“Court’s use of video is facing review; The 9th Circuit’s chief judge says curbs could be imposed after panel members last week took up a death penalty appeal via a remote link”: Henry Weinstein has this very interesting article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The article begins, “So many people came to listen to lawyers argue the death penalty appeal of convicted Chino Hills murderer Kevin Cooper that dozens of overflow spectators had to watch from the courthouse cafeteria on a closed-circuit television. But three seats remained empty during the hearing last week in the large ceremonial courtroom of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They were the chairs reserved for the judges, who were hundreds of miles away, listening to the arguments via video hookup, and occasionally asking questions.” The article goes on to report that “the Cooper hearing marked the first time that an argument was held with none of the judges present, according to Mary M. Schroeder, the 9th Circuit’s chief judge.”

According to the article, one of the judges on the panel — Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould — “has serious health problems that make it dangerous for him to fly, according to Cathy Catterson, the 9th Circuit’s chief clerk.” The article says that The LATimes attempted to discuss the issue of oral argument via video hook-up with the three judges on the panel, but that none was willing to discuss the issue while the Cooper appeal remains pending.

Weinstein reports that “in recent months, an increasing number of 9th Circuit judges have invoked their privilege of appearing via video, even when they did not have a compelling reason, according to judges on the court who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis. Two judges on the court took particular umbrage at a colleague who they said had recently informed the court that it would be inconvenient to attend arguments because they would conflict with a child’s basketball games.”

You can download the audio of last week’s Ninth Circuit oral argument in Cooper v. Brown, No. 05-99004, via this link (Windows Media format). The other two judges on the panel were Circuit Judges Pamela Ann Rymer of Pasadena and M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego. The oral argument was held in San Francisco.

In the July 5, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” essay for law.com, headlined “Predicting Technology’s Impact on Appellate Oral Argument,” I wrote: “To be sure, technology occasionally allows attorneys or judges to participate in oral argument from a remote location. I’ve argued one appeal in which a judge on the panel participated via videoconference, and another appeal in which a judge participated by phone, but I felt that the technology wasn’t an adequate substitute for more direct interaction. In my opinion, being unable to observe the judge’s expressions and nonverbal cues in person deprives the advocates of valuable information. For that reason, I’m not a fan of teleconferencing for appellate oral arguments.”

“Political theater awaited at Libby trial; The CIA leak case promises a rare glimpse into the White House”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “‘All Star Game’ Taking Shape in Libby’s Trial.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Libby trial to open with eye on Cheney.”

“Suit calls sacrifice a religious right”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “Jose Merced said he is tired of Euless police knocking at his door and interrupting his church services. Police have told Mr. Merced that his Santeria religious rites are against the law in this rapidly growing community because some of its ordination rituals involve the sacrifice of animals.”

“Law school deans sign letter condemning boycott; Pentagon official provoked outcry”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The deans of Massachusetts’ major law schools joined about 100 law deans in signing a letter condemning a senior Pentagon official’s suggestion that US companies should boycott law firms representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

And The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial entitled “Sliming the defense: A Pentagon official’s overboard criticism of Gitmo lawyers is consistent with one bad strain of White House thought.”

“Enjoying Technology’s Conveniences But Not Escaping Its Watchful Eyes”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “The Legal Tangles Of Data Collection.”

“Some at Guantanamo Mark 5 Years in Limbo; Big Questions About Low-Profile Inmates”: The Washington Post today contains this front page article, along with an article headlined “Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says; Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods.”

“Alleged Voting Rights Violation With Twist Goes to Trial”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“High Court to Hear Consumer Credit Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Is Baseball Drugs Ruling A Fourth-Amendment Foul?” This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

My earlier coverage of last month’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Suggests A Boycott of Law Firms that Represent Guantanamo Detainees: Why This Kind of Blacklisting Is Always Wrong, and McCarthyite.” Anthony J. Sebok and Spencer Weber Waller have this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Courtroom Reporter Looks Back on Memorable Trials”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Associated Press reporter Linda Deutsch appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“High Court weighs insurance case”: Today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Marketplace” contained this audio segment (RealPlayer required). A transcript of the segment is also available online.

Utah’s highest court says don’t diss the judiciary, or else it might diss-miss your case: The Supreme Court of Utah issued an opinion on Friday refusing to reach the merits of the issue on which that court had granted certiorari review in two related cases because “petitioners’ briefs in each case are replete with unfounded accusations impugning the integrity of the court of appeals panel that heard the cases below.” The Utah high court’s unanimous opinion goes on to state:

These accusations include allegations, both direct and indirect, that the panel intentionally fabricated evidence, intentionally misstated the holding of a case, and acted with improper motives. Further, petitioners’ briefs are otherwise disrespectful of the judiciary. Accordingly, we strike petitioners’ briefs as containing irrelevant and scandalous matters in violation of rule 24(k) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, affirm the result reached by the court of appeals in each case, and assess attorney fees against petitioners’ counsel.

Thanks to LegalNewsLine.com for the pointer.

“Washington v. Washington Education Association”: This past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” focused on this case, in which “[t]he Court will decide if states can require labor organizations to ask non-union employees permission to use fees paid to the union on political activities.” You can view the broadcast online, on-demand by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

The transcript of the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument last Wednesday in Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., No. 05-1589, can be accessed here.

