“Skilling Denies Arranging Secret Side Deals at Enron to Benefit Fastow”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Skilling Says He Had No Motive; Ex-CEO Calls One Charge ‘Absurd.’”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Skilling Scoffs at Fastow’s Deals; Enron’s ex-chief testifies the CFO’s transactions would have been too small for him to notice.”
USA Today reports that “Skilling denies secret ‘side deals’ at Enron.”
The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Skilling says he was driven by passion — not greed; He can’t recall some details, but the ex-CEO says crime never crossed his mind” and “Skilling draws smaller crowds; More spectators came to hear what Fastow had to say when he testified.”
And law.com reports that “Skilling Denies Conspiracy to Defraud Enron Investors.”
“The legal lock on stem cells; Two patents that cover key research areas are setting back science”: Jennifer Washburn has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Arizona wines featured at White House”: The Arizona Daily Star today contains an article that begins, “Wines from two Southern Arizona growers will be served at the White House today at the tribute dinner for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.”
“Depositions Taken In Anthrax Case; Reporters Questioned About Sources”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “At least two reporters have been questioned about their confidential sources in a lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by Steven J. Hatfill, the former Army scientist who has been investigated in the 2001 anthrax attacks.”
“The Supreme Court Denies Review in the Case of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla, But an Unusual Troika of Justices, Including the Chief, Issues a Warning to the Government”: Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at FindLaw today.
“Judges Set Hurdles for Lethal Injection”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Enron Witnesses Lying About Fraud, Skilling Says” and “Pentagon Scenes Evoked at Moussaoui Hearing.”
And today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained a segment entitled “Jurors and the Death Penalty.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio files.
“BU prof. fired as freelancer for photo of Scalia”: This article appears today in The Daily Free Press, the student newspaper of Boston University.
“In this case we examine whether Anson Dorrance and William Palladino (the male coaches of the women’s soccer team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) sexually harassed Melissa Jennings while Jennings was a student and soccer player at the University from August 1996 until May 1998.” So begins a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.
The majority opinion proceeds to explain:
Laws prohibiting sexual harassment are designed to protect people at work and at school from the kind of extreme conduct that can make work or school hellish because of the person’s sex. The laws, however, are not designed to purge or punish all vulgarity at work or in universities. Whether conduct constitutes actionable sexual harassment cannot be divorced from the context in which the alleged harassment arose. Thus, a court evaluating a sexual harassment claim must examine the constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships.
When the evidence in this case is viewed most favorably to Jennings, the evidence shows that Dorrance used vulgar language and participated in sexual banter at practice with some women that he coached and that he once directed a vulgar question at Jennings. Jennings immediately responded to Dorrance’s vulgar question with her own profane reply and that ended the inquiry. Dorrance never touched, never threatened, never ogled, and never propositioned Jennings. Because no reasonable jury could find that Dorrance sexually harassed Jennings or find that Jennings’ other claims have merit, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The complete ruling can be accessed here.
“Divorcing couple can’t be forced to sell land to settle debts”: The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of New Hampshire issued today.
“Court bars witnesses wearing prison garb; Panel cites ‘guilt by association’ link for jury”: The Newark Star-Ledger today contains this article reporting on a ruling that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued yesterday.
“$11,182 raised to defend S.D. abortion ban”: The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota contains this article today.
When does a a Fifth Amendment taking occur in a rails-to-trails case? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolves that question today in an opinion you can access here.
“Vioxx Plaintiff Gets $9M; Merck to Appeal”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Amid the culture war”: Today in The Washington Times, Peter Hannaford has this review of former Fifth Circuit Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr.‘s book, “Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation & the Culture War.”
In news from Kentucky: The Lexington Herald-Leader today contains an article headlined “Fletcher says he’ll consider other displays; Governor signs bill to show Commandments.”
And The Louisville Courier-Journal reports today that “Student expelled from University of Cumberlands for being gay; Baptist school defends code of sexual conduct.”
“U.S. Supreme Court not for members only”: The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts today contains an editorial that begins, “Judge John G. Roberts Jr. told the nation during his televised hearings for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that he is open to the prospect of television cameras inside the nation’s highest court.”
“HLS Debates Laptops in Class; Some worry that net surfing distract law students from class discussions”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.
“Flanders ’71: from minor league baseball to a federal bench recommendation.” The Brown Daily Herald today contains this article reporting on the person who supposedly will be President Bush’s next nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. My earlier coverage is here.
“Retired Justice O’Connor to Appear in Frederick”: In news from Maryland, The Associated Press provides this report.
And a transcript of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s remarks at her investiture last Friday as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary can be accessed here.
“Confessions of an idiot: Like all human efforts, Constitution must be able to change.” Today in The Charlotte Observer, Steve Stoeckel has an op-ed in which he writes of Justice Antonin Scalia, “I found it refreshing to hear a Supreme Court justice refer to those who disagree with him as ‘idiots.’ I so often view these people as the epitome of high-minded thinking and rational discourse, perhaps knocking off after a hard day on the bench to sip cognac in the back room and discuss Schopenhauer. It does my heart good to see one of them rolling in the dirt like the rest of us.”
