“Obama and Guns”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post today at her “Legalities” blog.

“Why Now? The timing of the Guantanamo trials is not an accident.” Charles Swift has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at The New Republic, Benjamin Wittes has an essay entitled “Trial by Fire: The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will finally reveal how Bush’s military commissions work–or, more likely, why they fail.”

“Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights”: The Associated Press provides this report (updated link).

“Expanded argument on Exxon Valdez”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

Of Beethoven, of vodka, or of the Bill of Rights containing the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if a criminal suspect indicates in any manner during custodial questioning that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease. Today, a fifteen-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resolves whether a criminal defendant’s statement, during an interrogation, that “I plead the fifth” is sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent. Complicating this question, the appeal arises in the habeas context challenging a state court conviction and is governed by the federal law whose acronym is AEDPA. The majority, in a decision that you can access here, overturns the federal district court’s denial of habeas relief.

Back on November 6, 2006, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel voted 2-1 to affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski joined in the original panel’s majority opinion, which a federal district judge sitting by designation wrote. The judge who dissented from the panel opinion wrote the en banc majority opinion on behalf of a sizable majority. Because this case was reargued en banc before Kozinski became the Ninth Circuit’s chief judge, he was not guaranteed a seat on the en banc panel, and he was not randomly selected to serve on the en banc panel. Thus, we can only imagine what he might have said in response to today’s ruling.

“Arguing Over Argument Time in D.C. Gun Case”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Today is the final day to comment on pending amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and other federal procedural rules: I linked to the text of those amendments, and to the email address where comments can be submitted, in the February 4, 2008 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Deadline for Commenting on Federal Appellate Rule Amendments Is Fast Approaching.”

This comment from Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen Litigation Group echoes one of the concerns that I voiced in that essay. And attorney Stephen P. Stoltz has submitted a comment questioning whether setting a deadline at “midnight” on a particular day means that the deadline occurs immediately upon the beginning of the day instead of at the day’s absolute completion. You can access all of the comments relating to the proposed appellate rule changes via this link.

“Suit Accuses Homeland Security of Illegal Searches”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

I linked to the complaint initiating suit in this earlier post.

By a vote of 8-5, en banc Sixth Circuit holds that the federal constitutional right to the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking first-tier review of plea-based convictions in Michigan state court does not apply retroactively on habeas review: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically recognized this right to counsel in Halbert v. Michigan, a ruling that issued in June of 2005.

The D.C. Circuit affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against a retired general of the Israeli Defense Forces by the relatives of civilians who died or were injured when IDF forces attacked a UN compound in Lebanon where civilians had sought refuge: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

To obtain a conviction under a provision of the federal “[a]ggravated identity theft” statute, must the government prove the defendant knew the “means of identification” he “transfer[red], possesse[d], or use[d]” actually belonged to “another person”? Or, is it sufficient for the government to show that the means of identification happened to belong to another person? Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holds that the government must prove that the defendant actually knew the identification in question belonged to someone else. The ruling thus gives rise to a circuit split.

“Experts have doubts about grand jury bid; Suit to allow the disclosure of evidence appears unprecedented”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Legal analysts are skeptical that members of a disbanded grand jury who are asking a court for permission to disclose evidence presented to them in a politically sensitive arson case will meet with any success. Six members of the grand jury that indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with a suspicious fire at their home last summer have resurrected an 85-year-old case to bolster their lawsuit, which seeks to let them speak openly about secret matters because of the criticism that was directed at them by prosecutors.”

The Associated Press reports that “Grand jurors sue to disclose evidence in case against Supreme Court justice; Six indicted Supreme Court justice, but DA dismissed the charges.”

And ABCNews.com provides a report headlined “A Texas Drama: the ‘Runaway’ Grand Jury; Grand Jurors Want to Indict a Supreme Court Justice; a Prosecutor Dismissed the Charges.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Exxon Spill Award Hits High Court; Justices to decide whether $2.5 billion verdict will stand.”

In other news, “N.Y. High Court Approves Derivative Lawsuits for LLCs; Dissenting judge calls the majority’s ruling ‘unique in the annals of the Court of Appeals.’” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.

And an article is headlined “Will Fajitagate Case Set 9th Circuit Precedent?” I had this post yesterday about the case.

“Government appeals new detainee case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Joseph Sneed dies – longtime 9th Circuit judge”: Bob Egelko has this obituary today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Bill Curbing Terror Interrogators Is Sent to Bush, Who Has Vowed to Veto It”: This article appears today in The New York Times. In addition, columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has an op-ed entitled “When We Torture.”

The Washington Post reports today that “Senate Passes Ban On Waterboarding, Other Techniques.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate OKs limits on interrogation methods; The measure, which would ban the CIA’s use of waterboarding, is expected to be vetoed by Bush.” In addition, columnist Rosa Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Bush’s last push for torture: In its lame-duck year, the administration has been conducting a PR campaign for waterboarding.”

“Sex, Lies, Hostility in the Court: Rare Judicial Ethics Case Exposes Florida Appellate Judges’ Dirty Laundry.” ABCNews.com provides this report.

My most recent earlier coverage appeared at this link. And you can access via this link the documents filed in the ongoing proceeding before the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, including this interesting document that attorney Bruce S. Rogow filed yesterday.

“TV judge slammed by Florida Supreme Court”: The Miami Herald provides a news update that begins, “A former Miami-Dade judge who now has his own syndicated television show was chastised by the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday. The court took aim at former Circuit Judge Alex Ferrer in a lengthy 73-page ruling that upheld the death sentences of Noel Doorbal, who was part of a gang that kidnapped, tortured and murdered Miami elites in the 1990s.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Justices question TV judge’s testimony to aid witness.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.

