal death sentences by fiat?  Or that it abolishing the right to appeal would be undemocratic no matter who decides to do it?

Neither possibility fits "democratic" very well.  If duly elected state legislators abolish the right to appeal (putting aside whether that's constitutional), why isn't that democratic?  I don't imagine the Times means that it's not democratic because it wasn't the product of direct democracy.  I mean, technically, it would be true that if the legislature did it, it would not be democratic so much as "democratic republican" . . . but that distinction doesn't make sense in the context of the anti-death penalty argument that the paper is advancing.

And if the right to appeal death sentences were abolished by, say, a voter initiative, what could be more democratic than that?  (Note: I don't mean to suggest that voter initiative democracy is necessarily a good thing.)

So what does the Times mean by "democratic"?  Does it mean "humane," "moral," or "appropriate"? 

But I thought he was just a "person of interest" and *not* a "suspect"!

Just a couple of days ago, the police arrested, er, took into custody a Yale lab technician as a "person of interest" in the murder of a female Yale grad student.  The TV news accounts that I saw showed the police emphasizing that the tech was not a suspect.

Today, I read:

A Yale lab technician appeared in court and was charged with murder Thursday hours after his arrest in the killing of a graduate student whose body was found stuffed in the wall of the research building where they both worked.

Am I surprised?  Should anyone be surprised?  Of course not.  Doesn't everyone translate "person of interest" into "suspect"?

You decide, sloppy lawyering, or sloppy journalism?

According to this article in the Chicago Tribune, my former employer is being sued for discrimination (again).  Last time, it was a claim of viewpoint discrimination; this time, it's age discrimination:

Dobkin, a veteran attorney, claims he was denied a position on the school's faculty because of his age. 

"I just think that it is pretty obvious to me and my lawyers that persons over the age of 40 are not considered for entry-level positions. That is widely known in academic circles. Not only do we see this as illegal, but it is a disservice to students who are being taught by professors, with some exceptions, that have never practiced law in the fields they are teaching," Dobkin said in a telephone interview with the Iowa City Press-Citizen.

The article goes on to note that, according to the lawsuit, "the College of Law has not hired a faculty member older than 40 in the past 10 years."

This is either an example of sloppy lawyering, or sloppy journalism. Thomas Gallanis was hired last year, and his CV shows that he earned his BA in 1987, which would generally mean that he was around 42-43 years old when he was hired. Of course, Gallanis was a lateral hire, not entry level, so the claim would appear to be true if it refers only to entry level hires -- in which case, it's sloppy journalism, since this is something that could have been checked pretty easily on the website.

UPDATE: Brian Leiter comments here, suggesting that Dobkin can't win the lawsuit because there are too many non-age related reasons that could exist, and concludes: "One he assumes he must know this--or have been so advised by his attorney--and so is pursuing the matter to draw attention to the more general issue about possible age discrimination in academic hiring."

But it could be simpler, too, no?  Survive or avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, get into discovery, and then seek a settlement either before a summery judgment motion, or after surviving one.

A nagging question about MP3s and married couples

While starting the pretty awful task of packing our house for the move to Portland, I noticed that my wife and I had two copies of two CDs.  Which was kind of weird, because we have somewhat similar tastes in music -- a lot of overlap in 80s and 90s pop/rock.  I would've expected more duplicates, but the Post Office lost most of my CDs in 1996 when I moved out to Oklahoma City for my second clerkship.

Anyway, I set aside the two duplicates for consignment (more likely, donation, though).  That got me wondering about what the RIAA thinks that married couples who both have MP3 players should do when both want to install a song that they bought once, whether a physical CD or a MP3 file.  Just to be clear: this is merely a hypothetical within our family, since I am the only one with a portable MP3 player.

In other words, let's assume that I buy into the RIAA's normative position that one "ought" not to steal artists' intellectual property by violating the copyright on songs.  Some easy examples would be -- (1) it's clearly okay for me to install an MP3 that I paid for myself; and (2) it's clearly not okay for me to sell MP3 files ripped from a CD that I bought.  A harder example is -- (3) it's probably not okay for me to let my good friend borrow my CD to rip the MP3 file for his/her own MP3 player.

But where do married couples fit within this?  Example (3) falls out the way it does because if my friend likes the particular song enough to install it on his/her MP3 player, he/she should just go buy it.  Helping my friend save $0.99 is really just stealing $0.99 from the record label and the artist.  I find that argument persuasive as far it goes, but there's a significant difference between a good friend and a spouse, no?  I find it a little hard to believe that if my wife and I both wanted to put a song on MP3 players, we're supposed to buy two copies of the song. . . .

Nice write up for my former employer

According to the ABA, my former employer, Munger Tolles & Olson, topped American Lawyer's A-list of law firms, based on its commitment to pro bono work, its diversity, and its associate satisfaction.  Although I'm of course much happier in my current gig as a law prof than I was as a lawyer, I have fond memories of Munger Tolles.  As law firms go, it's hard for me to imagine a better place. 

But it is kind of weird looking at the attorney roster and seeing that some people who were summer associates when I was there are now partners(!).  That says that I've been in the legal academy for a while now (7 years) but also that Munger Tolles still has a relatively short partnership track.

Why Eliot Spitzer's conduct matters

As you've no doubt read by now, the bombshell news is that New York Governor (and former New York Attorney General) Eliot Spitzer was identified as a client of a prostitution ring through a federal wiretap.  Does it matter?

I think so.  One thing that defenders of Bill Clinton never seemed to acknowledge was that his impeachment wasn't based merely on the fact of an illicit sexual relationship with an intern, but rather, lies under oath about that relationship.  Here, Spitzer's conduct is even worse. . . .

Had the story been that Spitzer had gone to Nevada (where prostitution is legal everywhere except in the cities of Las Vegas and Reno) and hired a prostitute, there might have been some moral outrage, but it would otherwise be a non-story.  This would be true even if, as is the case, Spitzer -- as AG -- brought cases against prostitution rings, for it is entirely consistent to say that as AG, he was merely enforcing New York law, whether he agreed with it or not.

That argument, however, is not available to him.  It's not a private matter, as he asserted in his "apology."  (If it were truly private, why would he feel the need to call a press conference about it?)  The fact that he, as AG, prosecuted prostitution rings and yet engages one himself, means that he is putting himself above the law.  Had he disagreed with the ban on prostitution, he -- as AG -- could have declined to prosecute such cases.  He did not.  He obviously felt those laws were worth enforcing.  So why is it "private" when he allegedly engages in it?

I don't see how Spitzer has any choice but to resign.  His political career has to be in shambles.  How could he ever win another campaign?

Jack Bauer . . . criminal?

Terrorists can't stop him, but the L.A. court system can.

I was disappointed to read that Kiefer Sutherland was pulled over for DUI, and more so when I read that he was still on probation for another drunken driving offense.  At least he made the proper sort of abject apology and said that he'd do more time in custody if necessary to ensure that production on "24" not be interrupted. . . .