Home — and by home, I mean in the Fastcase office — at last! Why not celebrate with me by subscribing to the podcast and rating us five stars on iTunes?
1. My de facto favorite Circuit jurist is in the headlines again. This time, Posner is arguing in a concurring opinion that we need to get rid of the excited utterance and present sense impression hearsay exceptions. These exceptions, he argues, are ridiculous in light of cognitive psychology research. I’ll give some thoughts on this having at least a year of PhD-level cognitive psych under my belt (but don’t except anything incredibly insightful — I like to set the bar low and rise above it).
2. Aaron Kirschenfeld points us to a neat article from Radiolab discussing the origins of the so-called Glomar Response (non-denial, denial) we see used as a response to FOIA requests all the time now. I can neither confirm nor deny whether I have an understanding of “Project Azorian” after reading this article.
3. Eugene Volokh wrote about a case he brief, argued, and won today. In Frudden v. Pilling, the 9th Circuit remanded a case for the lower court to apply a strict scrutiny analysis in determining whether it was appropriate for a school to force its students to wear a uniform displaying its written motto.
4. Josh Gilliland over at The Legal Geeks points us to an amusing footnote in a New York City Court DUI opinion. In it, Judge Joseph L. Latwin gets a little snarky and begins examining the hypothetical ways the defendant could have argued–but didn’t–that he came to be slumped over the wheel of his vehicle:
Defendant offered no evidence that another drove the vehicle in Rye, that the vehicle was pushed or propelled through Rye by animal or human muscular power, was placed there by Divine intervention, was airlifted or towed there, appeared as the result of a magic trick or illusion, or was teleported down from space n.2 to Cedar Street.
n.2 There was no evidence that the Starship Enterprise was in the vicinity of Rye at the time – the original Star Trek having aired from 1966 to 1969. Scotty passed away in 2005.
So we know it wasn’t NCC-1701-A. Still a chance of NCC-1701-D though, no?
Please also take note of our subreddit at reddit.com/r/thelawreview. Feel free to submit stories there or vote on the stories you’d like to hear us discuss that day. You can also email us at podcast /at fastcase /dot com.
Thanks for listening!