Memorial Day

We remember.

In Minnesota, you waive your right to counsel when you beat up the one you have.

"Do you forfeit your right to counsel when you beat up the lawyer you have?" The Minnesota Court of Appeals has answered that burning question in the affirmative.

William Lehman was on trial for multiple felony assault counts, and a public defender was appointed to represent him. After the prosecution rested, Lehman himself rose to ask for a mistrial (denied) and that a different attorney be appointed to represent him (also denied). Lehman's method of asking the court to reconsider its rulings was by "wrapping his arm around [counsel's] neck and punching him repeatedly in the face."

As you might expect, the court recessed (apparently in part to clean up quite a bit of defense counsel's blood). When court reconvened, the jury was instructed to disregard the facts that defense counsel was no longer present, Lehman was now dressed in "jail clothes," and that his arms and legs were shackled.

Maybe it will avert a future beating or two if I mention here that this strategy doesn't work whether it's your lawyer or a juror that you sucker punch. Unsurprisingly, the jury convicted Lehman of all those assault counts.

British judges boldly go 700 years into the (near) future.

British judges have apparently made official what I blogged about here last July and have abandoned England and Wales' 700-year-old tradition of wearing horsehair wigs and other traditional judicial regalia in favor of new standardized robes with changeable collar tabs. The result has been a chorus of mockery from fashion critics and traditionalists, who say the new robes have turned judges into fugitives from a Star Trek episode.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, seen here modeling the new robe, felt the old-style wig and gown look was out of touch with the 21st century and thought it was time to go bare-headed.

Apparently the colored (or coloured) tabs will substitute for the different colored robes that change with both the seasons and the nature of the case and thereby save a lot of money.

So from October, judges hearing civil and family cases in England and Wales will don a new robe designed by Betty Jackson, who also makes "funky British clothes for aspiring funky British girls.''

The Guardian offers this review:

It's not the slicks of colour down the front that are the most problematic - although this colour coding system does have a rather oddly naval smack to it - nor even the truncated collar, which cannot but make the wearer look like an evil pastor.... The slicks of colour down the front and around the cuffs, [make] each judge look like a cutprice Cruella de Vil....

Look at this poor man: instead of appearing imperious, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, now just looks like the man who sells you tickets for the Star Trek Experience at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Ouch!

Over at the Times, Cambridge professor, Sir John Baker writes that he doesn't mind seeing the wigs go but when it comes to abandoning the traditional robes, he offers his two pence thusly:

Their symbolism is greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they are not the invention of imaginative couturiers but a proud inheritance. These are the robes of Coke, of Hale, of Holt, of Mansfield. They have been worn through all the vicissitudes of our history, through the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War, and the Blitz, by the guardians of our system of justice. They are well known everywhere and are still worn in many Commonwealth countries and even in some former Commonwealth countries. The reason for that is obvious to all. No other costume is more closely associated with freedom, judicial independence and fairness.

The remarkable costume modeled by the Lord Chief Justice owes nothing to our traditions of formal dress in this country, and seems to have been inspired by science-fiction cinema. At a time when the law of England faces perhaps the biggest threats in its history, it is severely unsettling to the public to find our judges wanting to look like warlords from outer space.

Double Ouch! (I'm with you Sir John.)

Beam me up Scotty.

Airlines really do treat their customers like [excrement]!

Forget first class, business class and even economy class. Gokhan Mutlu says he found himself relegated to flying "toilet class" on JetBlue recently. Presumably he had to give up his seat every time another passenger felt the call of nature. Mutlu is now suing JetBlue for $2 million over his seat assignment.

I don't know if this really happened or not but the last time I flew a few weeks back, the airline overbooked the fight, was an hour and a half late in leaving due to an unexplained problem and missed my connection as we sat on the parking ramp because we couldn't disembark because no gate was available for 30 minutes. I fly a fair bit and this now seems to be the norm.

The skies are now far from friendly.

Now this is just plain silly!

Apparently Oregon wants people to pay for the privilege of finding out what the law is in that state. It seems that the Beaver State claims copyright protection for the Oregon Revised Statutes (although they are apparently going to give those intellectual property pirates at ThompsonWest a pass).

Let me see if I have this straight. Oregon is taking the legal position that its public laws are not in the public domain?

I can't wait to see how this one plays out. If this catches on, I could try copyrighting my opinions. Of course, they are free now and I'm pretty sure that nobody reads them.

Via Boing Boing.

"Peebling" judges.

Apparently, some Scots are so dissatisfied with the judicial selection process in that corner of the British Isles that they want to bring back the ancient process of "peebling" (throwing stones at) the judges to make them less complacent.

I hope that doesn't catch on here. Sticks and stones WILL break my bones.

From the New Statesman.