Thoughts on the Holder Address: Two Cheers for the New Paradigm

In August, Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a widely noted address to the American Bar Association that seemed to promise significant changes in federal prosecutorial policies.  I wrote these reactions for the Federal Sentencing Reporter.

Following decades in which the U.S. Department of Justice has consistently advocated for a rigid and harsh legalism in criminal justice policy—in which DOJ, in the name of abstract principles of national uniformity, has willfully disregarded the devastating impact of its charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing practices on real-life human beings—Attorney General Holder’s ABA address seems a breath of fresh air. He calls for a more flexible federal criminal justice system, in which prosecutorial charging priorities are more specifically tailored to meet local needs, in which sentencing is more individualized to the offender and prosecutors sometimes forego mandatory minimum sentences, and in which individual U.S. Attorney Offices experiment with new diversion programs as an alternative to conventional case-processing. Holder believes—correctly, I think—that a more flexible and pragmatic system can achieve better public-safety results at less cost than a system in which preserving the integrity of the federal sentencing guidelines is the overriding value.

Through Holder’s address, DOJ offers its most prominent and unequivocal endorsement yet of an emerging new criminal justice paradigm.  

Continue ReadingThoughts on the Holder Address: Two Cheers for the New Paradigm

Moot Court and Brittany Kachingwe: A Love Story

I came to Marquette for the Sports Law program.  If anyone asked me what I wanted to do with my law degree I simply stated that I wanted to be the next Brian Cashman.  I worked in sports throughout college and for two years after.  When I got into Marquette, after I stopped crying of happiness (true story), I told myself that I would keep my mind open to other legal paths.  I can safely say, wholeheartedly, that Appellate Writing and Advocacy changed my life.  When I walked into that class I physically, metaphorically, and literally fell in love with appellate litigation and moot court (physically only in the sense that I am super clumsy and probably fell over and broke something).   If moot court were a person we would get married in an appellate courtroom, officiated by Justice Scalia, and instead of “I do” we would say, “May it please the court.”  To follow is the greatest love story you have ever read.  This post puts love stories such as Twilight, The Notebook, and Kim Kardashian/Kanye West to shame.  Here is the love story of Brittany Skye Kachingwe and Madam Moot Court. 

Continue ReadingMoot Court and Brittany Kachingwe: A Love Story

Law Reviews, Again

BooksThe perennial topic of the foibles of legal academic publishing is back in the news, thanks to a recent “Sidebar” column in the New York Times by reporter Adam Liptak. Much of the article rehashes the standard complaints, going all the way back to Fred Rodell’s 1936 jeremiad against law reviews. The news hook is the publication of three recent articles — in law reviews, ironically — that demonstrate that (1) law reviews are biased in favor of home-school professors; (2) the Supreme Court is not citing them as much as it used to; and (3) almost no one, not even law professors, is happy with the current system.

Liptak’s article has unleashed a flurry of mostly critical responses. (See: Baude, Kerr, Leiter, Bodie, Chin, Wasserman, Solove, Magliocca, Pasquale.) I have just two points to add.

1. The Rumsfeldian Zen Acceptance of Law Reviews. One of the most common complaints about legal scholarship, from nearly all quarters, is that it is not peer-reviewed prior to publication. Several of the bloggers I link to above do a good job of arguing why peer review is not an unalloyed good and student-run editorial boards are not all bad. Some even seem to argue that, for legal scholarship at least, forgoing peer review might on balance be better. And I’m sure there are non-legal academics who believe that publishing in non-peer-reviewed law journals is on a par with publishing with a vanity press.

I find it difficult to get excited about either of those arguments.

Continue ReadingLaw Reviews, Again