Legal Questions Raised by Slaying of NY Appellate Clerk.

Peter Porco, at age 52, was the principal clerk to Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona of the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, in New York. Porco was a career appellate court clerk and devoted student of the law. During the early morning hours of November 15, 2004, Porco was brutally murdered with an ax. His wife was by his side, was similarly attacked, but miraculously survived. Their 22-year-old son is now charged with Porco's murder and with Porco's wife's attempted murder.

The case presents a myriad of complex legal and factual issues that Porco's co-workers say he would have found fascinating. There is evidence that somebody entered the home after cutting telephone wires that operated the burglar alarm. But there is also evidence that the alarm had been deactivated by someone who knew the access code before the alarm's control box was smashed. A garage window screen was cut, but a key the family had hidden was found in the front door lock. The family dog was locked in the basement.

Police who found the crime scene found Porco's wife clinging to life. Certain that she was going to die, they tried to question her to find out what had happened. They asked her if she had been attacked by a family member, and she apparently nodded "yes." When asked if her son was responsible, she apparently again nodded "yes."

Police interrogated the son for more than 6 hours, without counsel, but got nothing. He continuously insisted he was asleep at his college when the attacks occurred. Police were unable to find any physical evidence to conclusively establish that he had been anywhere near the home at the time of the attacks.

The investigation ultimately revealed that the son was heavily in debt, had argued with his father about loan applications, and had allegedly staged burglaries in his home and allegedly burglarized a veterinarian's clinic where he worked, although no charges had ever been filed.

The son was ultimately charged based on the theory that he attacked his parents to get their money. The son apparently stood to inherit at least enough to get himself out of debt.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in June 2006.

Among the legal issues to be resolved include whether the son's right to counsel was violated because a family friend had introduced himself to police and advised them he was the son's attorney prior to the 6 hours of uncounseled interrogation. Also at issue is whether Porco's wife's "nods" to police are admissible as "excited utterances" or "dying declarations." Also at issue will be the admissibility of evidence about the alleged prior burglary stagings. Finally, there will be issues related to two of the detectives who investigated the case having died in recent months.

Is Gay Marriage Ban a No-Win for Bush?

In a Philadelphia Inquirer commentary, political analyst Dick Polman opines that the White House's relatively mute push to support the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a product of "[t]hree words: competing political interests." Specifically, the issue seems to be that not everyone in the Republican party is entirely fixated on banning gay marriage, and some Republicans actually feel other issues are also pretty important.

For example, "[p]arty moderates are concerned about the fate of House incumbents from socially tolerant districts . . . [and] [t]he fear is that many party voters might stay home, or swing to the Democrats, if they feel their leaders are more fixated on gay marriage than on issues they deem more important, such as Iraq and the price of gas." With Bush's approval rating among moderate Republicans and independents plummeting to record lows, it seems that "[a] full-throated crusade against gay marriage would not bring [approval] northward."

"'There is a fear, among some in the [Republican] party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party.'" "[H]alf of today's Republicans are 'theocrats' who want government to 'promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage,' as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives."

The dilemma for Bush and other Republicans: push too hard on the gay marriage ban and the "theocratic" base may respond well, but that could be damaging with the politically moderate or independent voters.

This commentary also recognizes something I wish more political pundits would pick up on and discuss: It may well be true that a majority of people "oppose" the concept of gay marriage. But that is not the same thing as saying that a majority of people favor amending the Constitution to actually ban gay marriage. The two concepts are not parallel. Further, a significant portion of those who will answer a poll question by indicating that they "oppose" gay marriage really don't feel so strongly about it that they would like to see actively outlawing it made a priority.

The result of all this is that Bush is once again finding himself in a no-win situation. If he actively supports the proposed amendment, he risks alienating moderates and independents and risks spending money in a potentially losing causing. If he fails to actively support the proposed amendment, he risks alienating religious conservatives who were largely responsible for his reelection.

Hergert Impeachment Trial: Day Five.

