CrimProf Blog

Bar Journals Censoring Criticism of State Judges

The issue is viewpoint discrimination in state bar journals, but that’s facts without any of the flavor.  Here’s the story –

This past August—meaning in August of 2024—my research dean sent out an invitation to write “a short piece … for the Oklahoma Bar Journal’s April 2025 issue on Constitutional Law.”  I can’t claim to being particularly involved in my state bar; indeed, while I’ve long been a member of the bar in Texas, and then in my later home state of Pennyslvania (now inactive), I never took the time (and money) to be licensed in Oklahoma.  When I first moved to the state in 2011, I did make a few attempts to get involved in local matters—for example, trying to improve the Oklahoma system of civil forfeiture, and then its regulation of drone flight—but I can’t say I found the work sufficiently effective to be personally worthwhile, and so I focused my work elsewhere.

Until July of 2024, that is, when I turned over a new leaf and became a card-carrying member of the Oklahoma state bar.  And I accepted an invitation to serve on the Committee appointed by our relevant high court (more on this in just a bit) to draft uniform jury instructions.  It’s ever time to try and do a little good in one’s local world, I suppose … and here I went!

So, when I received that August invitation to write for the Oklahoma Bar Journal?  You got it.  The ‘new me’ bit.  “I could write something about how Oklahoma lags behind in independent interpretation of its state constitution,” I explained to the Oklahoma Bar Journal rep who was the source of my dean’s invitation, “particularly in regard to protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  It’s a topic about which I’ve written over the decades, and which I’m currently in the midst of reprising for NYU’s Brennan Center.”  Which is, naturally enough, true—one of my very first law review articles, published in 2006, was a fifty-state survey regarding state constitutional interpretation of Fourth Amendment analogs, and I’ve been happy to recently contribute to the Brennan Center’s State Court Report.

The newly Oklahoma-inclined me was chuffed to received kind replies.  From my associate dean—simply because she is one the world’s nicest people—there was this: “You are amazing.  Thank you.  Thank you.”  I of course realized then—as I realize now—that I am not amazing.  Still, it’s nice to hear otherwise from kind people.  From the Bar Journal was this: “What a fascinating subject!  And what a great line: ‘Once a monolith is fractured, more cracks are likely to follow.’  [Kindly quoting a bit I wrote for the Brennan Center.]  I think this would make an excellent topic for the Constitutional Law issue.  Thank you so much for your interest and willingness to contribute. … I look forward to working with you!”

That individual might not generally be as wonderful as my then-associate dean—few are—but, hey, newly-Oklahoma-inclined me appreciated her enthusiasm all the same.

And so I went to work.  And—wonderful plus!—the topic was more interesting than expected.  Oklahoma is one of only two states bifurcating its high courts along the civil/criminal line, and, when it comes to state constitutional search and seizure … Oklahoma’s two high courts disagree!  The Oklahoma Supreme Court interprets the state Fourth Amendment analog to give greater rights than the federal counterpart.  But the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals interprets the state provision in lockstep with the federal.  Bizarre.  So, I completed and turned in my draft:

Attached should be the draft of my article.  It’s quite an interesting area given the split between the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

I presume there is an editing process in which I get a redline?  Perhaps like you, I am very jealous of my writing, so I will want to review and ponder all changes—including because sometimes if change is beneficial a third construction is ideal.

Thanks for reaching out to the law school; I enjoyed writing this and appreciate the opportunity to have a small role in what is happening (or could happen) in Oklahoma.

Self-evidently, the newly-Oklahoma-inclined me remained pretty pleased about these developments.

I was less pleased, however, when the response was this:

The article will next be submitted to the Board of Editors of the bar journal for review and a vote.  At our next meeting (early January), the Board will either accept, reject, or accept subject to requested changes.

Now, sure, perhaps my ego is too large … but to have an invited contribution rejected by the state bar journal?!  Yikes.  That would be a career low.

Yet it happened.  And while that would be of interest only to me (and maybe my mom would feel a bit bad for me as well … well, no, she really wouldn’t), the reason should be a stunner for nearly everyone:

The board thought the article was interesting and of course well-written.  There was concern, however, about the tone/approach towards the Court of Criminal Appeals.  One of our editors will be contacting you shortly to discuss proposed revisions.

Wtf?!  My “tone/approach towards the Court”?!  Now, some people do say some awful stuff about courts and judges, and so one might understandably assume I must have done the same.  But far from it.  I’ll let the essay speak for itself in that regard.  No, the reason was more sinister—and, since this is a policy of Oklahoma’s mandatory bar/the Oklahoma Supreme Court—the reason strikes me as unconstitutional.  Here’s the follow-up from the Oklahoma Bar Journal when I complained and made clear that they could not print a censored version of my work:

The Oklahoma Bar Journal has a policy of not printing articles directly critical of the Courts in our state.  While the Board had hoped that you would be willing to eliminate those portions that were critical of the Court of Criminal Appeals so that the lawyers in the state could benefit from the article, we respect your choice.

