What Is Happening In Minneapolis?

What is happening in Minneapolis is not easy to explain. There is of course the police. The Marshall Project reported

“Chronicle of a disaster foretold. Long before George Floyd died in police custody this week after a violent arrest, police officials in Minneapolis were warned that they needed to implement systemic policing reforms, including changes to their use-of-force standards. Some of these reforms were put into place over the past five years, but many others were not. One of the biggest lapses, critics say, centers around the failure of police officials to discipline line officers who engaged in excessive force and other misconduct. TMP’s Jamiles Lartey and Simone Weichselbaum have our story. THE MARSHALL PROJECT More: Why the Minneapolis police offered such a militarized response to the protests. THE WASHINGTON POST

But there is more than just how the police acted and reacted. The truth is the leaders of the justice system, myself included, knew that there were problems. There was a hurricane coming which we were not prepared for.

Perhaps the reason we are so good about confronting natural disasters is they come upon us so quickly, and they are so ferocious and so graphic.

Our nation has seen the horror that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma caused. What happened was not simply the loss of life, but the ravaging and destruction of communities that at best will take years to rebuild. There is no silver lining in this tragedy. Yes, we came together. Yes, the traditionally broken Congress acted swiftly to fund a response, but if you are a victim it will take a long time to heal. Or, is there a silver lining?

Perhaps we learned that if we act in concert, even the most generational catastrophes can be overcome. Swiftly, every living U.S. president joined to plead for donations and support for the victims. People of faith opened their hearts, and in a nation divided by partisanship to the extreme, there was little of it. People are sending money to charities. They are, occasionally, in private crying about the destruction. Everyone knows this hurt.

Manmade disaster

Hurricanes produce a natural tragedy. This recent experience shows we are a nation resilient and prepared to confront the worst. But, there is a third hurricane we cannot ignore. This one is not a natural disaster. The disaster is the manmade racial division and bigotry that exists in our country. If we do not address this category 5 hurricane, we are doomed to a fate equal to the destruction wrought by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Good parents worry about their children. Worry is one of the joys of being a parent. But there are too many African-American parents of sons who worry about what may happen to them as young black men. Will they be stopped by the police? Will something get out of hand? The hurricane in those African-American parents’ lives is a lifetime of confronting bigotry. How do you explain the Ku Klux Klan to a 6-year-old child? If you are from the South, how do you explain to your child who these Confederate soldiers with statues were?

The need to confront racial inequality and bigotry

We are a nation who believes in American exceptionalism. But, for us to achieve that exceptionalism we need to respond to the imperative of confronting the racial inequality and bigotry that has for too long been part of our nation.

The hurricane that is bearing down on our values is every bit as dangerous as Irma and Harvey. There will not be a 24-hour news cycle about racial division and bigotry, but these issues will surely be as destructive as the hurricanes.

Perhaps the reason we are so good about confronting natural disasters is they come upon us so quickly, and they are so ferocious and so graphic. Almost everyone knows denial is not a safe shelter. Maybe more of us need to be shaken by pictures of the bewildered faces of small children who cannot understand the brutal part of our nation’s racial history. Maybe more of us need to hear the agony of mothers’ fear for the fate of their African-American sons. There are people who are in some sense worn out about the struggle for equality. Like the people who do not respond to “Evacuate Now!,” there are too many people in denial and willing to risk their lives and others’ just to ride out the storm.

Parable of two wolves

Our nation has struggled and been divided about racial inequality and bigotry. There is a parable of a grandfather teaching his grandson about life:

“A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”

The grandfather simply replied, “The one you feed.”

A lot of people will contribute money to the victims of the hurricanes. It is the right thing to do, particularly when it is a charitable gift to victims they will never meet. Those gifts are from the good wolf in each of us who believes in generosity and compassion. That same wolf in each of us that must rise up and do something which contributes to the dramatic change this nation must make in how we see all of our neighbors.

Change like this starts within the soul. Want to know what implicit biases you have? Take the Harvard Implicit Bias test. If you are a parent or grandparent, have a conversation with a child about the wolves within each of us. And the next time you hear someone say they can ride out the storm of injustice, tell them how dangerous that is.

Who Would Have Thought To Consult With The Dictionary

Eleventh Circuit Finds Judges Can Take Judicial Notice of Dictionary Definitions

By Evidence ProfBlogger

Federal Rule of Evidence 201  covers judicial notice, and subsections (a) and (b) state the following:

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

So, can a judge take judicial notice of dictionary definitions? That was the question addressed by the Eleventh Circuit in its recent opinion in Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 2020 WL 2315763 (11th Cir. 2020).