Following are links to Monday, May 15, 2006, coverage of the impeachment trial of University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert before the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Day Five Coverage:
Omaha World Herald: Regent's Fate Now Rests With High Court.

The five-day impeachment trial ended on Monday. Prosecutor David Domina argued that Hergert "snubbed his nose at [the] law." Hergert's attorneys "respectfully ask[ed the court] to decline [the] invitation to overturn an election." No word on how long it will be before the court will issue a ruling.

Lincoln Journal Star: Hergert's Fate in Court's Hands.

Hergert's impeachment trial wrapped up on Monday. Prosecutor David Domina argued that Hergert failed to compete fairly and honorably and snubbed his nose at the law. Hergert's attorneys argued that the articles of impeachment were not proven and that the case was built on innuendo. According to Hergert's attorneys, "technical violations" fail to prove that Hergert acted intentionally.

Nebraska State Paper: Supreme Court Hears Final Arguments on Removing NU Regent From Office.

The Hergert impeachment trial wrapped up on Monday. Prosecutor David Domina argued that the evidence showed Hergert consistently and deliberately violated the law. The defense argued that the violations were not intentional and a finding of guilt would "rewrite the constitution."

WOWT TV.com: Impeachment Trial Concludes.

Hergert's fate now rests with the Supreme Court. Prosecutor David Domina argued that Hergert repeatedly lied and broke campaign finance laws to deprive his challenger from accessing public money. Hergert's attorneys argued that the Legislature had "used 'special effects' in order to 'make innocent conduct appear sinister.'"

Kierkegaard Lives Daily Impeachment Trial Coverage:
Day One Coverage.
Day Two Coverage.
Day Three Coverage.
Day Four Coverage.
Day Five Coverage.

Other Links:
Kierkegaard Lives, May 4, 2006 (discussing arguments on Hergert's Motion to Dismiss).
Kierkegaard Lives, April 28, 2006 (discussing pending impeachment trial).

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Site (with .pdf copies of filings in the case)

Friday Fantastic Four #9

After an inexcusable absence of almost a month and a half, here is the return of the Friday Fantastic Four, this the 9th installment:

1. Featured Law-Oriented Blog.


This week's featured law-oriented blog is Split Circuits, a blog "dedicated to tracking developments concerning splits among the federal circuit courts.

The blog is maintained by A. Benjamin Spencer, an Assistant Professor of Law at The University of Richmond School of Law. A Harvard grad, Spencer teaches Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Complex Litigation, and a seminar in Advanced Issues in Civil Procedure. He has another blog, Federal Civil Practice Bulletin.

Split Circuits is a potentially invaluable resource for anyone who practices in the federal courts and needs to stay abreast of how the various circuits may differ in application of federal law, as well as a great resource for those of you out there who teach and are in need of good scenarios for class problems. Go check the site out; it's clear that Professor Spencer has devoted a great deal of time and effort to this project.

2. Featured Law Commentary.


This week's featured legal commentary comes courtesy of Michael J. Kelly, Professor of Law at Creighton School of Law. Kelly's short piece over at Jurist Hotline is titled, "Now is the time to dump the CIA and transform the intelligence community."

Kelly argues that Porter Goss's resignation as CIA director offers President Bush "an opportunity to make real and lasting changes to a broken intelligence system." Kelly argues that the CIA "continues to sink ever more deeply to the abyss of public skepticism as more abuses come to light involving torture, detention, rendition to third countries, and the use of secret 'black sites' where suspects remain hidden from public scrutiny indefinitely." Kelly argues that Bush should utilize this opportunity to "really shake up the intelligence community in such a way that moves us further from the model of fighting the Cold War against the non-existent KGB and toward the model of engaging an enemy that is more unpredictable, unascertainable, and stubbornly impenetrable."


3. Featured Non-Law-Oriented Blog.


This week's featured non-law-oriented blog is a blog I only recently discovered because its author stopped by and left a comment here on my post about Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The blog is Dark and Moody Chicks.