“Court urged to act swiftly on campaign ads case”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Chief justice assigns himself a difficult case”: The Concord (N.H.) Monitor today contains an editorial that begins, “As chief justice of the United States, John Roberts is something less than the boss of his colleagues on the Supreme Court. He can’t tell them how to decide a case. He can’t stop them from granting interviews, giving lectures or writing books. About the worst thing he can do is to stick one of the other justices with the writing of a dull, arcane ruling.”

“Reform eminent domain”: Today in The Washington Times, Jeremy P. Hopkins has an op-ed that begins, “Any Virginian outraged by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London should examine Virginia law, which often gives Virginians less protection than the court gave the property owners in Kelo. Virginia law allowed a housing authority to take an owner’s house without the owner’s notice and at a price set by the authority in the owner’s absence.”

“Unusual adoption case has high stakes”: Yesterday’s edition of The Maine Sunday Telegram contained an article that begins, “Sixteen years ago, Olive Watson wanted to ensure her long-time lover’s financial security. So she adopted her. Now, Watson’s lawyers are trying to get the adoption annulled to keep Patricia Spado from collecting a share of the riches left by the man whom Fortune magazine called ‘the greatest capitalist who ever lived.’ A complex legal dispute is now under way in two states over the adoption, which took place in a Rockland courtroom in 1991.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Adult adoption case goes to court.”

You can access last week’s ruling of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court at this link.

“Adultery could mean life, court finds; That’s what the law says in sex-drug case Cox appealed”: Columnist Brian Dickerson has this op-ed today in The Detroit Free Press.

Dickerson’s essay focuses on a ruling that the Michigan Court of Appeals issued in November 2006.

“State’s top court to hear case of oversleeping”: This article appears today in The Stamford (Conn.) Advocate.

“Gang member sets precedent; Case will guide rulings related to violent youths turned criminal adults”: The Knoxville News Sentinel today contains an article that begins, “A Knoxville gang member who has spent most of his life breaking the law has now made it. The case of Black Gangster Disciple Almon D. Wells, 26, is the backdrop for a landmark 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that sets a legal precedent on how violent acts committed by criminals too young to vote should be classified in the federal court system.”

“Fielding Once Again at the Service of a President; Fred Fielding puts his lucrative private practice aside to help the White House battle a combative Congress”: T.R. Goldman has this article (free access) in today’s issue of Legal Times.

“Cheney defends Pentagon; Its data requests protect U.S. security and don’t violate privacy, he says; A House Democrat says he’ll hold hearings”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The New York Times reports today that “Cheney Defends Efforts to Obtain Financial Records.”

“Virginia Assembly To Tackle Abortion; One Measure Would Outlaw Most Procedures”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Strike-Stopping Judge Is Elevated By Eliot Spitzer”: Joseph Goldstein today has an article that begins, “Governor Spitzer’s decision yesterday to elevate a judge in Brooklyn to the state’s highest court signals Mr. Spitzer’s willingness to break ranks with his supporters in organized labor.”

The New York Post reports today that “Spitzer taps TWU-buster; Top court nomination.”

The New York Daily News reports that “Eliot taps a black jurist.”

And The New York Law Journal reports that “Spitzer Names Jones to Court of Appeals” (free access).

“Documents Borne by Winds of Free Speech”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “A showdown is scheduled for a federal courtroom in Brooklyn tomorrow afternoon, where words like ‘First Amendment’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘prior restraint’ are likely to mix seamlessly with references to ‘BitTorrent’ and ‘Wiki.'”

“Politicizing Prosecutors”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Bush administration has appointed an extreme political partisan as the new United States attorney for Arkansas. Normally, the Senate would have vetted him, and quite possibly blocked his appointment. But the White House took advantage of a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act, which allows it to do an end run around the Senate.”

“The Big News in the Rehnquist FBI File: There is None.” Michael C. Dorf (whose blog you can access here) has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Blawg Review #91”: Available online here at “Public Defender Stuff.”

“New Law Could Subject Civilians to Military Trial; Provision Aimed at Contractors, but Some Fear It Will Sweep Up Other Workers”: This front page article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

“Perjury Trial Is Set to Begin for Former Cheney Adviser”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post on Monday will contain a front page article headlined “At Libby Trial, Power Players Face Uncomfortable Spotlight.”

“Spitzer Selects a Black Jurist for Top Court”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.

“Chocolate bar case at top court highlights difficulties of copyright laws”: Canadian Press provides this report.

“Flanders U.S. court nomination languishes”: Monday’s edition of The Providence (R.I.) Journal will contain an article that begins, “It has been 10 months since former U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee nominated former Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr. for a seat on the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, but the White House has yet to send Flanders’ candidacy to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.” Of course, technically speaking, a person isn’t nominated for a federal judgeship until the White House formally makes the nomination, which hasn’t yet happened in this instance.

“Death Be Not So Complicated: U.S. Supreme Court addresses fairness of four sentencing hearings.” David G. Savage has this article in the January 2007 issue of The ABA Journal.