Recently in Judges Category

Bruce Sterling writes: "Last week, a Maryland appeals court upended a first-degree murder conviction because a juror consulted Wikipedia for trial information. [We first posted about it here]. Earlier this year, the appeals judges erased a conviction for three counts of assault because a juror did cyberspace research and shared the findings with the rest of the jury. In a third recent trial, a juror's admission to using his laptop for off-limits information jeopardized an attempted-murder trial.

On Friday, lawyers for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon asked for a new trial in part because five of the jurors who convicted her of embezzlement Dec. 1 were communicating among themselves on Facebook during the deliberations period - and at least one of them received an outsider's online opinion of what the verdict should be. The "Facebook Friends," as Dixon's lawyers call them in court documents, became a clique that the lawyers argue altered jury dynamics.

[Snip]

The issue is not peculiar to Maryland. The American Bar Association noted that in March, an eight-week federal drug trial in Florida ended in a mistrial - not because one juror tattled to the judge that another had resorted to cyberspace searches about the case. After asking all 12 jurors, the judge learned that eight others had Web-surfed, too.

Appeals elsewhere are based partly on jurors' posts on Twitter and Facebook, according to the ABA, with worries about the lack of control and breach of trust."

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: ResourceShelf, 13 December 2009

Bruce Sterling writes: "Last week, a Maryland appeals court upended a first-degree murder conviction because a juror consulted Wikipedia for trial information. [We first posted about it here]. Earlier this year, the appeals judges erased a conviction for three counts of assault because a juror did cyberspace research and shared the findings with the rest of the jury. In a third recent trial, a juror's admission to using his laptop for off-limits information jeopardized an attempted-murder trial.

On Friday, lawyers for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon asked for a new trial in part because five of the jurors who convicted her of embezzlement Dec. 1 were communicating among themselves on Facebook during the deliberations period - and at least one of them received an outsider's online opinion of what the verdict should be. The "Facebook Friends," as Dixon's lawyers call them in court documents, became a clique that the lawyers argue altered jury dynamics.

[Snip]

The issue is not peculiar to Maryland. The American Bar Association noted that in March, an eight-week federal drug trial in Florida ended in a mistrial - not because one juror tattled to the judge that another had resorted to cyberspace searches about the case. After asking all 12 jurors, the judge learned that eight others had Web-surfed, too.

Appeals elsewhere are based partly on jurors' posts on Twitter and Facebook, according to the ABA, with worries about the lack of control and breach of trust."

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: ResourceShelf, 13 December 2009

Posted by Bruce Carton: "Attention all lawyers who practice before United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel, D. Minn.: He has just about had it with your crappy "legalese" and he has a 19-point plan to get you writing like a real person again.

This is just a taste. Here is the full list of things you won't be doing any longer in Judge Kressel's court."

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Blog Watch, 11 December 2009

Posted by John Jantsch: "Marketing podcast with Nick Morgan (Click to listen, right click and Save As to download - subscribe now via iTunes

Trust - can't get enough of that as a brand, business, or person these days. Everyone knows that, but what they may not know is that there are things each of is doing that may be unintentionally eroding trust - particularly when it comes to the topic of speaking and presenting.

In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing podcast Nick Morgan, author of Trust Me, talks about trust, authenticity and charisma and how anyone can use it to their advantage as a public speaker.

Charisma is a tricky thing, but I love his definition: The expression of emotion. It's a tool that can be learned and practiced.

Pay close attention to his thoughts on using or not using PowerPoint.

Check out a recent blog post from Nick: 10 Commandments of Public Speaking

Nick Morgan shows how anyone can be an effective speaker by presenting an image of authenticity and respect for their audience, whether in a group presentation or a one-on-one conversation. He presents a four-step process, perfected in his teaching at Harvard, that enables the reader to use their own personal speaking style while becoming a more persuasive and charismatic communicator and leader.

The four steps of Nick's system
1) Openness
2) Connection
3) Passion
4) Listening"

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Duct Tape Marketing, 5 November 2009

 Posted by Paul Luvera: "A friend of mine who is a great trial lawyer has been in a lengthy jury trial with two defense lawyers. The atmosphere in the court room is high octane with the lawyers at each other's throats. I sent my friend this note. He told me later that he had, with great effort, figured this out himself before I wrote and had managed to get control of himself. I think the advice I gave is right and here it is:

In cultures where there are elders, it is a normal practice that the elder does not give advice unless asked, but here's my passing uninvited comment anyway.

I've been in blood baths like yours. In fact, in the early days of practice, especially in rural counties, hand to hand combat was not only tolerated but expected. If you were unfortunate enough to get a judge who couldn't control the court room and worse, didn't know evidence rules it was a total circus, like a scene out of an insane asylum. In former years, jurors were entertained by it, but in modern times jurors are generally repelled by chaos and fighting in the court room. Like all of us they don't want to be around people who are disputing with year other.

