The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court saw an unusual and unexpected moment of chaos yesterday when protesters interrupted Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ announcement of opinions. There were only seven of them but they made quite a ruckus. Right as Roberts began speaking, one yelled, “We are the 99 percent.” Others yelled demands such as “one person, one vote.” Eventually, they were escorted out of the chamber. The group taking credit for the protest is 99Rise and they were arguing against the 2010 Citizens United decision that ushered in a whole new era in the way that politics and money interact. Today was the fifth anniversary of that historic decision.

The seven people escorted out of the chamber have also been charged with violating a law by making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” among other charges. An eighth individual was also slapped with conspiracy-related charges but it’s unclear how he or she was involved.

99Rise has now dubbed them the “Supreme Court 7.” They appear to be a grassroots-type organization that seeks to take the influence of big money and corporations out of politics. Their website outlines the group’s main goals as the following:

We thus seek a Constitutional Amendment and supplemental federal legislation that would guarantee the principle of political equality, as well as ensure that neither private wealth nor corporate privilege could be used to exercise undue influence over elections and policymaking. To this end, we are committed to deploying the most powerful tool of social and political change: strategic nonviolent resistance.

Despite the splash that the protesters made in the media with their actions, not everyone was that impressed. According to ScotusBlog, Roberts muttered “Oh, please” while all the chaos was going on.

After the protesters were taken out of the chamber, the justices continued with business as usual. One of the more closely followed cases of this term–Holt v. Hobbs–was decided. SCOTUS unanimously decided that Gregory Holt, a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, should be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Regardless of what happened in the Holt v. Hobbs case, however, the protesters ended up being a bigger news story. It’s rare that people interrupt government procedure like they did today, particularly in somewhere as stoic as the Supreme Court.

From an actual goal-oriented perspective, 99Rise’s choice to interrupt the Supreme Court doesn’t make that much sense. While it obviously handed down the Citizens United decision, it has no ability to enact the type of reform, like an amendment, that 99Rise ostensibly is looking for. That being said, from a public relations standpoint, it made total sense. A relatively unknown group got the chance to brand itself, put its message out there, and create martyrs out of its seven members who were arrested.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Interrupt SCOTUS Over Campaign Finance appeared first on Law Street.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled last Wednesday that law enforcement officials must obtain warrants in order to search the cell phones of those under arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “the fact that an arrestee has diminished privacy interests does not mean that the Fourth Amendment falls out of the picture entirely.” This is a definite departure from previous policies, which allowed police officers to collect evidence through warrantless cellphone searches.

The Chief Justice stated:

The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought, our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.

In this decision, Roberts dismissed law enforcement officials’ claims that searching a cell phone is no different than searching a suspect’s pockets, which has never required a warrant. Roberts addressed this by saying, “that is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.” Modern cell phones, with their vast capabilities, bring about entirely new privacy concerns that transcend a simple pocket search.

Warrantless searches have been justified, and sometimes are necessary. They are often conducted in order to protect police officers from hidden weapons, and to prevent suspects from destroying evidence. However, the court found that neither of those rationales applied to searching through the data on someone’s cell phone.

Understandably, police officers are concerned with the impact that this ruling will have on fighting crime. If a police officer must take the time to obtain a warrant before they can search someone’s phone, then that person will have the opportunity to erase any incriminating data. Roberts wrote:

We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost.

However, according to Roberts, “remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network.” He says that police officers can also remove a phone’s battery or simply turn the phone off.

This ruling was built on several privacy rulings in recent years, particularly the cases of United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California.

Police in Boston arrested Birma Wurie on drug trafficking charges in 2007. Police went through the call log on Wurie’s flip phone without first obtaining a warrant, and found several calls from a number labeled as “my house”. They then used reverse trajectory to trace the address, obtained a warrant, and found illegal drugs and firearms. While they did have a warrant to search the home, they never obtained one to search the phone that led them there.

In 2009, San Diego police detained David Riley for driving with expired tags. In their search of his car, police discovered two concealed firearms and seized Riley’s smartphone without a warrant. Stored text messages, photos, and videos on the phone led the police to believe that Riley had gang connections and was involved in several prior gang-related crimes.

