The National Law Journal reports:

Jury misconduct didn’t start with Twitter, but reports of jurors behaving badly via social media are on the rise. In a new study, two Illinois judges urged their colleagues to tackle the social media problem head-on in jury instructions.

U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve of the Northern District of Illinois and Judge Charles Burns, in the criminal division of the Cook County, Ill., Circuit Court, surveyed hundreds of jurors in their respective courts during the past three years. They asked jurors about their temptation to communicate about a case through social networks while serving.

Most jurors said they didn’t feel tempted, with many citing the presiding judge’s social media-specific instructions. St. Eve and Burns, along with co-author and Jones Day associate Michael Zuckerman, said the survey showed that generalized instructions that didn’t explicitly discuss social media were insufficient.

St. Eve began surveying jurors in 2011. Along with Zuckerman, a former clerk, she published her initial results in 2012, analyzing 140 responses from an informal survey of federal jurors in her court.

St. Eve said in an interview that when the first study came out, other judges told her it was useful to have numbers quantifying the problem and asked how to adjust their jury instructions. “And some who aren’t, let’s say, familiar with the technology or keeping up with it found it helpful,” she added.

In the updated study, published in late February in Duke Law & Technology Review, St. Eve and her co-authors surveyed an additional 443 jurors in federal and state courts in Illinois.

Read more here.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously bolstered the federal law that bars those convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.

In United States v. Castleman, the question before the Justices was whether James Castleman’s state conviction for “misdemeanor domestic assault,” arising out of an incident involving the mother of his child, qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under federal law, thereby prohibiting him from having a gun.

The court gave a wide interpretation of the law’s requirement of “physical force.”  The federal government said that was important because in some states, misdemeanor domestic-violence laws are not specific about the force required.

In a January ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held — in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last year — that “classifications based on sexual orientation … are subject to heightened scrutiny.”

While most laws that create groups or classifications must merely show there is a rational basis, or a legitimate reason, for the law, laws subjected to heightened scrutiny — under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and applied to the federal government through the 5th Amendment) — must show more. Some, like those that classify based on race, must show a compelling state interest for classifying people, while others, like those based on sex, must show an important state interest in doing so.

Since February 2011, the Obama administration has joined with LGBT advocates in arguing that such heightened scrutiny should be placed on laws that classify based on sexual orientation — and, per other documents since then, gender identity.

The Supreme Court has avoided resolving the question, with opinions by Justice Anthony Kennedy over the past 18 years striking down laws that classify based on sexual orientation on the grounds that they don’t even pass that lowest level of “rational basis” review.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will respect the Supreme Court ruling that declared Judge Marc Nadon, his latest appointment to the highest bench, as not legally qualified for the job – the strongest signal to date that Ottawa will not attempt to buck the decision.

“We’re obviously going to respect the decision. We will respect not just the letter of the decision but the spirit of the decision as well,” the Prime Minister told reporters in The Hague, where he had just wrapped up a nuclear security summit.

For the full story, go here.

Thanks to the Constitution Daily, here are good sources for information about what the attorneys said and how the Justices reacted to yesterday’s United States Supreme Court argument on whether there is a religious exception that would allow employers not to provide women contraception coverage under the Affordable Health Care Act.

SCOTUSblog

Lyle Denniston reported on the arguments:

“The Supreme Court, in a one-hour, twenty-eight minute session Tuesday, staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.”

You can also get all the documents related to the case on SCOTUSblog.

Wall Street Journal Live Blog

The Journal said:

“[T]he court’s three female justices, all part of the court’s liberal wing, dominated the questioning during the first half on Monday’s 90 minute oral argument, repeatedly pressing the corporate challengers to the government’s contraception requirements.”

 The Los Angeles Times

David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times reported that:

“The Supreme Court’s conservative justices sharply criticized part of President Obama’s healthcare law Tuesday, suggesting they will rule later this year that requiring Christian-owned corporations to offer their employees contraceptives coverage violates the freedom of religion.”

The New York Times

Adam Liptak reported for the New York Times that:

“The court seemed ready to accept that at least some for-profit corporations may advance claims based on religious freedom. But the justices appeared divided along ideological lines over whether the objections before it, based on a requirement in President Obama’s health care law, should succeed.”

Like many other observers of the argument, Mr. Liptak also reported that Justice Anthony Kennedy asked questions on both sides of the issue.

It is often difficult to draw a fair line on when to grant a last minute continuance of a trial and when not to.

Most of the best current thinking about effective case management holds that trial date certainty is imperative. Although it may seem like a quirky case (it is) – and perhaps even lame second guessing of the trial judge (it isn’t) – this story, from The Delaware County Daily Times, does illustrate the difficult choices judges need to make:

By Rose Quinn, Delaware County Daily Times

03/05/14

After euthanizing his ailing longtime K9 partner “Umberto” Tuesday night, Folcroft police Cpl. Christopher Eiserman sought a continuance for a drug case listed Wednesday morning on Senior Magisterial District Judge Horace Z. Davis’ court docket.

Instead, Davis surprisingly tossed the case on its first listing, apparently saying the officer’s reason for seeking a continuance “was not valid,” Eiserman said Wednesday night.

“Not valid? I was on the vet’s floor bawling my eyes out,” the veteran law enforcement officer said of his situation less than 12 hours before he was due in Davis’ court for the preliminary hearing.

And after leaving the vet’s office late Tuesday, Eiserman went home to face the difficult task of cleaning out Umberto’s space and belongings.

“It was a long night,” Eiserman said. “I was mourning the loss of a partner I had since 2006.”

Contacted Wednesday night, Davis responded, “There is no discussion on it.”