Holy you-know-what, Batman!  A policy of “not printing articles directly critical of the Courts in our state”?!  And remember—this was for an issue dedicated to constitutional law!  Such an editorial policy is therefore as richly ironic as it is terrible idea.  Applied here, it seems explicit viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.  (We have a mandatory state bar association in Oklahoma, some recent litigation regarding which can be found here.)  And, again, my essay isn’t directly critical of state courts, making the application of the policy doubly strange.  Besides, what’s the policy even mean?  As a friend asked, “Can one not write about an appellate reversal, because that is ‘directly critical’ of the judge below?”  So, lots of issues—but viewpoint discrimination is certainly the most significant.

All of which makes me curious … do other state bar journals similarly engage in viewpoint censorship?  I hope not, but I’d love to learn.  How uniquely poor are these Oklahoma powers-that-be?

Plunging into Vacant Orifices in Vacant Sex Shop

(Australia). An Aussie man has been arrested for repeatedly breaking and entering into an adult shop to have sex with a blow up doll. Her name is Jungle Jane and he didn't even stay to cuddle her (or so it appears). Instead, he abandoned her in an alley behind the store where his DNA was collected from the doll. Story here. UPDATE: Jungle Jane didn't make any incriminating statements against the suspect but she reportedly had a shocked look on her face.

Study Links Violent Video Games, Hostility

Children and teenagers who play violent video games show increased physical aggression months afterward, according to new research that adds another layer of evidence to the continuing debate over the video-game habits of the youngest generation.

The research, published today in the journal Pediatrics, brings together three longitudinal studies, one from the United States and two from Japan, examining the content of games, how often they are played and aggressive behaviors later in a school year.

Continue reading

"Watch the Detectives" on A&E

There are a million stories in the naked city - and NYPD detectives are finally getting a chance to tell their favorites.

Some 50 retired sleuths will give voice to their oddest or most haunting cases in an 11-week series, "Watching the Detectives," that debuts Sunday night at 9 p.m. on A&E's Biography channel.

"We asked them to tell their best bar stories. The characters in their cases are straight out of central casting," said Executive Producer Kevin Kaufman.

Continue reading

College presidents seek debate on lower drinking age; critics say highway deaths would rise

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Continue reading

ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW seeks outstanding entry-level and lateral candidates

ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW seeks outstanding entry-level and lateral candidates for tenure-track positions to begin in the 2009 academic year, with specific opportunities available in Administrative Law, Bankruptcy, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Professional Responsibility.   The

School

of

Law

also seeks candidates for Director of its new Community Economic Development Clinic; depending upon candidates’ availability, this position may be filled prior to the 2009 academic year.  Entry-level candidates must have excellent academic records and demonstrate a strong commitment to scholarship.  Lateral candidates must be accomplished scholars and strong classroom teachers.  The

School

of

Law

is part of

St. John’s

University

, a Catholic, Vincentian, and metropolitan institution committed to academic excellence.  As an Equal Opportunity Employer,

St. John’s

encourages applications from women and minorities.  Applicants should submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, writing sample, the names of three references, and teaching evaluations (if available). Contact: Professor Mark L. Movsesian, St. John’s University School of Law, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens NY 11439; e-mail responses should go to [email protected]. 

Continue reading

There's No Party Like Ex Parte

[From Ian Weinstein] Several weeks ago I blogged about this very moving account of the huge and badly conceived immigration raid at the Iowa meatpacking plant, written by Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, an interpreter who was called to service as folks were processed through the system.  Now the New York Times reports these facts, from which I infer that the court was in cahoots with the prosecutor. It seems the Government scripted all the court apperances in advance, down to advice from the bench and plea allocutions.  The Court had prior knowledge and made generous use of the materials provided.

Continue reading

Reality TV's new target: Flipped-verdict dramas

Reality television, which has probed virtually every aspect of American life, is looking to enter a gritty part of the criminal justice system: the campaign to exonerate the innocent.

GRB Entertainment, whose clients include National Geographic and the Discovery Channel, has discussed a proposal with the California Innocence Project, GRB Executive Vice President Michael Branton says.

A separate, undisclosed company is negotiating with the Innocence Project of Texas, says Jeff Blackburn, the Texas project's chief counsel.