“Lethal injection issues halt a N.C. execution; U.S. district judge cites local ruling, defers death penalty”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
In the April 17, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard: Law Professor Robert F. Nagel has an essay entitled “Bowing to Precedent: A decent respect for the Constitution should cause the Supreme Court to reconsider some past decisions” (pass-through link via “Confirm Them“).
And Tod Lindberg has an essay entitled “‘Enemy of the People’: Moussaoui and his victims.”
Somewhat relatedly, William Kristol, The Weekly Standard’s editor, was featured on last Sunday’s broadcast (links to transcript and video) of C-SPAN‘s “Q&A.” Kristol and I were the co-keynote speakers at last April’s Annual Banquet of the Harvard Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
“Rothstein welcomed to top court; Chief Justice praises hard-working judge and gives nod to new appointment system”: This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Sept. 11 Victim Testimony Given at Moussaoui Trial“; “Some Sept. 11 Families Pursue Their Own Justice“; and “Skilling Takes Stand and Proclaims Innocence at Enron Trial” (RealPlayer required).
D.C. Circuit affirms dismissal of defamation lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against a former U.S. Congressman: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
According to today’s opinion, a reporter from The Charlotte Observer spoke by telephone with then-Congressman Cass Ballenger to learn why the Congressman had separated from his wife. The opinion states:
During the fifteen-minute conversation, Ballenger elaborated on the reasons why he and his wife had separated, chief among them being his wife’s dissatisfaction with life in Washington, D.C. In particular, Ballenger explained that his wife became increasingly uncomfortable living across the street from the headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) after the September 11th attacks. During the course of this explanation, Ballenger stated that CAIR was the “fund-raising arm for Hezbollah.” The United States Department of State has designated Hezbollah a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 1189.
Ballenger’s comment was republished in newspapers and electronically throughout the United States. CAIR, a nonprofit NGO whose stated goal is to promote a positive image of Islam in the United States and empower the American Muslim community, sued Ballenger for defamation and slander about two months later.
Today’s ruling concludes, “Having determined that Ballenger acted within the scope of his employment when he made the remark in question, we hold that the proper defendant under the Westfall Act is the United States. Sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States absent an explicit and unequivocal waiver. CAIR points to no such waiver, and we have not found one.”
Multi-District Litigation procedure permits U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to treat order issued by District Judge Judge Royce C. Lamberth as though it were issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Judge Lamberth, of course, serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. You can access today’s Sixth Circuit ruling (which also examines whether appellate review ought now be available in a discovery dispute involving documents alleged to be covered by the attorney-client privilege) at this link.
“Can a Prison Constitutionally Deprive Ill-behaved Prisoners of Access to Newspapers, Magazines, and Photographs? The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide.” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“Nigro mulls new high-court run”: The Philadelphia Daily News today contains an article that begins, “Former state Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro, ousted by Pennsylvania voters in November in retaliation for the legislature’s so-called pay grab, may run again for the state’s highest court.”
“Taft accused of violating attorneys’ ethics rule”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The Toledo Blade reports that “Taft faces call for discipline in state ethics case; He could get a reprimand or forfeit his law license.”
The Akron Beacon Journal reports that “Charge may cost Taft law license; Governor accused of breaking attorney’s code of conduct.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “Taft may lose law license; Supreme Court complaint linked to unreported outings.”
And The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Taft in trouble with the lawyers.”
“Skilling says he’s ‘absolutely innocent’; Former CEO recounts the ups and downs of his career during first day of testimony”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.
The New York Times reports today that “Skilling, on the Stand, Implies Fraud Was Hardly Necessary.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Enron’s Skilling Avows Innocence; The ex-chief executive testifies that he did not foresee the energy company’s collapse.”
USA Today contains an article headlined “Skilling: Enron’s fall led to drinking, depression; Says his company was ‘making the world better.’”
The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined “Skilling: ‘My life is on the line’; Ex-Enron CEO says Fastow fooled him.”
And The Dallas Morning News reports that “Skilling proclaims innocence in first day of testimony.”
“Moussaoui Jury Hears From Grieving Families, and From Victims Themselves”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times. In addition, John Farmer has an op-ed entitled “Right Trial, Wrong Defendant.”
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Moussaoui Jury Hears the Panic From 9/11.”
USA Today reports that “Moussaoui jury shaken as victims’ families speak about 9/11; Judge wary about emotional testimony.”
And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Voice from Sept. 11 rivets court; Recording from tower part of heart-rending day at Moussaoui trial.”
“Maloney May Lose ACLU in Fight on Abortion”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “After an outcry from free speech advocates, the American Civil Liberties Union is reconsidering its endorsement of proposed legislation calling for federal regulation of advertising by anti-abortion counseling centers.”
“Calif. Court Shreds Lawyer for 202-Page Brief”: law.com provides this report.
And the blog “Criminal Appeal” provides a post titled “‘This is an appeal run amok.’”
You can access last Friday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District at this link. The court’s opinion begins, “This is an appeal run amok. Not only does the appeal lack merit, the opening brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be.”
In Tuesday’s issue of The Washington Post: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain articles headlined “Skilling, Nervous and Emotional, Takes the Stand; Ex-CEO Tells How Excitement at Enron Turned to Exhaustion” and “At Moussaoui Trial, Recalling Lives Stolen by 9/11; Families Testify; Tapes Of Victims are Played.”
