Football season is over. The very mediocre super bowl is finished. DOM is besides himself with excitement over who President Biden will choose for the Supreme Court. Pitchers and catchers report soon, and life goes on.
Have you seen some of the federal courtrooms, outfitted with plexiglass barriers? It reminds us of the good old days when one courtroom on the third floor of the Old Gray Lady (REGJB) was known as "the security courtroom" and had a bulletproof barrier between the audience and the rest of the courtroom. We recall the late, great, Judge Phil Knight sitting in that courtroom for years, presiding over the lowest docket because he got into work around 6am and reviewed the calendar, the files, and read all the motions before court started. Trials usually began well before 10 am. Other judges groused that the "blind clerk" favoured Judge Knight and cooked the books by assigning him less cases. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now we have top security at the entrance to the courthouses, stopping people from entering federal court with camera phones and other weapons. But no amount of security can stop a microscopic airborne virus, so we need masks and barriers.
Life goes on.
Phil Knight was a great guy and judge. When he went to civil I tried a case before him. After the jury retired he would send his bailiff to Sally's across the street to pick up drinks for him and the attorneys to enjoy while the jury was out. He was one of a kind for sure....
ReplyDeletePhil Knight was a great judge and an even better lawyer back before the automobile. I think if you look up the phrase "rocket docket" in a law dictionary, his picture is there instead of a written definition. Lawyers who practiced in front of him know what I mean. Yes, he was there at 6 am but in his later years, he was asleep on his couch by 12 and out the door by 3. He was the thinking man's version of Fast Gerry Klein.
ReplyDeletePitchers and catchers locked out so aren't reporting soon
ReplyDeletethis whole palin v NYT case is unbelievable. Rakoff, lib appointee by Clinton, dismisses case. reversed by 2d cir. case goes to jury. rakoff issues directed verdict *during* deliberations by a non-sequestered jury, who predictably hears about the dismissal, returns not liable verdict, consistent with the rakoff dismissal, and promises learning the judge threw out the case had no effect on their deliberations.
ReplyDeleteummmm...this is too much. i say rakoff announced mid-deliberation *hoping and knowing* the jury would hear, rule as he wanted, and of course promise it had no effect...
is there any other explanation? maybe I'm getting too cynical, and one might check to see if rakoff has *ever* on any other occasion directed verdict mid deliberation, but I call BS. cmon people.
I don't think SB was mediocre. I enjoyed the game and the 1/2 time show. Commercials somewhat meh.
ReplyDeleteTwo solid teams each with some good background stories if you like that type of stuff.
But the football was good. And I watched the whole game whereas in recent years when a game is so lopsided that it's not even fun to watch.
@803:
ReplyDeleteOf course there is another explanation - he believed that the plaintiff did not introduce evidence on the elements of the claim and so did the jury. i.e. exactly what he and the jury said.
You are peddling conspiracy; which is to say, theories with no evidence. The fact that he was appointed by Clinton or that he may be "liberal" is not evidence of anything in this particular scenario.
Loved Judge Knight. Always the gentleman. But lest not forget his wonderful staff. Wally, his Baliff and the always kind and helpful JA Joette
ReplyDelete1246
ReplyDeleteof course you are correct that rakoff believed that the case was deficient...and i wholly understand that it why he chose to dismiss (for a second time).
the specific question i had was about timing-- why he would choose to dismiss *mid-deliberation of a non-sequestered jury*, unless his purpose was to hope they would hear and be influenced?
I mean its totally bizarre. he could have dismiss before the jury got it--totally common. he could have dismissed after the verdict came back. also common. but mid-deliberation? totally ass backward. that is the first time I've heard about any judge doing that ever. have you heard that done before?
maybe I'm not as experienced of a lawyer as you. and rakoff is no fool. you never ever ever do something to risk the jury is influenced by an outside source, and you certainly dont take a huge risk of the same *gratuitously.*
Dear Trumpanista;
ReplyDeleteYou say, "this whole palin v NYT case is unbelievable." Really? Read the e-mails. One man put a mistaken sentence in an editorial. (It was an honest mistake. Dirty Sarah did publish an ad encouraging murdering political opponents. The guy who murdered the political opponent did not read the ad. This was proven at trial.) The paper scrutinized the sentence, and had a retraction out by 9:00 the next morning.
When you read the e-mails, it if obvious that the paper tries very hard to publish only true facts. They flipped out because they got a fact wrong. If the culture, the ethos, the purpose of the paper is to only print true facts, then there can be no actual malice.
The Judge saw that there was an entire lack of one essential element, so did the jury.
The system worked. That's entirely believable.
K