So, here's my uninvited comment from one who has only spent a few minutes in your courtroom. The question is what do you do about it when all you have to do is to hear the sound of the opponent's footsteps and you are capable of murder? Gerrry Spence's advice to me has been you stop. You draw a contrast between your opponent and your demeanor and conduct. He is a master at patiently waiting through rants. Pausing after it stops and calmly saying something to the judge while smiling. He exhibits total control over himself and as the level increases he becomes more calm and in control. Has great eye contact with the jury during an opponent's rant. While staying strong and firm on his positions he ends up looking so much better then the other guy that he gets the jury approval. He talks about this and what he calls "giving away your power" in a book he wrote on argument. Yes, easier said then done, but Seneca said " He is most powerful who has himself in his power"

For more great advice from Paul, visit his blog at:

Source: Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips, 5 October 2009 

From the e-newsletter: "Jurors empaneled for a trial typically are instructed by the judge not to do anything on their own to learn about the facts and circumstances of the case outside of the courtroom." 

Read more... 

Source: FindLaw's Practice Paper. 16 September 2009. Copyright © 2008 FindLaw, a Thomson Business. Subscribe <http://newsletters.findlaw.com/>.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant: "There's an interesting article this week in Texas Lawyer about how judges are using social media. On one level, having judges who are familiar with social media can be helpful in dealing with certain issues that may arise at trial, like tweeting jurors or electronic discovery involving sites like Twitter and Flickr. But on another level, some of the judicial Facebook usage described in this article seemed a bit intrusive, in my view.

Judge Susan Criss, of Galveston's 212th District Court where she's served since 1999, often "friends" lawyers through Facebook. In order to avoid any communications that might be perceived as ex parte, Criss asks lawyers to de-friend her if they're appearing before her at trial. But as she peruses the Facebook profiles of her friends and associates, Criss sometimes comes across comments by litigants bragging about how they'll make money off a case. She says that in these instances she alerts lawyers on both sides. That's courteous, but lawyers should be sufficiently familiar with social media to check these sites themselves.

Similarly, Criss keeps track of what lawyers are doing. According to the story,

Criss recalls that recently a lawyer told her she needed a continuance because of a death in her family. The judge previously had given the lawyer a weeklong continuance, but at a subsequent hearing the lawyer's senior partner, who appeared on her behalf, told Criss his colleague actually needed a month-long postponement, Criss says. "I knew from her bragging on a Facebook account that she had been partying that same week," Criss says. The judge says she told the senior partner at the hearing about her Facebook discovery and denied his request.

Another time, Criss says, she told the lawyers in her courtroom for a weeklong trial that she intended to go to a bench-bar conference and would miss a day of court. "Then that evening, I was on Facebook. I saw another lawyer post about the bench-bar conference. The lawyer who had been in my courtroom then wrote, 'Judge Criss is coming to speak at your conference Friday. Be nice to her so she will be in a good mood when I come back.' I wrote, 'I will be in a good mood when I come back.'" The lawyer who first posted about the conference then wrote to the friend, "Ha, ha you forgot Facebook was public," Criss adds.

That seems a little scary to me!

What do you think of this judge's use of Facebook?

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Blog Watch, 25 August 2009

Posted by Carolyn Elefant: "There's an interesting article this week in Texas Lawyer about how judges are using social media. On one level, having judges who are familiar with social media can be helpful in dealing with certain issues that may arise at trial, like tweeting jurors or electronic discovery involving sites like Twitter and Flickr. But on another level, some of the judicial Facebook usage described in this article seemed a bit intrusive, in my view.

Judge Susan Criss, of Galveston's 212th District Court where she's served since 1999, often "friends" lawyers through Facebook. In order to avoid any communications that might be perceived as ex parte, Criss asks lawyers to de-friend her if they're appearing before her at trial. But as she peruses the Facebook profiles of her friends and associates, Criss sometimes comes across comments by litigants bragging about how they'll make money off a case. She says that in these instances she alerts lawyers on both sides. That's courteous, but lawyers should be sufficiently familiar with social media to check these sites themselves.

Similarly, Criss keeps track of what lawyers are doing. According to the story,

Criss recalls that recently a lawyer told her she needed a continuance because of a death in her family. The judge previously had given the lawyer a weeklong continuance, but at a subsequent hearing the lawyer's senior partner, who appeared on her behalf, told Criss his colleague actually needed a month-long postponement, Criss says. "I knew from her bragging on a Facebook account that she had been partying that same week," Criss says. The judge says she told the senior partner at the hearing about her Facebook discovery and denied his request.

Another time, Criss says, she told the lawyers in her courtroom for a weeklong trial that she intended to go to a bench-bar conference and would miss a day of court. "Then that evening, I was on Facebook. I saw another lawyer post about the bench-bar conference. The lawyer who had been in my courtroom then wrote, 'Judge Criss is coming to speak at your conference Friday. Be nice to her so she will be in a good mood when I come back.' I wrote, 'I will be in a good mood when I come back.'" The lawyer who first posted about the conference then wrote to the friend, "Ha, ha you forgot Facebook was public," Criss adds.

That seems a little scary to me!

What do you think of this judge's use of Facebook?

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Blog Watch, 25 August 2009

From the Web Site:

A publication that discusses the importance of federal judges' papers as a documentary record of judges' careers and the work of the federal courts. The guide describes how students of the federal courts use judges' papers and offers guidelines for judges' selection of a repository to house a collection. The guide also offers recommendations for the management of documents in chambers.

Direct to Full Text (89 pages; PDF)

[Their] Source: Federal Judiciary History Office (via Federal Judiciary Center)

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: ResourceShelf, 26 June 2009