No one ever gets framed, really...

High School principal (with the "pal" at the end) attemted to frame a high school student, saying, "I know this isn't or wasn't ethical," but since "we both know he is dealing drugs, [ ] I wanted to catch him so I put drugs in the locker."

Sabri Reply Brief

...is available here. Note that one of the Brief's authors clerked first for Judge Richard Posner and then for Justice Antonin Scalia.

On children and puppies

At Crescat Sententia, a debate over whether to have children rages. (Well, "rages" isn't the right word).

My wife used to want to have children. Then we bought a puppy. Having to wake up early and stay up late (based on the whim of the puppy and how much he naps during the day), having to take the dog out 10 or 15 times a day (when we're lucky enough to catch him before he goes on the carpet), and having to be ready to jump up at a moment's notice to ensure the puppy does not destroy anything else has changed her mind. If having a puppy is this much stress, imagine what having a child would be like.

Pleasure reading

You can't go wrong reading Ken Starr on the Sixth Amendment.

Kid 'n Play

The Lock v. Davey decision is now available. It is a 7-2 decision written by C.J. Rehnquist. Rather than rely on the text of the Constitution, Rehnquist applies the "play in the joints doctrine." The doctrine "play in the joints" seeks to answer this question: Is it true that every time a funding decision would not violate the Establishment Clause then States must fund religious and non-religious groups equally or else violate the Free Exercise Clause? In other words, if a "faith-based" initiative would not violate the Establishment Clause, then must the State and Federal governments fund these initiatives because the Free Exercise Clause requires non-discriminatory funding?

Incidentally, this is not the first time "play in the joints" has been risent. See Groh v. Ramirez (No. 02-811), a Fourth Amendment case. Oral Argument Transcript at 40, Lines 20-24.
(Rehnquist asks: "Of course, that's really not what the Fourth Amendment says, is it? It just - it doesn't say you need - you need - I mean, surely there's some play in the joints, isn't there? It's - it categorically
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, right?")

Heck v. Humphrey & Section 1983

Muhammad v. Close makes clear that the Heck v. Humphrey bar against Section 1983 claims applies only where the action attacks the underlying conviction or determination of actual confinement time. (Slip Opinion at 4-5)("His §1983 suit challenging this action could not therefore be construed as seeking a judgment at odds with his conviction or with the State’s calculation of time to be served in accordance with the underlying sentence. That is, he raised no claim on which habeas relief could have been granted on any recognized theory, with the consequence that Heck’s favorable termination requirement was inapplicable.")

Lawyer loses $150 an hour for poor writing.

In a civil rights case (where the prevailing plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees), the lawyer was compensated $300 per hour for his trial work. But this rate was cut in half for his written work because of its poor quality.