Seems Right to Us

Section 200.160 of Nevada Revised Statues provides that "Homicide is also justifiable when committed . . . [i]n the lawful defense of the slayer. . . ."

Very sensible.

Via Volokh.

"Is this cool, or what?!" The Court is Not Amused

Clear v. Superior Court:

[P]etitioner created a page on the MySpace Web site purportedly in the name of a pastor of a church. Petitioner and his family had left the church about a year before the pastor discovered the Web page. The Web page purports to be written by the pastor and contains statements that he has engaged in homosexual activity and narcotics use. The pastor reported to a detective from the San Bernardino County Sheriff‟s Department that these statements are false. The pastor expressed concern because he is the pastor of a church ruled by a board of trustees and a higher church echelon and such allegations could influence board members to fire him and church members to leave. He said that church members had questioned him about the Web page and some had left, although he had not been fired.

The decision is on the equivalent of a motion to dismiss, which means the case can now go to trial as to whether these actions constitute criminal "false personation":

Section 529 prohibits anyone to falsely personate another in either his private or official capacity and in such assumed character either: “3. Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely personated, he might, in any event, become liable to any suit or prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge, forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the party personating, or to any other person.” (§ 529, subd. 3.)

California apparently no longer retains criminal defamation or libel, although it seems clear that a civil action would lie in this instance.

The more interesting situation is that in which an identity is taken on and used to express things that are objectively true -- but derogatory -- or which constitute opinions. Surely one is allowed to say, "My ex-boyfriend is a cheating [true], lying [true], scumbucket [opinion], who seldom bathes [opinion? true?]." So should one be similarly allowed to claim to be the ex, and announce "I slept around the entire time I was with Mary Ann"? Should we care if the claims are implausible, and the impersonation clumsy and unbelievable? Or should we instead concern ourselves with proof of objective harm? How about subjective harm, such as psychological trauma?

We ourselves never assume that, when on the Interwebs, we're looking at what we seem to be looking at, or that we're talking with whom it's claimed we're talking. If we did otherwise, we'd be dating 300-pound teenage boys sitting at a keyboard in Singapore.

Why Do We Love Alex the K?

Kozinski, C.J., dissenting:

This is an extraordinary case: Our court approves, without blinking, a police sweep of a person’s home without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion and without exigency—in other words, with nothing at all to support the entry except the curiosity police always have about what they might find if they go rummaging around a suspect’s home. Once inside, the police managed to turn up a gun “in plain view”—stuck between two cushions of the living room couch—and we reward them by upholding the search.

Did I mention that this was an entry into somebody’s home, the place where the protections of the Fourth Amendment are supposedly at their zenith? The place where the “government bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that exceptional circumstances justif[y] departure from the warrant requirement.” United States v. Licata, 761 F.2d 537, 543 (9th Cir. 1985). The place where warrantless searches are deemed “presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980).

[SNIP]

It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.

What's Love Got to do With It?

United States v. Reeves (2nd Cir., 2010):

We easily conclude that people of common intelligence (or, for that matter, of high intelligence) would find it impossible to agree on the proper [definition of] a “significant romantic relationship.” What makes a relationship “romantic,” let alone “significant” in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be “significant.” The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings.

O. J. Simpson, Satanic Ritual Abuse, and ACORN

I think maybe we're not being fair to O.J. After all, his present incarceration probably interferes with his oft-repeated quest to find the real killer. ACORN, on the other hand, is led by not-yet-jailed folk, who are similarly committed to rooting out a few bad apples. So as an independent investigator, who have they chosen? Ken Starr? Rudy Giuliani? Why no, they've not.

Emily Yoffe, at XXfactor, observes:

Scott Harshbarger, the former Massachusetts attorney general and head of Common Cause, has been appointed by ACORN to investigate lapses in the organization that lead to its recent scandals. Harshbarger was responsible for one of the most outrageous "Satanic ritual abuse" prosecutions when he was AG, sending three innocent members of the Amirault family to jail. He has never repudiated the prosecution. It's sickening that someone who so abused his power would be appointed to investigate or reform anything. (I also see that Harshbarger was a big John Edwards' supporter, so his ability as a judge of character remains atrocious.)

Law School Lessons

"Realistically, a person is dead when there has been a complete decapitation of the head." Gray v. Sawyer, 247 S.W.2d 496, 497 (Ky. 1952).