In both of these cases, the defendants sought to suppress the evidence that was obtained without a warrant, and neither succeeded. The evidence was let in and they were both convicted, leading to a series of appeals that eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court addressed the privacy issues in both cases, but seemed less worried about police officers searching limited-capacity flip phones than smart phones that can hold large quantities of personal data. Justice Elena Kagan commented that, “most people now do carry their lives on cell phones,” so it is important that peoples’ Fourth Amendment rights are protected when it comes to personal information on smartphones.

In the age of constantly changing technology, the protections set out by the Fourth Amendment are unwavering. These technological advances raise many questions about one’s right to privacy when information is becoming more accessible. This Supreme Court decision is an important step in assuring that peoples’ rights are protected, despite these rapid changes in technology.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [dalioPhoto via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules Warrantless Cellphone Searches Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Senior federal judges can make quite a pretty penny by working as teachers or lecturers at law schools, according to the financial statements that they are required to supply each year. The National Law Journal is featuring an excellent story, to be published next week but available online now, on just how much money is made by senior judges who lecture or teach at top law schools around the country.

The highest earning senior judge this year was Senior Judge Donald Ginsburg, a DC Circuit Court Judge, who took home $277,906 teaching for NYU Law. Another DC Circuit Judge, Senior Judge Harry Edwards, took in just south of $200,000, also from NYU Law. All in all, there were five federal judges who earned at least $100,000 from outside teaching and speaking engagements.

So, what is a senior judge?

A senior judge is a federal judge. In some states, state judges who are quasi-retired are considered senior judges. In order to be a senior judge, a judge must be at least 65, and have served at least 15 years on the bench. That requirement is sliding though, for each year older than 65, they need to have served one year less on the bench. For example, a 67-year-old judge could receive senior status after 13 years of presiding.

Depending on how many cases they choose to take on, senior judges might receive the same salary as an active federal judge. If they take on less, their salary is discounted slightly, but it will never fall below what it was the year they took senior status. So those five senior judges that made $100,000 (or more) are earning that on top of the regular salary they get from being senior judges. Given that a circuit judge now makes roughly $200,000 just for that position, senior judges like Ginsburg and Edwards are doing very, very, well for themselves.

The purpose of this program is that when judges elect to take senior status, they forfeit their seat. They become a kind of “at-large” judge who can float around and take on cases when needed. The vacated seat is filled so that there are more judges to take on heavy caseloads at the federal level. Senior judges can also work with and mentor younger active judges.

Active judges do have requirements about what they can do outside of their judgeship. They are not allowed to make more than $26,955 a year outside of their federal salary — although this does exclude certain ways of earning money, such as royalties from books already published. The purpose behind the rule is to keep active judges, who certainly could be in demand to teach or lecture, focused and prevent them from becoming overworked. However, there is no such requirement for senior judges. 

Senior judges are free to make as much as they desire in their free time, in addition to whatever portion of salary they receive from taking on a case load. Which leads to positions like Ginsburg and Edwards have at NYU Law.

Whether active or senior, that sounds like a decent amount of money to me, especially for a government employee. It is more than what our members of congress get–roughly $175,000 per year. But still, some judges say that it is still much too little. For example, Chief Justice John G. Roberts has made a number of statements saying that we need to pay our judges more. He claims that the salaries have not stayed consistent with the cost of living. In 2007, he actually called the supposedly stagnant pay for judges a “constitutional crisis” in his annual report.

To be fair, judges do make less than their law school classmates who landed partnerships at big law firms. But they still are among the highest paid government employees, they (clearly) can make quite a lot once they reach retirement age, and most importantly, they have lifetime job security. No law firm can boast that kind of awesome financial security.

So if you are thinking about a new dream job, being a senior judge may not be a bad one to add to your list. If you are anything like some of the judges teaching at law schools now, you will be pretty much set for life. Although if that is not quite enough money for you, there is another kind of judgeship to check out: in my research, I found out that Judge Judy makes about $47 million a year, making her the highest paid personality on TV. So either way, go on the judge route and you should be all set!