Don't let the name scare you off. This is a really funny daily comic blog. Today's strip even pokes fun at those of us who are *still* talking about Stephen Colbert. Interspersed with the daily comics are insights into the daily life of the author.

For example, today Michelle got pulled over making an improper left turn -- no ticket, though.

"The Chicks" have tackled a variety of topics recently, including some that are (ahem) a bit "adult" in nature, the different views of liberals and conservatives, and David Blaine.

Speaking of David Blaine, and Stephen Colbert, after Blaine failed to break the "how long can he hold his breath inside a giant fish bowl in front of the whole world" record, Colbert noted that it'd be impossible for anyone to hold their breath for 9 minutes. Colbert said something like, "to do that would take a magician or something." I know, random thought, off-topic, but it does tie "the chicks", David Blaine, and Colbert all together rather nicely, don't you think? Anyway, go peruse some of the past strips of the chicks. There's some really good stuff there.

4. Featured Just-For-Fun Site.


Finally, since Mother's Day is this weekend, this week's featured just-for-fun site is a site about Mother's Day. If you have kids, go check out Kids Domain's Mother's Day page. You'll find great craft ideas for kids to make mom a nice card or other gift, and other fun Mother's Day activities for kids and moms.




Previous Friday Fantastic Four Posts:
March 24, 2006 (FFF #8)
March 3, 2006 (FFF #7)
February 24, 2006 (FFF #6)
February 10, 2006 (FFF #5)
January 27, 2006 (FFF #4)
January 20, 2006 (FFF #3)
January 6, 2006 (FFF #2)
December 30, 2005 (FFF #1)

Hergert Impeachment Trial: Day Four.

Following are links to Thursday, May 11, 2006, coverage of the impeachment trial of University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert before the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Day Four Coverage:
Omaha World Herald: Hergert Testifies at His Impeachment Trial.

Hergert took the stand today. Hergert testified that he failed to file paperwork for a variety of reasons, first because he "misplaced it;" then because he thought he had already mailed it; then because he found it misfiled with other paperwork.

Lincoln Journal Star: Hergert Testifies at His Impeachment Trial.

Hergert took the stand today. Hergert testified that he failed to file paperwork for a variety of reasons, first because he "misplaced it;" then because he thought he had already mailed it; then because he found it misfiled with other paperwork.

WOWT TV: Hergert Testifies.

Hergert took the stand today. Hergert testified that he failed to file paperwork for a variety of reasons, first because he "misplaced it;" then because he thought he had already mailed it; then because he found it misfiled with other paperwork.

Kierkegaard Lives Daily Impeachment Trial Coverage:
Day One Coverage.
Day Two Coverage.
Day Three Coverage.
Day Four Coverage.
Day Five Coverage.

Other Links:
Kierkegaard Lives, May 4, 2006 (discussing arguments on Hergert's Motion to Dismiss).
Kierkegaard Lives, April 28, 2006 (discussing pending impeachment trial).

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Site (with .pdf copies of filings in the case)

NSA Spying Discussions.

With the story broken by USA Today about the NSA's surveillance of domestic phone calls, there has been a resurgence of discussion across the blog-o-sphere about wiretapping, surveillance, and NSA spying. As such, there's a flurry of new links in the Wire-Tapping Link Repository.

Hergert Impeachment Trial: Day Three

Following are links to Wednesday, May 10, 2006, coverage of the impeachment trial of University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert before the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Day Three Coverage:
Omaha World Herald: Witness Says Hergert Changed Story.

A Nebraska State Patrol investigator testified that he interviewed Hergert in connection with an Attorney General investigation of Hergert's campaign finance violations and that "several discrepancies" existed between what Hergert said then and what Hergert said in a more recent deposition. The alleged inconsistencies concern who was responsible within Hergert's campaign for reporting his campaign expenditures and whether Hergert received a warning letter from the Accountability and Disclosure Committee.

Omaha World Herald: NU Regent Didn't Report Payments By His Campaign.

