“Former Bexar DA crusades against the death penalty; Millsap has become an unlikely voice against executions”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.

“Ex-Bush Aide, in Testimony, Disputes Libby”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times. And a related article reports that “Former Press Secretary Dispels Many Illusions.”

The Washington Post reports today that “Former Press Secretary Says Libby Told Him of Plame; Fleischer’s Testimony On Timing Supports Prosecution’s Case.” In addition, Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “Fleischer Handles Questioning in the Usual Fashion.” And columnist Eugene Robinson has an op-ed entitled “The Ba-Da-Boom Crew.”

The Los Angeles Times contains an article headlined “Fleischer then and now: There’s a telling difference; Once an unwavering administration foot soldier, the ex-White House spokesman gives an insider’s account.”

And The New York Sun reports that “Fleischer Says Libby Disclosed CIA Officer’s Identity Over Lunch.”

“Restaurant protest divides state high court; While some justices appear to back restricting a neighbor’s statements in the Balboa Island inn case, others seem wary of limiting free speech”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Bob Egelko is reporting: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, he has articles headlined “Writers won’t be called in Army officer’s case; Man who refused to go to Iraq says he was quoted correctly” and “Journalist jailed for 5 months seeking freedom.”

“Liberate political speech: The Supreme Court revisits campaign finance reform’s most dubious restrictions.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Habeas corpus and an era of limits: Constitution says those in custody can seek liberty in court, but what of Guantanamo?” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Bill: 9 jurors to give death; Prosecutors want option for capital punishment when jury’s vote is not unanimous” and “Pre-abortion ultrasound debated again; Issue revived after failing to win approval last year.”

“Execution put under microscope”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Tampa Tribune reports today that “State Senator May Request Audiotaping Of Executions.”

“Uighurs’ Detention Conditions Condemned; Lawyers’ Complaint Part of Effort to Get Expedited Review”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Chinese Uighurs who have been imprisoned for the past month at a new state-of-the-art detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are being held around the clock in near-total isolation, a circumstance their lawyers say is rapidly degrading their mental health, according to an affidavit filed in federal court yesterday.”

“Canada’s Good Example”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Canada set an important example of decency when it offered a formal apology and compensation worth millions of dollars to a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was a victim of President Bush’s use of open-ended detention, summary deportation and even torture in the name of fighting terrorism.”

“Miers Leaves White House With No Regrets”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“How Will the Roberts Court Deal with Cases Affecting Corporate America? A Recent Decision Regarding the Federal Employer Liability Statute Provides Insight.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw today.

“Supreme Court: Veteran Supreme Court watchers professor Jeffrey Rosen and ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg discuss their new books.” This segment (audio stream via RealPlayer or download in mp3 format) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

“PBS Series Spotlights the Supreme Court’s Past and Present Personalities”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this review of “The Supreme Court” on PBS.

And Variety has published this review of the program.

Additional information about the program, including links to transcripts of the program’s four hour-long episodes and other reviews, can be accessed via this earlier post.

“Lawyer busted for DUI while driving to pick up client busted for DUI”: “The Obscure Store” links here to an article published Friday in The Wisconsin State Journal.

“Ari Fleischer Disputes Libby’s Account at Trial”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Specter Introduces ‘Cameras in the Courtroom’ Legislation”: Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) issued this news release today.

C-SPAN has posted online at this link (RealPlayer required) Senator Specter’s remarks today on the floor of the U.S. Senate introducing the legislation.

In April 2006, I had a law.com essay headlined “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”

You can’t yet view it on TV, but you can now access the transcripts: The web site that PBS has created in connection with its forthcoming broadcast, this Wednesday night and next Wednesday night, of the program “The Supreme Court” provides access to the transcripts for all four hours of the show. You can access the transcripts at the following links: first hour; second hour; third hour; and fourth hour.

You can also access short video previews of each of the four hours via this link. And a related discussion guide for educators contains illustrations by Mark Alan Stamaty.

You can access via this link various newspaper reviews of the program.

Update: True, the final hour of the program on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 is up against a brand new episode of ABC’s “Lost,” but at least Comedy Central had the good sense to schedule “The Sarah Silverman Program” (reviewed here in the current issue of The New Yorker) for Thursday nights at 10:30 p.m. eastern time.

“‘Ask the Author’ with Jeff Rosen: Part 2.” This post appears today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Government Officials Contradict Libby’s Story”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

Pro se litigant defeats opposing counsel from Weil, Gotshal & Manges in an Enron-related appeal: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this decision today. The ruling resolves the question of what action triggers the 15-day deadline for an appellant to file an opening brief on appeal from a bankruptcy court’s ruling.

Some background on the underlying dispute that gives rise to today’s decision can be accessed here. (This item notes that this particular pro se litigant is also a lawyer, but that doesn’t make him any less pro se, does it?)

“Killers face uncertain death; Strickland may be sympathetic to claims of mental retardation”: This article appears today in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Yesterday’s newspaper contained three more death penalty-related articles, and you can access them via this link at the “Ohio Death Penalty Information” blog.

“I hope that the Executive Branch revisits this case and, if the facts truly are as they have been made to appear to us, will consider letting the defendants go after a more appropriate term of incarceration.” So writes Ninth Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton in a concurring opinion issued today.

