Sublime

I submit to you that the preeminent question in this case as you reach a decision about how best to satisfy the dual aims of this court is the same question that I asked Judge Neff to consider in Larry’s federal sentencing: How much is a little girl worth? How much is a young woman worth?

The ethical is always more robust than the legal. Over time, it is the legal that should converge to the ethical, never the reverse.

“I have this quote above my desk,” she added. “‘Our job is to move a case towards justice. . . . We aren’t the court of justice, but we can be part of reaching for justice.’[3] . . . How do you use this coverage to talk about how predators operate? If we don’t do that, we failed. Anybody can take notes in court or tweet or point a camera.”

Making a charge according to the law of those you indict is a dangerous business.

I’m a criminal-defense lawyer, a law professor, and a mother of two. When my children were young and I was offered professional opportunities that separated me from them—a case hundreds of miles from home, an academic presentation out of state—I took them. The work gave shape and purpose to my life. And yet. Because time is finite, deficits added u

“It is natural” has never been an adequate defense for immoral behavior in the Jewish legal system.

Criminal lawyers, not surprisingly, are increasingly drawing on brain images supposedly showing a biological defect that “made” their clients commit murder.

The judges, however, wisely rejected that argument, quoting Thurgood Marshall's observation that given the mysteries of human motivation, “it would be unwise to presume as a matter of law that human beings of one definable group will not discriminate against other members of their group.”