Seventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Search & Seizure, Interrogation, and Sentencing

The Seventh Circuit had a busy week, with seven new opinions in criminal cases.  Two dealt with the same question of what constitutes a criminal attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity.  I’ll discuss those two opinions in a separate post.  The remaining five, considered below, addressed a diverse range of issues relating to Fourth Amendment rights, police interrogation, and the application of the federal sentencing guidelines.

In United States v. Budd (No. 08-1319), the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography on his home computers.  After Budd left one of his computers at a shop for repairs, a shop employee found a file titled, “A Three Year Old Being Raped,” and reported the matter to police.  An officer took custody of the computer, but police otherwise did almost nothing on the case for the next month.  Eventually, Budd contacted the police department himself to report what he believed to be the theft of his computer by the repair shop.  Budd’s phone call led to his interrogation at the police station, a search of his apartment (where another computer was found), and (finally) a search warrant for the computers.  After he was charged, Budd moved to suppress incriminating statements he made to police, as well as images found on the computers, contending that these were all “fruits of the poisonous tree” of the illegal seizure of the first computer.  The district court denied the motion. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review, Part I: Search & Seizure, Interrogation, and Sentencing

Must Lawyers Disclose Their Role as Ghostwriter?

Professor Michael W. Loudenslager of Appalachian School of Law has ventured into the thorny thicket of affirmative duties to disclose in his provocative article, Giving Up the Ghost: A Proposal for Dealing With Attorney “Ghostwriting” of Pro Se Litigants’ Court Documents Through Explicit Rules Requiring Disclosure and Allowing Limited Appearances for Such Attorneys, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 103 (2008). The crux of the issue is whether behind-the-scenes drafting of one or more litigation documents for a pro se litigant, by a lawyer who does not appear in the matter nor otherwise disclose her involvement, constitutes misconduct. The principal concern is whether the court and adversary are likely to be misled inappropriately by the nondisclosure. The issue arises frequently because so many matters must go to court, from collection cases to divorces to traffic offenses, and the cost of full representation is either beyond the reach of many litigants or is, in their judgment, not cost-effective. The authorities are divided as to whether disclosure should be required. Loudenslager does a fine job of taking us through the arguments and offers a solution of his own. It makes for engaging and thought-provoking reading.

Continue ReadingMust Lawyers Disclose Their Role as Ghostwriter?

The Limitations of “Rot”

I was going to do this as a comment to Jessica’s post on Frank Pasquale’s post on the rot in America’s financial system, but it got a bit long, so I decided to make it a post.

Jessica cites to a post on Concurring Opinions which relies, to some extent, on a comment in response to a post that I wrote on Prawfs. It’s a small blogosphere after all.

There is much to be said in response to the Pasquale post (which I agree is provocative), but I want to focus on one part that Jessica highlights:

Can anyone doubt that our economy is exposed (with each passing day) as more Sicilian in its “winners’” casual acceptance of fraud, more Russian in its oligarchic tendencies, more Brazilian in its inequality?

Well, I think I can.

Continue ReadingThe Limitations of “Rot”