Mid-Week Legal News

New York Court Of Appeals

Gov. Hochul went the extra mile in a losing battle to replace a conservative chief judge of the state's highest court with a questionable moderate.  

She got a clue and went with a great choice (on the court already) and a pretty good one (state solicitor general, some good/not good appellate work).  They were both confirmed.  

Let's see how things go including regarding a recent challenge of the redistricting plan from last year.  

Jury Duty

I have been on two juries (a run-of-the-mill drug sale/mixed verdict and an incest case/hung after sequestration), both back in the 1990s.  I was called maybe two other times, once to federal service. No juries there. After a long time, I was called again, and it looked like I was going to be on a jury.

The $40 isn't great but still would have liked it, along with the chance to be on a jury.  (Two options not picked noted they were working on their own but even without additional pay would deem it their civic duty.  The judge had his picture taken with them.  They appeared to be immigrants.)  

The case was a criminal one that I believe took place in 2019.  So, not sure why it took until the sitting of a jury to settle somehow.  But, it was,  so no jury service for me.  (Much like the Dominion/Fox jury! Ha ha! Not "fine" btw -- strawman on the "fun" bit, and I think it will matter enough.)

I recall it has been a while, in the past, they did provide money for carfare. Not sure why the Bronx cannot simply provide MetroCards. Isn't it public transportation?  The other thing I would say is that it is a bad idea to ask sensitive questions about crimes you and your family were involved in open court.  

I find it hard to believe only about half of the jury had any crimes for/against their whole family.  This is NYC.  

Supreme Court

There was an order day on Monday and two opinion days on Tuesday (one) and Wednesday (three).  The opinions were all relatively low temperature, including a no-drama NY/NJ dispute and a unanimous bankruptcy case.  Kavanaugh had two opinions, one a 6-3 limited win for justice that merely allowed a DNA claim in a capital case to be brought.  

[ETA: SCOTUSBlog starting to talk about the opinions. As noted here, the Kavanaugh DNA opinion is very short, perhaps to highlight how it doesn't do much.  The dissents go into more detail to swat away the claims with Thomas and Alito/Gorsuch involved.  Gorsuch's occasion anti-government sentiments have not shown up as much in death penalty cases.]

The order list had no separate opinions and what seems to be a not too exciting grant.  

I didn't catch any of it (must have activated the live audio link on its website too soon -- when I went to listen to the oral argument, I didn't see it), SCOTUS accidentally live-streamed some of today's opinion announcements.  I agree ... not a bad thing.  Jackson (taking part remotely) apparently has a dog (bark). 

Alito also pushed up the deadline of an "administrative stay" that holds up the only somewhat less bad 5CA abortion pill ruling until Friday.  The stay is a limited delay so that justice or the whole Court can consider a pending matter.  It often is of little note though here the stakes are higher. 

Meanwhile, this CREW complaint regarding Thomas is helpful to (1) show what is partially at stake and (2) what theoretically actually can be done about it if the system actually cared.  

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt to temporarily replace Sen. Feinstein on the now evenly split Senate Judiciary Committee.  She needs to resign and the blue slips for district court judges need to end. Come on!