In Robinson, after the Robinsons moved into their home, they discovered an infestation of the highly venomous brown recluse spider. Following an attempt to eradicate the infestation, the Robinsons obtained a homeowners policy from Liberty Mutual. That policy “insure[d] against risk of direct loss to property…only if that loss is a physical loss to property.” But the policy excluded from coverage any loss “[c]aused by… [b]irds, vermin, rodents, or insects.” Liberty Mutual cited that exclusion in its letter denying coverage for a claim the Robinsons filed for damage to their home after further attempts to eradicate the infestation failed.

After the Robinsons sued Liberty Mutual for breach of contract, the district court dismissed their complaint, finding that brown recluse spiders are both insects and vermin, with the Eleventh Circuit later affirming. Both courts took judicial notice of dictionary definitions, noting, inter aliathat

All dictionaries we have reviewed, both modern and old, list spiders as an example of an “insect.” See, e.g.Insect, Oxford English Dictionary Online (last visited May 9, 2020), https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/96686Insect (in American English), Collins Dictionary Online (last visited May 9, 2020), https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/insectInsectMerriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2007); InsectWebster’s Third New International Dictionary(1993); InsectWebster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1961); InsectWebster’s New International Dictionary (1st ed. 1920); and

Brown recluse spiders are also “vermin” under the ordinary meaning of that term. Vermin include “small common harmful or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control.” VerminMerriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionarysupra. The term refers to “noxious or objectionable” creatures and includes “creeping or wingless insects (and other minute animals) of a loathsome or offensive appearance or character, esp. those which infest.” Vermin, Oxford English Dictionary Online (last visited May 9, 2020), https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/222579see also Vermin, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Online (last visited May 9, 2020), https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=verminVerminWebster’s Third New International Dictionarysupra.

The Eleventh Circuit reject[ed] the Robinsons’ argument that the district court could not take “judicial notice” of dictionary definitions without first affording them a hearing. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Rule 201 permits courts to take notice of “an adjudicative fact” that is “generally known” and “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” so long as it affords the parties an opportunity to be heard on the propriety of doing so if requested. Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)-(b), (e). But Rule 201 “governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). “[A]djudicative facts are those developed in a particular case,” while “[l]egislative facts are established truths, facts or pronouncements that do not change from case to case but apply universally.” W. Ala. Women’s Ctr. v. Williamson, 900 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) advisory committee’s note to 1972 proposed rule (“Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case.”). Dictionary definitions establish legislative facts when used to answer a question of law, such as how to interpret contractual terms. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) advisory committee’s note to 1972 proposed rule (“Legislative facts … are those which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process … in the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court….”) (emphasis added).

Jury Trials At Your Local Gym?

Is Anywhere Safe for a Jury Trial During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Try a School Gym,” by WSJ’s Rebecca Davis O’Brien:

“In the remote Kootenai Valley of northwestern Montana, the Libby Middle High School gymnasium has always been the main venue for youth sports and awards ceremonies. Beginning next month, it will become a courtroom. …

“State courts handle about 106,000 trials each yeartens of thousands of which have already been delayed because of the coronavirus shutdowns, said Paula Hannaford-Agor, director of the center for jury studies at the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization now leading Covid-19 response groups of judges and court administrators from around the country. … The result will be a patchwork of cautious improvisations, reflecting distinct court rules, local public-health guidance and the varying tolls Covid-19 has taken state to state. The proceedings — whether in gymnasiums or in reconfigured courtrooms or online — will bear little resemblance to the formal trials familiar to most Americans.”

Jury Trials By Video

Officials in a Texas county have begun what is thought to be the first jury trial to be held completely by video conference as the coronavirus pandemic continues to force Americans to avoid gathering in public.

Reuters reported that jury selection began last Monday over video conference for a summary jury trial in the Collin County District Court, in which insurance giant State Farm is accused of not paying out a claim to cover property damage caused by a storm in 2017.

The trial was originally set to be held in March, but like many around the country was delayed due to the pandemic, which has effectively prohibited juries from gathering. One Texas Supreme Court justice told the news service that the pandemic has vexed legal experts around the country.

“You can’t drag people down to the courthouse and make them sit together for days at a time,” Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said. “It’s just too dangerous.”

“It’s just imponderable,” he added. “There are hundreds of people over the country studying how do we get back to jury trials.”

Is Criminal Justice Reform A Place For Bi-Partisanship?

Over the past decade, the longstanding challenge of criminal-justice reform has emerged into the spotlight with a new twist: Republicans and Democrats alike are on board. But if both parties want to lower the incarceration rate, why are our jail and prison populations still so large? The latest series from POLITICO Magazine works to answer this important question and take a deeper look into what it will take to make progress in the policy and politics of justice reform. READ THE FULL ISSUE.