Continue reading

Punk Out for Public Interest

Tennessee director of clinical programs Ben Barton raised $200 for summer public interest fellowships by auctioning off the right to shave his head into a mohawk.   Yikes, makes my karaoke offer seem like chicken-shit now (although it usually raises a couple hundred).

Profs Shave Heads For Public Interest Law

Some law profs at Western New England shaved their heads at school to raise money for students working in public interest jobs this summer.   Photos here.  [Mark Godsey]

Man Gets 15 Years for Threat Letters

From washingtonpost.com: For two decades, Scott L. Rendelman has sent letters threatening judges, prosecutors, presidents and others with graphic violence. Yesterday, as he was sentenced in federal court in Greenbelt, Rendelman told U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus that he'd stop -- as long as Titus gave him probation instead of prison time.

Titus was not persuaded.

"You simply cannot do this to a judge and a prosecutor, much less the president of the United States," and expect probation, Titus said.

Continue reading

Taiwanese Prosecutors-in-Training Come to Cornell Law School

For the first time, Cornell Law School will formally host two scholars from Taiwan, linking the Law School to a nation undergoing groundbreaking judicial changes. “The legal system in Taiwan at this moment is at a fascinating crossroads," said Annelise Riles, director of Cornell’s Clarke Program in East Asian Law and Culture. “Their Supreme Court has issued a number of very interesting rulings on matters of constitutional rights and election law. The judiciary is increasingly recognized for its independence. And most relevant to this exchange, there have been important procedural reforms regarding the rights of the accused in the criminal justice system. These legal reforms are being eyed as a model throughout Asia.”

The scholars are prosecutors-in-training at the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice’s Judicial and Prosecutorial Training Institute, a highly prestigious institution that prepares those who have passed Taiwan’s grueling bar examination for careers as judges or prosecutors. They will spend one academic year at Cornell Law beginning next fall. During their stay, they will conduct legal research, present lectures, take courses, and participate in scholarly workshops with faculty and students. The program will continue for two years and then will be evaluated for possible renewal. It is the first time Cornell Law School has instituted a formal international program for prosecutors to study at the university.

Cornell is one of four American universities—including Yale, Harvard and New York University as well as at institutions in London and Tokyo—at which prosecutors-in-training will study, thanks to an agreement with Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice. Larry S. Bush, executive director of Cornell's Clarke Center for International and Comparative Legal Studies, said the visiting prosecutors will provide several benefits for the Law School. "We will have an institutional tie with the Ministry of Justice in Taiwan, which is the highest level in their law enforcement system. It will bring professional prosecutors from Taiwan to the Law School, where they can interact with both students and faculty. It simply opens a door to the legal community in Taiwan for us." [Mark Godsey]

Cannot Throw a Rock Without Hitting an Escaped Convict

From NYTimes.com: A Helena, Montana Prerelease Center employee, hearing something rustling in the bushes, threw a rock at a shrub.

To his surprise, he heard someone say ''Hey, you hit me in the head,'' said Helena Police Cpl. Bill Tompkins.

The rock had hit a 22-year-old escaped convict the center was searching for.

The convict was being transferred by bus from a prison in Seattle to one in Great Falls when he got off at the wrong stop in Helena on Friday, Tompkins said. It wasn't clear if the man meant to get off the bus in Helena or if it was a mix-up, Tompkins said.

The convict contacted the Helena Prerelease Center, which brought him from the bus stop to the center, Tompkins said.

Hours later, center employees noticed the convict was missing and alerted police, Tompkins said. They later called back saying to the convict was hiding in bushes outside the center.

Police found the man hiding behind some barrels, and took him into custody for probation violation, Tompkins said. Rest of Article [Mark Godsey]

FBI Denies Taking David Copperfield's Millions

From seattletimes.com:

The FBI is denying reports that it took millions in cash during a search last week of a Las Vegas warehouse belonging to illusionist David Copperfield.

A Las Vegas television station reported that agents seized $2 million in cash from a safe in Copperfield's warehouse. That report was picked up by other media nationally, including The Seattle Times.

Federal law-enforcement sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said that Copperfield, 51, is under investigation of possible sexual misconduct with a Seattle woman while in the Bahamas.

Officially, the FBI has been tight-lipped about the investigation and has not said Copperfield is the target, although high-ranking officials have confirmed that fact anonymously.

National entertainment media and others have repeated the story about the seizure of money, and FBI officials are now concerned the publicity could damage their investigation and is unfair to Copperfield, who has not been charged with a crime. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]

Man Sentenced to 3 Months' Probation for 17th Degree Murder

Read it at The Onion.com

Law and Order SVU Features USC Law Article on Criminal Responsibility

Fans of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” saw a familiar University of Southern California Law publication on the TV show’s season premier episode.