Federal Rulz

Submitted by some Penn Law study group.

Supreme Court Supermajorities?

Ross Douthat suggests that to declare a law unconstitutional should require a majority of 6 or even 7 justices, in order to avoid the present situation in which "many significant controversies in American life have come down to the question of what Sandra Day O'Connor (and now Anthony Kennedy, of course) thinks about the matter."

Read the whole thing.

We Scour the Internet

So you don't have to. Real headline:

Naked Women's Wrestling League
Bests Carmen Electra in Court Ruling

All you really need to know: "Electra also alleges NWWL released DVDs that use her image, including "Twin Peaks," "Operation Naked Storm," "Tag Team Dream" and "Bush vs. Hussein," without payment."

The story line of the others is reasonably clear, but we're a little hazy on what "Bush vs. Hussein" could be about.

G&S Reads McSweeney's

Classes My Top-Tier Law School Should Have Offered as Warnings About the Profession.

by E. Noakes

Cutting and Pasting Legal Lingo
Explaining Business Associations to the People Who Are Running Them
4 A.M. Word Processing and the Law
Ethics of Conspicuous Consumption
Forwarding E-mails: Theory and Practice: Seminar
Arbitrary-Deadline Negotiation Strategies
Crying Quietly: Clinic
Jeans-Friday Advocacy Workshop
Cutting and Pasting II: Plural to Singular

h/t: KW.

Free the Costumed Bandit

In our opinion, criminals whose activities are adequately clever, inventive and amusing should be rewarded for their contributions to making the world a more interesting place. Further to this notion, today's Washington Post reports:

Two Washington area banks turned over more than $850,000 in less than 24 hours this week to someone who impersonated a cash courier and claimed to be filling in for the regular guys.

On Wednesday, a man dressed as an armored truck employee with the company AT Systems walked into a BB&T bank in Wheaton about 11 a.m., was handed more than $500,000 in cash and walked out, a source familiar with the case said.

It wasn't until the actual AT Systems employees arrived at the bank, at 11501 Georgia Ave., the next day that bank officials realized they'd been had. "When the real security guards showed up is when it became known," said Richard Wolf, a spokesman with the FBI's Baltimore division.

Montgomery County police spokeswoman Lucille Baur said: "The bank employees knew this was not an individual they had dealt with before. The explanation that was provided was that he was a substitute for the regular courier, who was on leave."

And on Thursday, about 9:30 a.m., a man dressed as an employee of the security company Brink's walked into a Wachovia branch in downtown Washington and walked out with more than $350,000.

The man had a badge and a gun holster on his belt, said Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington field office. He told officials at the bank, at 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, that he was filling in for the regular courier.

About 4 p.m., when the real guard showed up, a bank official told him that someone had picked up the cash, D.C. police said. The guard returned to his office and told a supervisor that he did not make the pickup at the bank. The supervisor called a Wachovia manager, who in turn notified authorities. Police were called nearly 11 hours after the heist.

"It's just an incredibly brazen act," Weierman said.

A law enforcement source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing, said last night that investigators were reviewing surveillance video from the banks in an effort to identify the robber and determine whether the same man committed both heists.

Officials at each bank and with law enforcement declined to describe the security protocols that cash couriers follow. Authorities are investigating whether any rules were violated.

It seems to us that any description of "the security protocols that cash couriers" followed in this instance would not consume a very great amount of time.

Bravo, gentlemen! Bravo!

Law School is Stressful

But resourceful students learn appropriate coping mechanisms.

The More Things Change

They warned us that President Bush's Supreme Court appointments were serious matters, and it turns out that they were right:

Following President Bush’s announcement that he was nominating Justice Roberts to the bench, speculation ran rampant about whether Roberts might supplant Justice Scalia as the new Court Cutup. The speculation has turned out to be incorrect. Justice Scalia continues to lead the Court in getting laughs — fifty-four in all during the seventy-one arguments — with Justice Breyer’s thirty coming in second. Roberts got nineteen laughs during the Term, placing him squarely in third place. Going into the final week of arguments, Justices Ginsburg, Alito, and Thomas were tied for last place with zero laughs, but Ginsburg and Alito both managed to break out of the basement by getting a “(Laughter)” in the waning days of the Term, leaving Thomas, who never says anything audible from the bench, all alone in the cellar. Having retired, of course, Justice O’Connor also got zero laughs, slightly down from her 2004-2005 performance.