“Court reverses videotape conviction”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a West Texas man charged with one count of production of child pornography for secretly videotaping a 16-year-old girl at an Odessa tanning salon.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
Earlier coverage of the case from The Odessa American can be accessed here, here, and here.
“Shift on Gay-Marriage Law Will Affect Array of Policies”: Geoffrey A. Fowler and Evan Perez have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Justification asked for DOMA plan; A federal judge orders the U.S. government to explain its plan to enforce the federal ban on benefits for legally-married same-sex couples even while taking the position that the ban is unconstitutional.”
“Christian legal group appeals health care ruling”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Christian legal group is appealing a judge’s dismissal of its lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s requirement that all Americans get health insurance.”
Handouts and demonstratives at an appellate oral argument: For reasons that I’d be more than happy to discuss further in the event that anyone is interested, I’m not a huge fan of using handouts or demonstrative exhibits at an appellate oral argument.
Moments before my en banc oral argument was to begin Wednesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, opposing counsel handed me a collection of documents that he proposed to distribute to the judges to walk them through his presentation. That was, frankly, the first time that I had had that happen to me or seen that happen in more than 20 years of appellate work.
The representatives of the Third Circuit’s clerk’s office in the courtroom would not allow the handout to be distributed to the judges without my consent. I decided not to consent, because the best use of my time in the moments before the oral argument was not perusing opposing counsel’s proposed handout, and there was nothing that had precluded opposing counsel from finding out earlier in advance of the oral argument that my consent was needed and then requesting my consent at that earlier time.
Yesterday, Class Counsel filed this motion for leave to file the handout. My response to the motion, which I have just electronically filed, can be accessed here.
“Federal court upholds Starbucks win in Kraft case”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“Gubernatorial appointments render Iowa one of only three states with all-male high court”: The National Center for State Courts has issued this revised and corrected backgrounder today.
“With Friends Like These: The Troubling Implications of the Government’s Recent Effort to Block Amicus Curiae Briefs in a Controversial White Collar Criminal Appeal.” Attorneys Anthony J. Franze and R. Stanton Jones of Arnold & Porter LLP have published this essay in Bloomberg Law Reports.
“Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted”: This article will appear in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times.
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” law professor Eugene Volokh has a related post titled “Suppression of Jury Nullification Advocates’ Speech Outside Courthouse.”
“Imperial County, Calif., renews gay marriage fight”: The Associated Press has this report.
In the March 2011 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Corporate Giant Wal-Mart Faces a Huge Class Action By Female Workers.”
John Gibeaut has an article headlined “Candidates Say Public Campaign Funds Chill Their 1st Amendment Rights.”
And Mark Curriden has an article headlined “Lawyer’s Attempt to Keep His Head Above Water Landed a Client on Death Row.”
“Scrushy talks appeal, life after prison”: These interview excerpts appear online at the web site of the Birmingham Business Journal.
“Court Likely to Uphold Constitutionality of ‘Nude’ Airport Scanners”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.
“High court orders briefs in Facebook juror case”: Today’s edition of The Sacramento Bee contains an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court wants to take a closer look at the Facebook juror case that originated in Sacramento.”
“Legal fight over Facebook continues; Brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who maintain that Mark Zuckerberg ripped them off to build Facebook, are contesting an out-of-court settlement reached three years ago”: This article appeared yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.
“Pennsylvania court reviewing teen’s abortion case”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains a front page article that begins, “For the first time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has acknowledged it is reviewing the case of a pregnant teenager who was denied permission for an abortion by a county judge.”