The episode – about a woman with dissociative identity disorder whom detectives suspect may have conspired with her sister to kill their parents – featured the spring 2001 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, titled “Symposium on Multiple Personality Disorder and Criminal Responsibility.” The issue featured articles by USC Law’s Elyn Saks, associate dean and the Orrin B. Evans Professor of Law, Psychology, and Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences.

Detectives Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler, the show’s lead characters, cite articles from the journal that discuss the legal responsibility of persons with multiple personalities and the legal traction that may be established. At one point, Stabler also holds up the journal to an inmate to ask if she has seen it before. [Mark Godsey]

Man Who Attempted to Feed Daughter to Alligators is Paroled

From cnn.com: A man who had been released from prison early for good behavior was convicted Tuesday of trying to kill a young mother and leaving her 5-year-old daughter to be eaten alive by alligators in the Everglades.

Harrel Franklin Braddy had befriended Shandelle Maycock and her daughter Quatisha. Maycock testified that Braddy went to her home in November 1998 and grew enraged when she asked him to leave.

He choked Maycock until she was unconscious and then forced her and Quatisha into his car, the woman testified. At one point, Maycock gained consciousness, grabbed the child and jumped out of the moving vehicle.

Braddy stopped, choked the woman again and put her in the trunk, she testified. Maycock never saw her daughter again. Prosecutors said Braddy then drove to a section of Interstate 75 in the Everglades known as Alligator Alley and dropped Quatisha in the water beside the road.

She was alive when alligators bit her on the head and stomach, a medical examiner said.

Authorities found the girl's body two days later, her left arm missing and her skull crushed, prosecutors said. Maycock woke up bleeding and disoriented in a cane field miles from her Miami-Dade County home.

Braddy had served 13 years of a 30-year prison sentence for attempted murder before being released early for good behavior. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]

Ruling: You Must Actually Have Been Spyed on to Sue

From NPR.com: A federal appeals court has ruled that civil liberties groups have no standing to challenge President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program in court.

The court ruled that only people who can demonstrate that they've been spied on have the right to sue. The records of who's been wiretapped are top secret, so it's not likely that anyone would ever be able to demonstrate that he or she had been a target of the program. Listen. . . [Mark Godsey]

Paying the Price for Stealing Someone's Heart

From latimes.com: Stealing someone's heart can cost you. Just ask German Blinov.

A jury has ordered Blinov to shell out $4,802 after he was sued by a husband from a Chicago suburb for stealing the affections of the man's wife.

Arthur Friedman used a little-known state law to mount the legal attack against Blinov. The alienation-of-affection law lets spouses seek damages for the loss of love. Only a handful of states still have such a law.

But Natalie Friedman, the woman at the center of it all, says her husband asked her to have sex with other women and men — including Blinov — to spice up their relationship. Natalie Friedman supposedly began having feelings for Blinov, prompting her husband to file the lawsuit.

"This guy ruined my life — he backstabbed me," Arthur Friedman said. "What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across." Blinov does not deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married. But he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it.

"German was not a pirate of her affections," said Blinov's lawyer, Enrico Mirabelli. "Her affections were already adrift." Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]

Who Needs Cell Phones When You Can Use the Toilet?

From post-gazette.com:  Inventive inmates at facilities around the country speak jail cell-to-jail cell using their commodes, a phenomenon known to wardens, correctional officers and attorneys as "toilet talk."

Some toilet talk is mundane. A pair of inmates might call out chess moves. Some prisoners have used the sewage pipes as a conduit to pick up prisoners of the opposite sex. And in at least two cases, inmates have had commode conversations about criminal matters that were used as testimony or evidence in court.

"Inmates will strike up a conversation about anything," said the warden, who can hear muffled chatter through the water in his office's commode all the time. "They have 24/7 to think of ways to beat the system."

Mr. Rustin said he does not consider toilet chat a significant security risk and he could not imagine sticking his head in the commode to overhear what are mostly throwaway conversations.

But the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia thought differently and got the FBI to wiretap the toilets at the city's downtown Federal Detention Facility to track members of a drug trafficking operation. Richard Manieri, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office, said federal prosecutors used toilet conversations to secure hefty sentences against co-defendants Kaboni Savage and Dawud Bey. Federal agents tapped the prison plumbing system and got a recording of Mr. Bey threatening to kill witnesses who might testify against prisoners charged for their involvement in the drug network.

Communication through toilets and air vents is fairly common in jails and prisons, according to several correctional officials surveyed.

It's been reported to occur daily at the high-rise, maximum-security Multnomah County Detention Center in Oregon and inmates in California's San Quentin State Prison, in California, used decades ago it to pass the time in solitary confinement. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]