Eiserman, who was due in court at about 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, said he returned to the police station in the wee hours Wednesday and wrote a letter requesting the continuance, as per the judge’s policy. He left the letter for the police secretary.

The court case in question involved Dennis McKenzie, a 36-year-old Darby Township man who allegedly had 150 grams of marijuana when he was arrested on charges including possession with the intent to deliver in January, according to authorities.

“I followed up the letter with a phone call Wednesday morning. I spoke directly to the police secretary. She spoke to the court clerk, who said it was OK,” Eiserman said. “There’s never been any problem like this before. It’s common.”

It was about mid-morning Wednesday when Eiserman said he received a phone call from another officer who was in the courtroom who said, “The judge dismissed your case.”

According to Folcroft Officer Tom Kesser, who was in the courtroom for an unrelated matter, Davis dismissed the charges against McKenzie, despite attempts by the assistant district attorney to explain Eiserman’s absence.

“She was very professional,” Kesser said of the newly assigned prosecutor whose name escaped him. “She told the judge that the officer had a death in the family, which he did,” Kesser said.

Kesser doesn’t believe that Davis at that point knew that the prosecutor was referring to Eiserman’s K-9 partner as the family member.

“He just said something along the line that it wasn’t reason enough to grant a continuance,” Kesser said.

When another case on the docket requiring testimony from Eiserman was called, Kesser said the prosecutor again requested a continuance because of a death in the officer’s family.

Kesser said Davis then made a comment along the lines, “What? A dog?”

Recognizing the bond between Eiserman and Umberto, Kesser said he told the judge, “It’s not just a dog. It’s his partner for 12 years.”

Kesser said his outburst drew no immediate response from Davis.

“He just looked at me,” Kesser said.

Davis then granted a two-week continuance in that case. The defendant in that case is Tyrone Smith, who is charged with felony firearms and related offenses, according to online court records.

Smith’s defense attorney Enrique Latoison said Wednesday night that he was not opposed to a continuance after hearing about Eiserman’s loss from another officer, Shane Coyle.

According to Latoison, the prosecutor never explained to Davis that it was Eiserman’s K-9 partner that had died.

The docket wasn’t overly busy but steady, and Davis wasn’t playing favorites, he said.

Folcroft Cpl. William Bair said he spoke privately with Davis on Eiserman’s behalf.

“I just wanted to make sure the judge understood that the dog was a K-9, a member of the police department,” Bair said. “The judge basically told me that it was his call and we could rearrest.”

Umberto was almost 12 years old and was suffering with hip dysplasia and arthritis.

The New York Times reports the story of how a federal judge “went too far”:

Something about the cases seemed wrong. The lawsuits, scores of them, accused businesses of failing to provide proper access for disabled customers. Defendants who lost had to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, and they piled up in case after case. Last year, a federal judge in Brooklyn, citing “troubling litigation tactics,” denied legal fees, based in part on an unusual step by his chambers. His staff members investigated the matter outside the courtroom.

Now a federal appeals court is saying he went too far.

The judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., sent staff members to visit several Brooklyn businesses that were sued by Mike Costello, a paraplegic man, and found that most if not all were never made more accessible to disabled people.

Continue reading the main story here.  The link will also get you to the summary order that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued last Tuesday.

Andrew Cohen has taken an in-depth look at the criminal justice system.  In an article posted last week on the Brennan Center for Justice website, Cohen discusses how many conservative Christian leaders are questioning the harsh penalties and mass incarceration policies they once advocated. Cohen also examines the delays from conviction to execution in capital cases and highlights the recent exoneration of Glenn Ford.

Mr. Ford’s story was reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

A man who spent nearly 26 years on death row in Louisiana walked free of prison Tuesday, hours after a judge approved the state’s motion to vacate the man’s murder conviction in the 1983 killing of a jeweler.

Glenn Ford, 64, had been on death row since August 1988 in connection with the death of 56-year-old Isadore Rozeman, a Shreveport jeweler and watchmaker for whom Ford had done occasional yard work. Ford had always denied killing Rozeman.

Six Minnesota attorneys worked on the case for more than 20 years, said St. Paul Attorney Deborah Ellis.

Ellis said attorneys in non-death penalty states were recruited to assist Ford beginning in the 1980s. She said she began working on it “furiously” in 1990 filing numerous appeal motions, meeting with Ford several times, and putting in thousands of volunteers hours. She said without her work and others from Minnesota, Ford likely would have been put to death.

Former Congressman Morris Udahl frequently said, “God give me the gift to make my words gentle and tender because tomorrow I might have to eat them.”

It is an adage that can be useful for all judges when writing opinions or orders. Some of us are better than others at following Congressman Udahl’s advice — and even the best of us have bad days, as reported by Alison Frankel:  “Cranky Posner opinion mocks brief, suggests sending lawyer to jail.”

Henry T. Greely and David H. Kaye (Stanford Law School and Penn State Law) have posted A Brief of Genetics, Genomics and Forensic Science Researchers in Maryland v. King  (Jurimetrics, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2013) on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court held that Maryland’s statute requiring DNA samples from individuals arrested for crimes of violence or burglary did not violate the Fourth Amendment. One factor in the Court’s analysis is the extent to which the forensic DNA profiles invade medical privacy. The majority stated that “[t]he argument that the testing at issue in this case reveals any private medical information at all is open to dispute.” With respect to this dispute, eight scientists and two law professors filed a brief in support of neither party seeking to explain what current science tells us about the information conveyed by the thirteen short tandem repeats known as “CODIS markers,” the variations in DNA generally used in the United States for forensic identification. This publication consists of the core of the brief along with a foreword about the continuing legal significance of the issue.