Heregert paid a fundraiser and political consultant to work on his campaign, but never reported the expenditure on disclosure statements.

Lincoln Journal Star: Witness: Hergert was Inconsistent.

A Nebraska State Patrol investigator testified that he interviewed Hergert in connection with an Attorney General investigation of Hergert's campaign finance violations and that "several discrepancies" existed between what Hergert said then and what Hergert said in a more recent deposition. The alleged inconsistencies concern who was responsible within Hergert's campaign for reporting his campaign expenditures and whether Hergert received a warning letter from the Accountability and Disclosure Committee.

Lincoln Journal Star: Regent's Role in Campaign Recounted.

Testimony Wednesday, May 10, 2006, indicated that Hergert testified in a deposition that he was the one that guided the campaign and made the decisions; this revelation could bolster the prosecution's case that Hergert intentionally manipulated the system to keep his opponent from receiving public money in the race.

WOWT TV: Investigation Detailed.

A Nebraska State Patrol investigator testified that he interviewed Hergert in connection with an Attorney General investigation of Hergert's campaign finance violations and that "several discrepancies" existed between what Hergert said then and what Hergert said in a more recent deposition. The alleged inconsistencies concern who was responsible within Hergert's campaign for reporting his campaign expenditures and whether Hergert received a warning letter from the Accountability and Disclosure Committee.

Kierkegaard Lives Daily Impeachment Trial Coverage:
Day One Coverage.
Day Two Coverage.
Day Three Coverage.
Day Four Coverage.
Day Five Coverage.

Other Links:
Kierkegaard Lives, May 4, 2006 (discussing arguments on Hergert's Motion to Dismiss).
Kierkegaard Lives, April 28, 2006 (discussing pending impeachment trial).

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Site (with .pdf copies of filings in the case)

Update: Military Funeral Protests, Fred Phelps, Patriot Guard Riders.

One of the posts here at Kierkegaard Lives that has gotten the most viewership is a post from back in February about The Patriot Guard Bikers, a group of motorcyclists that ride around counter-protesting the disgusting protests that are frequently held by Fred Phelps and his "church" at military funerals. Well, here's an update to that story.

According to Jurist, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that is titled "The Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act." The bill seeks to block unapproved protests at Arlington National Cemetery and other federal cemeteries and creates a 500-foot no-protestor zone around military funerals. Apparently, similar legislation has been passed or proposed in states such as South Dakota and Oklahoma.

More information:
Associated Press.

**UPDATE May 12, 2006:
Reader_I_Am has posted some thoughts on this development over at >Done With Mirrors. Some good thoughts.

Hergert Impeachment Trial: Day Two.

Following are links to Tuesday, May 9, 2006, coverage of the impeachment trial of University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert before the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Day Two Coverage:
Omaha World Herald: Hergert Didn't Steal Election, According to His Lawyer.

During Day 1, Hergert's attorney argued that Hergert may have failed to comply with technical requirements concerning his campaign, but that he did not do so with any illegal or fraudulent intent. The special prosecutor argued that Hergert intentionally delayed reporting to avoid getting caught.

Omaha World Herald: Despite Warning, Papers Filed Late.

Hergert received an uncommon warning from the Accountability and Disclosure Committee about filing deadlines, but failed to get papers filed in time anyway. Additionally, he missed similar deadlines and received a warning after the primary election, but still made the same "error" in the general election.

Omaha World Herald: Hergert Filing Delay was Deliberate, Former Regent Says.

Former Regent who was defeated by Hergert testified about the impact Hergert's failure to properly disclose campaign spending had on the election, including its impact on "matching" funds.

Lincoln Journal Star: Hergert Trial Continues.

Day two of the trial proceeded with testimony from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission about the rules that must be complied with by candidates for political office.

Lincoln Journal Star: Hergert Election Foe Testifies.

Former Regent who was defeated by Hergert testified about the impact Hergert's failure to properly disclose campaign spending had on the election, including its impact on "matching" funds.

Nebraska State Paper: Prosecution Says Hergert Intentionally Violated Campaign Finance Law.