“Defendants’ Lawyers Fear Loss of Potential Evidence at Guantanamo Bay”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Navy judge lets driver’s lawyers question ‘KSM.’” In addition, in yesterday’s newspaper she had an article headlined “First of 9/11 defendants given a military lawyer; One of the six alleged 9/11 instigators held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, got a seasoned military commissions attorney.”

“Scalia’s comments on torture latest taste of bluntness”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“‘Guantanamo Six’ on Trial”: You can access the first hour of today’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point” using either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Bush Criticizes Congress on Terror Bill“; “Justice: Waterboarding Is Not Legal Now“; “Judge Asks Details on Destroyed Evidence“; and “House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt.”

“Growing up Italian in Jersey: Alito reflects on ethnic heritage.” The Trenton Times today contains an article that begins, “When Samuel Alito Sr. graduated from the former Trenton State Teacher’s College he faced difficulty obtaining a job in the Trenton schools due to his low social status and background as an Italian immigrant. He probably never imagined his son would one day become the second Italian-American U.S. Supreme Court justice.”

The Daily Targum of Rutgers University reports today that “Justice reigns ‘supreme’; New Jersey native Samuel A. Alito Jr. speaks to crowd at U.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice Alito Sounds Off on ‘Sopranos.’”

“Texas fetal murder law upheld; Appeals court affirms Lufkin man’s life sentence in death of girlfriend’s 2 fetuses”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds Texas fetal protection law.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — that State’s highest court in criminal cases — consisted of a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in the judgment. In addition, two judges concurred in the result without joining either of those opinions or issuing any opinion of their own.

Some upcoming audio appearances: One week from today — on February 21, 2008 starting at noon eastern time — I will be a panelist on the West Legalworks online audio program “Law Blogging for Fun and Profit: Building Your Audience, Building Your Practice.” My co-panelists will be Kimberly A. Kralowec of “The UCL Practitioner” blog and J. Craig Williams of the “May it Please the Court” blog. Those who register for the program can obtain a fifteen percent discount on the price by using the discount code “WLW15.” I don’t know if substituting 100 for the 15 gets you in for free.

And a bit earlier this afternoon, I did an audio interview with reporter Wei Hu of the VOA Mandarin Service. She hosts the Voice of America program “Legal Issues,” which is described as “a 20-minute feature program which introduces US law and legal cases to VOA’s Chinese speaking listeners in Asia.” Within a week’s time, a report on my interview should be available via this link. And the VOA will also post online audio clips from my interview that have been voice-overed in Chinese. My interview focused on the federal obscenity prosecution of Pittsburgh-area resident Karen Fletcher. Background on that case can be accessed here, here, and here.

“New chapter opens in Fajitagate case”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Lawyers for two men injured by off-duty San Francisco police in an argument over a bag of takeout fajitas asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to reinstate their lawsuit against the city, saying police officials deserved some responsibility for the beatings because they ignored one officer’s history of brutality.”

Today in The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “SFPD ‘fajitagate’ case argued in federal court; 9th Circuit mulls city’s liability over off-duty officers’ actions.”

And The Daily Californian reports that “Boalt Hosts Arguments In Fajitagate Appeal; Law Students Allowed To See Oral Arguments First-Hand, Participate In Q&A with Judges.”

You can download the audio of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit oral argument via this link (5.70MB Windows Media audio file).

By entering into a plea that required at least a 27-year prison sentence on one count of child exploitation, defendant waived any Eighth Amendment challenge to what that the federal district judge described as “the most unjust sentence that I have ever imposed”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Houston sex-toy sellers hail federal court’s ruling; 35-year-old Texas law that banned the items overturned by appeals court”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Out of Commission: Why the government may lose the Guantanamo trials, even if it wins.” Law Professors Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Federal judge dismisses suit over torture flights”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit today that accused a San Jose flight-planning company of helping the CIA transport prisoners to overseas dungeons for interrogation and torture, agreeing with the Bush administration that the case risks exposure of state secrets.”

And Adam Tanner of Reuters reports that “Court dismisses lawsuit on secret US kidnapping.”

I have posted online at this link today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

“Jurors file suit to disclose evidence in Medina case”: The Houston Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “Six members of a Harris County grand jury who indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife on charges stemming from the fire that destroyed their Spring home have filed a lawsuit to talk about the evidence they saw before handing up the indictments.”

“Court strikes down Texas ban on sex toys; Federal appeals court says law violates right to privacy”: The Austin American-Statesman provides this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Texas Ban on Sex Toy Sales Is Overturned.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Rules for Lawyers Of Detainees Are Called Onerous; Fair, Adequate Defense Questioned”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “White House Pushes Waterboarding Rationale; Administration May Be Trying to Shore Up Prosecution of Terrorism Suspects.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The 9/11 Trials: Their fairness should be indisputable; That’s not likely under the current military commission system.”

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “U.S. Acts to Avert Tactic Expected in Qaeda Trial” and an editorial entitled “Unnecessary Harm.”

And online at FindLaw, Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “Is The Bush Administration Right to Seek the Death Penalty for 9/11 Captives?”

“Mukasey’s bid on crack releases is denied; The attorney general sought legislation to cancel sentencing rules that he said could put dangerous criminals on the streets; A senator accuses him of rousing public fear”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Senate Authorizes Broad Expansion Of Surveillance Act”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Senate OK’s immunity on wiretaps; Backs telecoms’ role in surveillance efforts.”

The New York Times reports that “Senate Votes to Expand Spy Powers.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate OKs bill to extend eavesdropping; The measure also shields phone carriers from lawsuits; House Democrats have opposed such protections.”