[National Law Journal]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Martin Bowling via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Make Money? Become a Federal Judge appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times recently wrote about the declining relevance of law reviews, with the main argument being that the primary sources of legal scholarship should not be left in the hands of students.

In fact, in the article, Adam Liptak included quotes from sources like Chief Justice John Roberts maligning the significance of what was once a prestigious honor among law students.

Law Review Membership for Law Students

For those who are unaware, most, if not all, law schools have at least one scholarly publication that is published semi-annually.  These periodicals include musings on the law from among the best and brightest in the legal field, including professors and practitioners.  The topics of the articles can span many legal topics, from as broad an area as Constitutional law to the most niche practice group in a boutique law firm.  These articles are submitted to student-run law reviews for publication.

This sounds elementary, but membership to your school’s law review is among the greatest honors a law student can receive.  In these economic times of more lawyers and fewer legal jobs, a staff editor position continues to set students apart from their contemporaries.  To obtain membership to these publications, schools have competitions between students during their first year, with varying entry-qualifications.  At some schools, students with a certain first-year GPA are automatically offered admission to the review; other schools only permit entry to those who are in a certain percentile of their class.

In the world of legal education, membership to a journal or review can open doors that may otherwise be closed to the general student body.  There are extra receptions, forums, and meet-and-greets with notable people in the law.  In addition, during on-campus interview season, many of the top firms mandate membership on either a journal or moot court for serious consideration to join their ranks.

Law reviews are so important that many schools have other specialized reviews for students to join.  Harvard Law School has 17 scholarly journals; Georgetown University Law Center has 11; Boston College Law, five; Howard Law, two; and UVA has 10.  These secondary publications are also an important tool in establishing one’s legal career.  Often if a student enters law school with the professional goal of working in intellectual property and patents, they are more likely to write on an IP-specific journal as opposed to the main journal.  That way, the student is guaranteed to broaden his or her knowledge in that field of the law and have more networking opportunities with IP professionals.  This is especially important, because networking leads to jobs, jobs leads to success, and success leads to happiness.

Post-law school impressions of Law Reviews

 Liptak’s article is full of lines that would deter students from seeking membership into the elite world of law review membership.  Sentences like, “student editors are mostly bright and work hard, but they are young, part-time amateurs who know little about the law…” are hardly encouraging.  This is especially insulting when you consider the all-important “real world” aspect of law review work.  Unlike doing well in a classroom full of hypotheticals or made-up legal writing scenarios, staff editors of law reviews are fixing the work of real legal scholars, which is an important part of the learning process.

Ask any law student who has ever had to do a source collect, or check the (often incorrect) citations submitted by legal scholars, and they will tell you that the work is tedious but it always gets done on time.  When dealing with matters of import, these “part-time amateurs” always step up to the plate.  Working on a law review gives students an impetus to work harder, because it is a rare time in law school, aside from internships and clinics, where the people involved are not hypothetical characters in a fact pattern.

Additionally, to every full-time attorney who had something disheartening to say to the students editing their work: you were not always an expert. Perhaps you fail to realize that twenty years ago, you were just another “mostly bright” law student editing an article that “no one relies on.”

Interestingly, Tyler Rosenbaum, the Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Review, made an astute observation in a New York Times letter to the editor: “…it is not the fault of students or of our law reviews that the grown-ups haven’t made [a solution].” This is especially true because law review membership follows lawyers throughout their careers.  Good luck finding law professors who weren’t members while they were in school.  As for the comment about law professors “[dumping] their lesser work onto their school’s students,” that’s a requirement for tenure-seeking professors.  Publication in varied journals over a span of years is necessary for job security.

Perhaps it is because I am newly out of law school that I’m so incensed by this article’s point of view, or perhaps because I was one of those students who spent hours critiquing the work of professionals.  More than that, though, is the hypocrisy of these legal scholars who are essentially biting the hand that fed them throughout their careers that really grinds my gears. And do not even get me started on talking about incompetence and lack of experience — heads up, you cannot get experience if no one gives you work.

[New York Times] [New York Times Op-Ed]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Tracie Hall via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Reviews: Losing Steam, But Who’s to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.