Day two of the trial began with testimony from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission about the rules that must be complied with by candidates for political office.

WOWT TV: Hergert Impeachment: Day Two.

Former Regent who was defeated by Hergert testified about the impact Hergert's failure to properly disclose campaign spending had on the election, including its impact on "matching" funds.

Kierkegaard Lives Daily Impeachment Trial Coverage:
Day One Coverage.
Day Two Coverage.
Day Three Coverage.
Day Four Coverage.
Day Five Coverage.

Other Links:
Kierkegaard Lives, May 4, 2006 (discussing arguments on Hergert's Motion to Dismiss).
Kierkegaard Lives, April 28, 2006 (discussing pending impeachment trial).

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Site (with .pdf copies of filings in the case)

Update: Stephen Colbert at Correspondents' Dinner.

I just posted an update in the middle of my earlier post about Colbert's presentation at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. I have heard several different news items lately about CSpan requesting that video host sites, such as youtube, ifilm, etc., remove the clips of Colbert because they are copyrighted material and CSpan did not give permission for their posting. CSpan has, however, apparently authorized google-video to host the clip.

So I added a link to the google-video video of the clip, but I'm leaving the youtube links up for now.

**UPDATE (May 10):
Youtube has removed the videos. Details courtesy of Yahoo! News.

Hergert Impeachment Trial: Day One.

I have posted previously about the impeachment trial of David Hergert. The impeachment trial got underway today, Monday, May 8, 2006, before the Nebraska Supreme Court. I plan to post some links to coverage of each day of the trial, as that coverage becomes available.

Day One Coverage:
Omaha World Herald: Hergert Case Open to Public and TV.

This article notes that the case is being covered, gavel to gavel, by Nebraska Educational Television. Additionally, the case is open to the public, on a limited first come first seated basis. The case pits two reputed trial attorneys from Nebraska, and should present a good legal battle to observe.

Omaha World Herald: Hergert Case Underway.

The case got underway Monday morning with brief testimony from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

Lincoln Journal Star: Hergert Case Underway.

The case got underway Monday morning with brief testimony from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

Washington Post: University of Nebraska Impeachment Trial Begins.

Impeachment case got underway Monday morning with opening statements by attorneys and testimony from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

Guardian Unlimited: University of Nebraska Impeachment Trial Begins.

Impeachment case got underway Monday morning with opening statements by attorneys and testimony from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

Seattle Post Intelligencer: University of Nebraska Impeachment Trial Begins.

Impeachment case got underway Monday morning with opening statements by attorneys and testimony from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

MSNBC.com: Campaign Finance Fiasco.

Overview of the case.

Kierkegaard Lives Daily Impeachment Trial Coverage:
Day One Coverage.
Day Two Coverage.
Day Three Coverage.
Day Four Coverage.
Day Five Coverage.

Other Links:
Kierkegaard Lives, May 4, 2006 (discussing arguments on Hergert's Motion to Dismiss).
Kierkegaard Lives, April 28, 2006 (discussing pending impeachment trial).

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Site (with .pdf copies of filings in the case)

Search Incident to Arrest -- Search of a Bicycle, That Is.

Over at Decision of the Day, there was a short write up on Thursday last week about a pretty interesting case decided by the Fourth Circuit last week. The case concerns application of the "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment, but applied to searching a bicycle.

The exception is often used to allow searches of automobiles or homes when suspects are lawfully arrested. In this case, however, officers received a tip about a suspect selling drugs from a bicycle. When they arrested him, they found no drugs on his person. After the suspect was arrested, officers searched and found crack inside the handlebars of his bicycle.

The trial court granted a motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that "opening" the handlebars of the bicycle was comparable to opening the trunk of a car, which exceeds the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest. On appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit reversed. The Fourth Circuit held that the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest is allowable for areas within the immediate control of the suspect, where the suspect might be hiding a weapon that could be used against law enforcement officers. The Fourth Circuit held that the handlebars were within that scope, and that the search was therefore lawful.

