How Appealing

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

National Public Radio covers today’s developments in the Jose Padilla case: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “U.S. Indicts Padilla After Three Years in Custody.”

Today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained a segment entitled “Jose Padilla Indicted.”

And today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained a segment entitled “Suspected ‘Dirty Bomber’ Indicted for Conspiracy.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

Posted at 10:40 PM by Howard Bashman

What’s next: Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia slap-fight on the Jerry Springer show? On tomorrow night’s broadcast of CNN’s “Larry King Live,” “What do Supreme Court justices think of their new chief and the new nominee? One-on-one with Justice Stephen G. Breyer.”

Posted at 8:02 PM by Howard Bashman

“No jail time for Lafave; The former middle school teacher pleaded guilty to the charges in Hillsborough and Marion counties; She will serve three years of community control”: The St. Petersburg Times provides a news update that begins, “Debra Lafave, the former Tampa middle school teacher accused of having sex with a 14-year-old male student, will avoid prison under a plea deal announced Tuesday.”

Tampa Bay Online reports that “Lafave Avoids Prison Time.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Fla. Teacher Pleads Guilty in Sex Case.”

Posted at 7:33 PM by Howard Bashman

“Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Press Conference Regarding the Indictment of Jose Padilla”: You can access them online here, while the indictment itself can be viewed at this link. And the memorandum from President Bush authorizing the transfer of Jose Padilla from the control of the U.S. Military to the control of the U.S. Department of Justice is here.

Posted at 6:25 PM by Howard Bashman

“Of Sex Tapes, Pseudonymous Litigation, and Judicial Bungling”: Daniel J. Solove has this post at “Concurring Opinions.”

At “Crescat Sententia,” Will Baude has a post titled “Insult and Injury.”

And the blog “No Oil for Pacifists” offers a post titled “Good News for Paris Hilton.”

As perhaps the first person to notice that the Brief for Appellant posted online at the Seventh Circuit’s web site (at page 2 of the PDF file) contained the unredacted actual name of the plaintiff/appellant, who was litigating under a pseudonym with the permission of the federal district court in which the case was filed, let me offer these additional thoughts.

The Seventh Circuit’s oral argument audio (mp3 format) reveals that neither counsel for the parties to the appeal nor the appellate judges had noticed that the Brief for Appellant posted online revealed the plaintiff’s true identity. In the future, you can be sure that in pseudonymous party cases, Seventh Circuit law clerks will be instructed to check the briefs posted online to make sure that none of the parties revealed any secret identities.

In terms of assessing blame, however, in my view it is the attorney for the pseudonymous party who bears the responsibility to ensure that the appellate briefs posted online — and surely the Seventh Circuit’s practice of posting briefs online comes as a surprise to no one — do not reveal the actual identity of the lawyer’s pseudonymous client.

Under these circumstances, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Seventh Circuit panel that issued yesterday’s opinion soon issues an amendment holding that the matter of plaintiff’s anonymity is now moot due to the failure by plaintiff’s lawyer to ensure that the Brief for Appellant as posted online by the Seventh Circuit did not reveal the plaintiff’s true identity. What should have happened here was that plaintiff’s counsel should have moved to file the Circuit Rule 26.1 disclosure statement under seal and should not have included that statement, in unredacted form, in the electronic copy of plaintiff’s Brief for Appellant filed with the court and thereafter posted online. There is no way that an appellate court’s clerk’s office can review filings for the purpose of making appropriate redactions; that is the job of counsel for the parties.

Posted at 11:33 AM by Howard Bashman

“‘Dirty Bomb’ Suspect Padilla Indicted”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “‘Dirty Bomb’ suspect Jose Padilla, held by the U.S. as an enemy combatant for more than three years, has been indicted on federal charges in Miami, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.”

Posted at 10:33 AM by Howard Bashman

Now if only the D.C. Circuit had a judge with the last name Janice: As this opinion issued today reveals, that court is merely one person away from having a semble that could be introduced at the outset of an opinion as “Before: Janice, Rogers and Brown, Circuit Judges.”

Posted at 10:14 AM by Howard Bashman

“HLS Holds Moot Court Finals”: Friday’s edition of The Harvard Crimson contained an article that begins, “Harvard Law School students last night debated the constitutionality of juvenile curfews before Supreme Court Justice David Souter in the annual Ames Moot Court competition.”

Posted at 10:07 AM by Howard Bashman

“Becket Fund to Defend ‘Under God’ Before Ninth Circuit”: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty issued this press release concerning the notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the organization filed yesterday in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. The trial court’s permanent injunction against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school, entered last Friday but stayed until the exhaustion of all appellate proceedings, can be accessed at this link.

In related news, The Associated Press reported Sunday that “Tiny protest targets effort to remove God from money.”

Posted at 9:55 AM by Howard Bashman

“Alito’s Critics Mine His Record To Expand Attacks Vs. Nominee”: Investor’s Business Daily provides this report.

The Washington Times today contains an editorial entitled “Alito on abortion.”

Today in The Boston Globe, columnist Peter S. Canellos has an op-ed entitled “An Earl Warren shadow sheds some light on Alito.”

In The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Don Erler has an op-ed entitled “Yea or nay on Samuel Alito?

And The Washington Post offers letters to the editor under the heading “Judge Alito’s Record.”

Posted at 7:15 AM by Howard Bashman