// BLOG
Powerhouse Miranda Panel!
April 9, 2011
Just returned from Loyola Law School’s Fidler Institute, and a panel on Miranda. My co-panelists included the lead counsel in the Thompkins case, which determined once and for all that the right to silence must be unequivocally invoked, just like the right to counsel. The other panelists included Professor Chuck Weisselberg from Boalt, a foremost researcher on Miranda and police training.
The panel was enlightening and interesting, and I thought the audience got a real sense of the state of the protections today, and into the future. I felt like my “real world” experience was a useful addition to the theoretical portion, and was glad to contribute. Thanks to those who attended; I did see you in the audience, it was just incredibly busy and difficult to break away!
Miranda Panel Tomorrow
April 7, 2011
As mentioned earlier, I am a Miranda panelist at the Loyola Law School’s Fidler Institute tomorrow afternoon. The details can be found here. The panel is a group of solid folks, including lead counsel in the recent Thompkins decision, which will change Miranda and police interrogations for certain. Hope to see some of you there!
St. Baldricks Charity Event
March 13, 2011
On a drastically different subject, I just got home from having my head shaved at a “St. Baldricks” event. This wonderful organization is a massive grantor of research dollars to conquer kids’ cancer. Inspiring moment and great kids…
Appointed as Panelist on Miranda
March 12, 2011
I am pleased to be sitting on a distinguished panel at this year’s Fidler Institute at Loyola Law in Los Angeles. We will be focusing on developing Miranda standards. My co-panelists include counsel on the recent Berghuis v. Thompkins (No full cite yet, but see the decision here). Berghuis has changed Miranda and police practices in a major way.
To read about the institute and our panel, check the website here. It will be intriguing to see what comes of this conversation.
Testilying Case??
January 18, 2011
In perusing the dozens of police cases that come out each month, I am sometimes struck by a scarce few that seem to have real import for the future of police practices.
Take a look at this link, and let me know what you think. The limitations of the appellate court’s power (and their interpretation of “how much” the police may have lied) seem to be the only factors that kept this from coming back to haunt the arresting officers and their case.
As I have said time and again, it is important when dealing with a police client to remember that there are legal, moral, and yes — cultural — issues in play. In light of this decision, it will be intriguing to see what happens in the next few big cases that bring so-called testilying into focus.