**UPDATE:
OrinKerr.com also picked up on this. And there's a little bit of discussion going on in the comments, too.

Blawg Review #56.

Blawg Review #56 is now up at Point of Law. This edition of Blawg Review has some of the most thorough coverage of last week's law-blogging that I've seen in quite a while. Go check out the myriad of topics and posts highlighted by the fine folks over at Point of Law, and then start following the blog's regular posts. You won't be disappointed.

Update: Nebraska Impeachment of Regent Hergert.

Last week I posted about the Nebraska impeachment trial of C. David Hergert, here. The trial is scheduled to begin next week, but yesterday the Nebraska Supreme Court heard arguments on Hergert's motion to dismiss the case.

The Omaha World Herald reports on the arguments:

Every elected official in Nebraska could be subject to a "political witch hunt" if the Legislature's impeachment of Regent David Hergert for violating election law is allowed to stand, a lawyer argued Wednesday to the State Supreme Court. "The impeachment is an attempt by the Legislature to rewrite the Nebraska Constitution and reverse more than 100 years of precedent," said Christopher Ferdico, a lawyer for Hergert. "The underlying offenses do not rise to impeachable offenses even if they are true." Ferdico said the Nebraska Constitution allows officials to be impeached only for offenses committed while in office.

But prosecutor David Domina said Hergert must be held accountable for the campaign finance violations that enabled him to get into office. Domina likened the case to shooting someone. Pulling the trigger is the first step, but the crime doesn't occur until the bullet hits the victim. "The acts committed before he was in office enabled him to get into office," he said. "The fraud doesn't become complete until his incumbency."

The high court did not immediately rule on the request from Ferdico to throw out the case against Hergert. The impeachment trial is scheduled to begin Monday and could last up to 15 days.

I think it unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to dismiss the case, but it's less clear whether the Court will find that Hergert should be removed from office. Stay tuned for updates next week when the trial gets underway.

Update: Sedition in Montana.

Back in December I had a couple of posts about a group of law students in Montana who were seeking clemency for people convicted under a World War I law criminalizing public speech criticizing the government and war efforts. Those posts can be found here and here. In the second post, which was a brief update, I noted that Colin over at Infamy of Praise had also picked up on the story, and I noted that Colin, while arguing that clemency was appropriate because such speech should not have been criminalized, also recognized the difference between criminalizing speech and noting that speech might be unpatriotic. To say that the speech should be "legally allowed" is not the same as defending the speech or somehow implicitly suggesting that the speech is not rightly characterized as unpatriotic.

Colin has an UPDATE on what's going on in Montana on his blog today. It looks like the current governor is going to go ahead and grant the clemency requests. Go read the excerpts from NY Times article that prompted Colin's latest update. And, once again, I don't disagree a bit with Colin's commentary:

Notwithstanding, I think that those commentators who equate the official repression of unpatriotic speech with a more generalized societal disfavor of unpatriotic speech are misguided. The former is dangerous and unconstitutional; the latter is an entirely appropriate promotion of widely-held group norms. Protecting the constitutional right of each American to virulently criticize our nation's government during wartime does not require that we as a society actively encourage or reward such criticism.

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

A new report was recently submitted to the Texas Forensic Science Commission by The Innocence Project. In the report, the Project "formally submitted two arson cases to [the Commission], along with a request that the panel order a review of arson convictions across the state" based on "expert arson analysis" which the Project asserts "shows an innocent man was executed -- and that other people in Texas may have been wrongly convicted of arson based on erroneous forensic analysis."

This is allegedly "the first time in the nation that scientific evidence showing an innocent person was executed has been submitted to a government entity that is legally obligated to investigate cases, reach conclusions, and direct system-wide reviews to the determine the extent of the problem."

