Kids need champions. I thought you might be interested in this commentary I wrote recently for the Minneapolis Star Tibune. It begins:

The letter was to the point: “Dear Judge, I am 16 and self-reliant. I have been employed in some way for nearly a year. I have been emotionally and psychologically damaged from the events surrounding and the aftermath of my parents’ divorce. Although I believe I am healed (not fully of course) there is an excess of emotional trauma I have to cope with. I have night terrors, anxiety, paranoia, depression, and insomnia and have trouble paying attention in school. These symptoms have all built up on each other since I was in sixth grade. Now I deal with pent-up repressed emotions. I am technically ‘homeless’ at the moment. I have been a pawn in this ridiculous legal battle between my parents for years and I am ready to voice my opinion and wishes. I would like to be emancipated, gaining full rights to myself.”

Over the past two decades, a mass of information has been developed about the effects of stress on children. A certain amount is natural, but extreme and persistent stress can affect brain development in lasting ways. The Center on the Developing Child at Harvard explained, “This condition literally interferes with developing brain circuits, and poses a serious threat to young children, not only because it undermines their emotional well-being, but also because it can impair a wider range of developmental outcomes including early learning, exploration and curiosity, school readiness, and later school achievement.”

The letter from the 16-year-old is not an isolated example of what we put children through. There is an 8-year-old who experienced the recent deaths of a grandparent, a dog and a younger brother. The child now assumes a caretaking role within the family, reporting that it is his “job” to keep his toddler brother safe. He says that he is “strong enough” to do so. He describes a volatile relationship between his parents, including fighting, yelling and lots of swearing. He is adamant that he does not want them to ever reunite and has a detailed escape plan in the event they do that involves taking his younger brother in the night to go stay with his aunt so that they will both be safe.

We need a goal: Minnesota must be the best place in the nation for a child to live. It won’t be achieved overnight, but failure is unacceptable. For the rest of the article see:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/141250693.html

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report. In it Sherman says, “The precise contours of an eventual ruling were not apparent after arguments Tuesday, but several justices said they were troubled by the way some states try and sentence young people accused of crimes. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that the court would be substituting its judgment for that of state legislators. ‘I’m supposed to impose my judgment on what seems to be a consensus of the American people?’ he asked.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that Supreme Court weighs if teen murderers must get chance of parole. Vincini’s observation of the argument included this assessment of three of the justices, “Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative who cast the decisive vote in the earlier rulings, expressed concern that trial judges have no discretion in states with mandatory sentences. ‘What’s a judge supposed to do?’ he asked.  Justice Elena Kagan asked whether individual factors, such as an offender’s age, should be taken into account in sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole, a scheme that would be similar to what has been used for adults in death penalty cases.”

For a look at the briefs as well as a recap of the arguement visit the  SCOTUSblog. Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Compromise on youth sentences?” 

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted the transcripts of the  oral argument in Miller v.Alabama, No. 10-9646, at this link and in Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, at this link

Tara R. Price has posted ‘Bull’ Coming from the States: Why the Supreme Court Should Use Williams v. Illinois to Close One of Bullcoming’s Confrontation Clause Loopholes (Florida State University Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract: 

Numerous juries have convicted defendants based on second-hand (or hearsay) expert witness testimony about laboratory reports performed and certified by other analysts who never appeared at trial. 

On June 23, 2011, however, the Supreme Court put this practice to a stop in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Or did it? In perhaps the closest majority in recent Confrontation Clause history, the Supreme Court affirmed that the protections of the Sixth Amendment extend to the admission of scientific evidence against a defendant, so long as the evidence consists of a written report admitted at trial. 

Continue reading “Price on Why the Supreme Court Should Use Williams v. Illinois to Close One of Bullcoming’s Confrontation Clause Loopholes”

Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice said, “The court has looked at a number of available options. Frankly, all of them are lousy.”  http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9TUCGK80.htm

For more information:

http://www.saljournal.com/news/story/court-4-4-12

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/features/x760621708/Supreme-Court-orders-employee-furloughs

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/05/3535546/budget-woes-force-kansas-court.html

http://www.kansasreporter.org/91300.aspx

A judges ability to concentrate on one thing to the exclusion of others ought to be the norm on the bench. But for variety of reasons it sometimes is not the practice. There are forms to fill out. There are notes to be taken and occasionally there is just plain multi tasking: a quick e mail to a clerk, a check of the calendar to see what is on for the afternnon.  And then there is Selective attention which  provides a way for us to navigate through the maze of data that comes our way every second of the day.

We can:

• Tune our ears – as  a mother reacting to a baby’s crying in the middle of the night,
• Focus our vision – as parents do to  find your child’s face in a large crowd,

• Latch onto an idea to the exclusion of others – this is the best way to get this done.

By selectively attending we can get a number of things done.

We can also miss a lot of things, too.  Take a look at the following from Christopher Chabris and Daniel J. Simons.

Focus on counting the number of passes between team members with white shirts.  Bounce passes count, too:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY

Well, how did you do? What did you attend to and what did you disregard or minimize? What does this tell us about the wisdon of multi tasking on the bench?

PA Supreme Court Considering New Rules for Use of Electronic Devices in Courtroom; Prohibit Tweeting From Courtroom

The amended rules prohibit “tweeting” by members of the press or others in the courtroom (at page 25):

http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/25029F7C-956E-4EA5-9FB1-36CFADE128C6/0/rules626627etalcrim.pdf

Plea bargaining is part of the fabric of the functioning of the criminal justice system. But with a few notable decisions, the United States Supreme Court has issued few decisions regulating the practice. That changed this term.  In the first opinion, Missouri v. Frye, the Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals of Missouri and remanded the case for further proceedings. By a vote of five to four, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel ex­tends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected and that that right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.”  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito.

In the second opinion  regarding ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea bargain stage, Lafler v. Cooper the Court vacated the decision of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. Also by a vote of five to four, the Court held that where counsel’s ineffective advice led to an offer’s rejection, and where the prejudice alleged is having to stand trial, a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court, that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and sentence imposed. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but Part IV. Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion.

Nothing is more uncomfortable than judges suing the state over their own benefits or compensation. It isn’t that judges shouldn’t access the courts, but in the court of public opinion, no one wins. Like it or not, it does happen.