Increasing Number of State Supreme Courts Address Unconscious Racial Bias in Jury Selection

From the Brennan Center:

An increasing number of state high courts are working to mitigate the impact of implicit racial bias in jury selection, according to The Marshall Project.
In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that race discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional in Batson v. Kentucky, and since then, prosecutors have been required to provide a “race neutral” reason for striking prospective jurors. Despite Batson, the discriminatory use of preemptive strikes has continued across the country because courts have been willing to accept almost any reason from prosecutors as race neutral, even if the result is an all-white jury.
Over the past two years, however, state supreme courts in WashingtonConnecticut, and California have taken steps beyond Batson to protect against race-based jury selection. Earlier this month, North Carolina became the latest state to strengthen protections against jury selection bias, with the state’s high court issuing a decision that trial judges are required to provide more scrutiny for allegations of racial discrimination in jury selection.

Setting Deadlines As a Case Management Strategy

There are those who, in a quest to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, set plea cut off dates. Rarely does anyone say in family court cases, “if you do not settle your case before the trial date I am going to deny your divorce and mandate you remain married to your spouse.”

Michael D. Cicchini has posted Under the Gun: Plea Bargains and the Arbitrary Deadline (93 Temple Law Review __ (2021 Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Before a prosecutor and defendant may settle their criminal case by plea bargain, they must first obtain the trial judge’s approval. The judge is allowed to reject a plea bargain if, in the exercise of sound discretion, the judge finds it is not in the public interest. However, some judges will also reject plea bargains simply because the parties reached their agreement after the court’s arbitrary plea deadline expired. At first glance, setting a plea deadline appears to be a routine administrative matter of little significance. However, plea deadlines can implicate important constitutional principles and often have a tremendous negative impact on the parties.

Courts justify their imposition of plea deadlines under the theory of judicial economy. But in reality, arbitrary deadlines are highly inefficient and create several additional problems: they often lead to rushed, unjust plea bargains; they obstruct the defendant from entering his or her plea knowingly and intelligently; they are the antithesis of the case-by-case discretion the judge is obligated to exercise before rejecting a plea; and they violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, infringing upon the prosecutor’s discretion to resolve the state’s cases when and how the prosecutor deems appropriate.

In light of these and other problems, this Article advocates for simple legal reform: the abolition of arbitrary plea deadlines or, in the alternative, severe constraints on the trial judge’s power to impose them. But the legal system is often resistant to change. Therefore, this Article makes a more immediate and useful contribution: it provides a strategy for the parties to obtain the judge’s approval of their plea deal, even when that plea deal is reached after the court’s arbitrary deadline has expired.

How Should Courts Approach Their Coronavirus Budget Crisis?

There are no easy answers. Courts are instituting hiring freezes and taking other similar actions. But perhaps the Federal Courts approach is correct, even if unlikely to be successful at a state level. Ask for more money now.

Federal Judiciary Requests Additional $36.6 Million from Congress for Covid-19 Response

The federal judiciary has requested additional funding and legislative changes from Congress to help federal courts respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. Previously, the judiciary was awarded $7.5 million in relief funding via the CARES Act, the $2 trillion relief package signed by the President in late March.


On April 28, the judiciary sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations requesting an additional $36.6 million in funding for “emergent needs such as enhanced cleaning of court facilities, health screening at courthouse entrances, information technology hardware and infrastructure costs associated with expanded telework and videoconferencing,” among other costs for probation and pretrial services and costs related to security.


The judiciary also urged Congress to implement 17 legislative changes, including proposals intended to protect incarcerated people and criminal defendants, address administrative court matters after the pandemic, and alleviate certain statutorily imposed deadlines in bankruptcy cases. “The underlying objective behind each proposal is to ensure that the federal [j]udiciary continues to meet its constitutional mandate while protecting the health and safety of court personnel, litigants, and the public,” the judiciary wrote.

Implicit Bias & Jury Selection

From the Marshall Project:

       Toward accountability for implicit racial bias in jury selection. What happens when a prosecutor during jury selection rejects a person of color for a dubious reason that isn’t explicitly based on race? A handful of state judges across the country have recently signaled they are open to exploring how unconscious bias may affect jury selection and what ought to be done about it. In Washington, trial judges now must consider “implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination.” In California and Connecticut, judicial task forces are studying the matter. And a ruling earlier this month in North Carolina, a state with a long history of racial discrimination in jury selection, offers some hope for reform. TMP’s Beth Schwartzapfel has our story.