According to the Project's press release:

The two cases the Innocence Project submitted today are the convictions of Ernest Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham. Willis was convicted of arson murder and sentenced to death in 1987, and he served 17 years in prison before he was exonerated. Willingham was convicted of arson murder in 1992 and was executed in February 2004. Among the documents submitted to the commission today is a 48-page report from an independent five-member panel of some of the nation's leading arson investigators, who reviewed more than 1,000 pages of evidence, testimony, and official documents in the two cases.

In the report, the arson experts - with a combined 138 years of experience in the field - say that neither of the fires which Willingham and Willis were convicted of setting were arson. The expert report notes that the evidence and forensic analysis in the Willingham and Willis cases "were the same," and that "each and every one" of the forensic interpretations that state experts made in both men's trials have been proven scientifically invalid. "While any case of wrongful conviction, acknowledged or not, is worthy of review, the disparity of the outcomes in these two cases warrants a closer inspection," the report says.

Links:
Innocence Project Home Page.
ACS Blog coverage.
How Appealing coverage.
Legal Reader coverage.
TalkLeft coverage. (And see the comments for good discussion from a relative of one of the experts involved in the case.)

AP coverage.
Chicago Tribune related article.

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Just in case anyone might have missed it, I think the highlight of the White House Correspondents' Dinner over the weekend was Stephen Colbert's sharp presentation at the very end of the Dinner. Not surprisingly, the more light-hearted "cutesy" exchanges between Bush and the Bush-impersonator who appears on Jay Leno's show regularly have gotten most of the coverage from the big news outlets. Although I enjoyed that and thought it just further underscores the credibility problems that abound with the current administration, I think Colbert's "roast" was by far the best part of the night.

Colbert, in his persona from the Colbert Report, stood up for Bush on such matters as ignoring silly approval polls that really just show what the public thinks "in reality," the implementation of an effective government in Iraq (because the government that governs best is the one that governs least), and disregard for factual accuracy and instead letting "history decide what did or did not happen." Colbert got shots in on a number of others, including Fox News, Tony Snow, and John McCain. One of the funniest moments was an exchange between Colbert and Justice Scalia, which Colbert described as merely exchanging pleasantries with his "paison."

Following is Colbert's entire presentation:

**UPDATE (May 9):
There is some "rumbling" around the internet that CSpan has asked video host sites such as youtube to remove the videos of Colbert. I don't know whether they will, but even if they do, the entire video can be viewed on a CSpan approved host at google-video:
Google-Video Video of Colbert
**UPDATE (May 10):
Youtube has complied and removed the videos. You can read about it HERE

**UPDATE:
DailyKos has the transcript for the entire presentation, if you'd prefer reading it to watching it, or if you'd prefer to follow along.

Blawg Review #55: A Road Trip!

Ben Cowgill is hosting Blawg Review #55 over at his SoloBlawg. The theme for today is a day-long Road Trip across the Blawg-o-sphere. Cowgill has been posting regular updates all day, "road trip" fashion, about great legal blawg posts from last week. So far he's covered Law Day, the "Day Without Immigrants" protests, the ABA TechShow, and the "Bloggership" conference at Harvard Law School last week. There's more to come as the day progresses, so go check it out.

Hooray! It's Another Husband-Wife Sex Slave Contract!

Courtesy of The Smoking Gun comes yet another fascinating story of young love, as a Minnesota businessman allegedly forced his wife into a six-page "Master" and "Slave" contract setting out explicit rules for the parties' relationship and punishment if the wife violated its terms. This contract includes provisions such as:

"Slave agrees at all times to make her body readily available to Master for use. Slave agrees to wear any and all clothing Master chooses."

"It is the duty of slave to please.
Personal Duties: Physical/emotional needs of Master, amusement, sexual toy/plaything, physical comfort, obedience, honesty, loyalty, waiting on Master as desired and needed."

"Slave shall address Master as Master Jon at all times ..."

"Slave is to achieve orgasm ONLY by permission of Master."

It's interesting to note that "Master Jon" is really named "Kevin."

Anyway, this is another contract, although not as graphic, like the one I blogged about a couple weeks ago in Iowa. Maybe it's a midwest thing?