“They will have a very interesting practice – their time will be almost entirely devoted to working on pro bono Supreme Court cases with the law schools.”

Getting a job at a big firm doing a particularly specialized practice is something mere mortals can achieve. It is a proven business model. Getting a job doing a particularly specialized practice of law for free, in a two person private law firm, falls in the “three impossible things to accomplish before breakfast” zone reserved for those who are true geniuses.

Any insights on how to set up this kind of practice without a large trust fund to support you would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers again!

I have to admit that, on the basis of her previous comments at SCOTUSblog, I approach the prospect of agreeing with Mary with some trepidation, but I have to admit that having read the Jones v. State opinion, my gut feeling is that the dissent has it absolutely right. Frankly, I have to admit that I’m confused by the majority. In reviewing applicable precedent, they begin by discussing (slip op. at 5) Delap v. State, a case which seems to me to stand for the precise opposite of the result the Court reaches in Jones: “[w]e held [in Delap] that because this Court has the responsibility of reviewing the entire record in an appeal from a case in which the death penalty was imposed, the missing transcripts constituted [per se] reversible error because they were necessary for a complete review of the case.” But I fail to see how this supports the majority’s contention that a “new trial [is] not warranted where defendant ‘failed to link a meritorious appellate issue to the allegedly missing record and thus cannot establish that he was prejudiced by its absence’,” (slip op. at 6) (quoting Armstrong v. State) rather than the dissent’s contention that “‘the Florida Constitution . . . contains an express right of appeal’ . . .[and] [a] complete record on appeal is indispensable to the realization of this constitutional right” (slip op. at 11) (quoting Griffis v. State). I therefore agree with Mary; there just seems to be too much opportunity for mischief in this ruling.

Today, on how Appealing the following was posted:

“‘Supreme Court: Computer crash insufficient for new trial.’ The Associated Press provides a report that begins, ‘A computer crash that erased part of a trial transcript is insufficient reason to order a new trial in a criminal case, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday.’

Today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida can be accessed here.
Posted at 02:38 PM by Howard Bashman”

Now we have a Florida Supreme Court that is a Respondent in a case going on Petition for Rehearing in SCOTUS (Docket No. 05-7287) set for the March 03, 2006 conference, raising the issue that illegal NSA surveillance, interference by crashing a disability device needed for Florida State Courts access under Tennessee v. Lane, and a “commando raid” were perpetrated on a disbaled person to prevent (extrinsic) meaningful appellate review — and the Florida Supreme Court (Respondents in Docket No. 05-7287) comes out with a ruling the day before (Mar. 02, 2006) that crashed computers do not provide a sufficient reason for reversal or a new trial????

Now imagine how parties Constitutional rights can be violated by prosecutors, opposing attorneys or parties, or even the State Courts’ themselves causing a court reporter or disabled party’s computer to crash — to deprive a person who may be innocent of meaningful appellate review!!

And in this era of NSA overreach, nonetheless.

SCOTUS should grant certiorari on rehearing in Docket No. 05-7287, if for no other reason, than the brazen attitude of the Florida Supreme Court to allow computer crashes to violate many innocent people’s Constitutional rights. In the case of a disabled person who uses special speech recognition assistive device to effectively communicate her case, this is an outrage upon Tennessee v. Lane and the authority of SCOTUS.

As for what can be learned for the bar of State Supreme Courts, guard all computer hard drives at all times — or your client may lose the appeal.