Judge Clifton’s concurring opinion begins:

I write separately to express my dismay at the consequences of the result we reach. Although I concur in the memorandum disposition and join fully in its legal analysis, I find the outcome of this case to be troubling.

Even the Government appears to accept that the terrible death of the victim here was an unintended consequence of the defendants’ act of burning down a house they viewed as theirs, in order to end a long-running family disagreement. It has not been disputed that the defendants acted without knowledge that the victim, previously seen getting into a car, had returned to the house and fallen asleep in a bedroom. Nothing reflects any intent on the part of the defendants to injure the victim or anyone else. Aside from this one episode, the defendants have had only a few minor brushes with the law. Yet the mandatory sentences of life imprisonment mean that the lives of these young people, aged 25 and 21 at the time of conviction, may be entirely squandered in prison. It is appropriate that the defendants be seriously punished for what they did, but these life sentences do not square with my concept of justice.

Today’s non-precedential opinion affirming the convictions and sentences can be accessed here.

Earlier press coverage of this case can be accessed here and here.

“Lawyer’s Sin in Court–Disrespect–Gets Visited on Clients. WWJD?” Law Professor Alan Childress has this post today at the “Legal Profession Blog.”

“Natural Justice”: Law Professor Lawrence B. Solum, who operates the amazing resource known as the “Legal Theory Blog,” has posted this article online at SSRN.

“Senate Termination of Presidential Recess Appointments”: The final version of Seth Barrett Tillman’s essay can now be accessed here at the Northwestern University Law Review’s “Colloquy” web site.

A response to that essay by Law Professor Brian C. Kalt, titled “Keeping Recess Appointments in Their Place,” can be accessed here (abstract with links for download) at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

A federal appellate perspective on the Super Bowl, part two: In response to this post from earlier this morning, a reader emails:

I just read your interesting post on the superbowl & intra-circuit rivalries. With the understanding that you were just forwarding someone else’s post, it seems worthwhile to note that this superbowl will actually be the *third* between two teams from different states within the same federal circuit. (Although the second between two teams from different states *currently* within the same federal circuit).

The reason for this is that Superbowl VI was between Dallas and Miami. While of course those two teams are now in different federal circuits, at the time the game was played (1972), I believe both were in the 5th Circuit.

This reader is correct, as in 1972 the State of Florida was part of the Fifth Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit came into being on October 1, 1981.

“Update on the Sixth Circuit Litigation Challenging the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program”: Marty Lederman has this post today at the “Balkinization” blog. Marty’s post notes that the three-judge Sixth Circuit panel scheduled to hear oral argument on Wednesday consists of “Judges Alice Batchelder (appointed 1991), Ronald Gilman (appointed 1997) and Julia Smith Gibbons (appointed 2002).”

On Saturday, The Cincinnati Enquirer published an article headlined “ACLU frustrated in case opposing phone taps.”

Recently on C-SPAN‘s “America and the Courts“: This past Saturday’s broadcast was titled “Justice Stephen Breyer on the Political Process.”

And the broadcast from two Saturdays ago was titled “Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these video segments.

“In life a soldier, in death a father? Parents of Israeli killed in Gaza Strip win right to inseminate woman he never knew.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

And The Associated Press reports that “Family Gets OK to Use Dead Man’s Sperm.”

A federal appellate perspective on the Super Bowl: Attorney Elliot Regenstein, who practices law in Chicago, emails this morning:

I don’t know if you follow these things carefully, but nobody else has noted that this year’s Super Bowl will be only the second ever between two teams from different states within the same federal appellate circuit (the first being Super Bowl IV, an intra-8th Circuit tussle). It’s at most the fourth Super Bowl involving teams from within the same circuit — XXIX (49ers over Chargers) clearly qualified, and XXV (Giants over Bills) might, depending on where you count the Giants.

It guarantees that the 7th Circuit will pick up its fifth Super Bowl title, tying it for second with the 3d and the 5th but behind the 9th (which has 8). Those rankings count the two New York Giants titles with the Second Circuit, which of course is a debatable point. The Sixth Circuit remains the only federal appellate court not to win a Super Bowl title; the Lions and Cleveland Browns have never made it, the Bengals are 0-2, and the Titans are 0-1. Every other circuit has at least two titles.

I thank my correspondent for sending this along. You can access at this link a list of the outcomes of the previous 40 Super Bowls.

“Unabomber’s act still affects Prof. Gelernter; Computer science prof. opposed to publishing prisoner’s writings”: This article appears today in The Yale Daily News.

“Madame Justice”: At her “Legalities” blog, Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post that begins, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a speech Friday night that she didn’t like being ‘all alone on the Court,’ according to [an] account by the Associated Press.” The post also mentions Jan’s book tour, which gets underway tonight in the Chicago area. Details here.

“Decorum on Appeal: When Judges Are Under Attack.” This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com begins, “Some judges are crooked. Others are idiots. And some ignore or distort the facts and applicable law to reach results more to their liking than the facts and law, honestly portrayed, would allow.”

“Journalists to take stand in Libby’s perjury trial; Defense might rely on their testimony to show Libby didn’t deliberately lie about Plame case”: This article appears today in USA Today.