Lack of minority representation in jury pool gets new trial for convicted murderer

A Hispanic man convicted of second-degree murder in 2001 deserves a new trial because a computer glitch left minorities underrepresented in his jury pool, a federal appeals panel said Friday, Sept. 4.

Antonio Garcia-Dorantes, 37, was convicted in the Oct. 22, 2000, stabbing death of Jose Delores Gomez and wounding of Manual Garcia.

Article here (via mlive). 

Defendant gets new trial at Federal appeals level after judge told him to "shut up."

A federal judge who criticized a defense lawyer’s questioning as “flimflam” and told him to shut up created the appearance of bias during a jury trial, a federal appeals court has ruled.


U.S. District Judge John O’Meara, criticized a defense lawyer’s questioning as “flimflam” and told him to shut up created the appearance of bias during a jury trial, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a new trial to the defendant, saying the trial judge “belittled” the defense lawyer, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The judge also erred when he answered a juror’s question about reasonable doubt with an improvised instruction, the court said.

The story identifies the judge as U.S. District Judge John O’Meara of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The judge made several “sua sponte” statements in front of jurors criticizing lawyer Marvin Barnett, who was defending Reginald Daniels on gun crimes charges, the appeals court said in the June 8 unpublished opinion (PDF). The appeals court cited several instances:

• During closing arguments, O’Meara ordered Barnett to “shut up.” O’Meara also criticized the defense theory that police have reason to lie as “over the top … mendacity.” ( . . . )

Article here (via aba journal).

Length: will it make a difference? Federal Appeals briefs to be reduced in length

My thinking is that there is more cutting that could be done. A brief should get its point across in the first three paragraphs, and then explain its points, and then it should summarize.

If you cut to the chase, it makes a judge's job easier, and then he or she is more likely to agree with your argument. 

A proposal to cut the length limit for main federal appeals briefs by 1,500 words has generated a lot of comments.

Most commenters oppose cutting the cap from 14,000 to 12,500 words, report the National Law Journal and University of Chicago law professor Will Baude, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy. Among those taking a stand are appellate practitioners, judges, bar associations and advocacy groups.

Article here (via ABA journal). 

Judge rules against Michigan retailer over critical online review

Mr. and Mrs. Palmer posted an online review at RipoffReport . com when the product Mr. Palmer ordered for his wife never arrived. But then they were threatened by the Michigan manufacturer.

 From the Article:

Michigan-based KlearGear.com told the Palmers in 2012 that they had 72 hours to remove the negative review or pay $3,500 because they violated a “non-disparagement clause” in its terms of use with customers, the lawsuit said.

The couple refused, saying the clause was not in effect when the items were purchased and the terms violated the First Amendment. They also note RipoffReport.com has a policy of not removing posted reviews.

 The retailer then reported the Palmers to a credit reporting agency for their "failure to pay" which resulted in credit difficulties for the couple.

Judge Benson, in his order, said the retailer is liable to the Palmers for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.