Federal Law & Legal System – Page 133 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

$250 Million Worth of Fuss

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:November 12, 2009
Post category:Education & Law Milwaukee President & Executive Branch

The U.S. Department of Education released the final rules Thursday for the high-stakes competition called the Race to the Top. That’s the $4.35 billion in grants to be given out in the next year to spur states to take major steps aimed at improving a host of aspects of schooling, including the quality of teachers and the quality of education options open to children, especially those in historically low performing communities.

How much is at stake? Included in the material was a list of how much each state could potentially receive. For Wisconsin, the figure was $150 million to $250 million.

It is unlikely Wisconsin actually will get that much. It appears there are some points where Wisconsin will score well (atmosphere for creating charter schools), and other points where Wisconsin will not do well (track record on closing achievement gaps, such as the one between white and black students).

The Verdict? A Very Successful Civil Trial Conference

Post author:Daniel D. Blinka
Post published:November 9, 2009
Post category:Evidence Federal Civil Litigation Marquette Law School Wisconsin Civil Litigation

One of this Law School’s most noteworthy legacies is its production of many of the region’s most outstanding trial lawyers. The legacy was fully evident on Friday, November 6, 2009 at the Civil Trial Evidence and Litigation Conference. The sold-out event served as a “last call for Sensenbrenner Hall” of sorts while featuring a panel that well-represented the many fine trial lawyers who have distinguished themselves as Marquette lawyers. It was my privilege to help organize the conference along with Pat Dunphy (L’76), who conceived of the idea and was the key to assembling the talented panel of Marquette alumni. In light of Friday’s success, Pat and I have already begun discussing next year’s civil litigation conference, which will be held in the Law School’s new venue in Eckstein Hall.

The presentations spanned a broad array of issues and problems regularly confronted in civil litigation. The strength of the presentations rested not just in their discussion of doctrine and rules, but in the panelists bringing to bear their experience and insights in preparing and trying cases. Links to the written CLE material and the accompanying PowerPoint presentations will be posted on the Law School’s website later this week.

Starting the day was Michael J. Cohen (L’86) of Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC, who underscored the important relationship between pretrial practice and outcomes at trial. Drawing on his extensive experience as a commercial litigator, Mike addressed the duty to preserve evidence, especially electronic information, when a lawsuit appears on the horizon. Mike emphasized the need to work with the client to understand what the law requires so that discoverable information is not destroyed, inadvertently or otherwise, thereby exposing the client (or counsel) to sanctions. Pat Dunphy (L’76) of Cannon & Dunphy SC, addressed a different aspect of pretrial practice, namely, the creative use of requests to admit during discovery. Pat described how he used requests to admit to obtain a binding judicial admission in a major product liability case that proved determinative of its outcome.

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: If You Own a Gun, Don’t Steal Cable

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:November 7, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Federal Criminal Law & Process Seventh Circuit

seventh circuit In 2005, Kevin Schultz pled guilty to one count of trafficking in counterfeit telecommunications instruments. His offense involved modifying telecommunications equipment for the purpose of stealing cable. His sentence? Two years on probation, including a period of home detention.

Two and a half years after his first conviction, federal agents searched Schultz’s home and found a shotgun. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced this time to eighteen months in prison.

On appeal, Schultz argued that his telecoms offense, although a felony, did not expose him to liability under the felon-in-possession statute. He relied on an exception in the law for prior convictions “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.” However, the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction in United States v. Schultz (No. 09-1192) (Bauer, J.).