The Boston Case: Moving the Line on the Public Safety Exception

My practice is nearly exclusively a criminal appellate practice, and it’s been that way for almost 10 years. Being a one-trick pony, I can’t help but think about legal issues in the news in the context of an imaginary appeal. Of course, recently the news was flooded with stories about the Boston Marathon bombing. The issue that grabbed my interest the most was all of the talk centered on not informing captured suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights pursuant to the public safety exception.

The idea behind the public safety exception makes sense: gathering information from a suspect to ward off an immediate threat. The exception was originally created nearly 20 years ago, but in the past 10 years or so, has become stretched (some say past recognition) to deal with terrorist threats. But that’s neither here nor there — the public safety exception and the suppression of evidence obtained from it is a trial lawyer’s concern.

First, told or not told, Tsarnaev has all of the same rights every American citizen has, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. In this era of cop and robbers television (“Law & Order” in all its various forms has been on the air for 23 years), it seems self-evident that a person has those rights. But still, whether he knows he has those rights or not, the government has an obligation to inform a suspect he has them. But what happens when the defense persuades a court that law enforcement interrogated a person in violation of Miranda? That evidence is suppressed and so are the fruits of it. This is the part that really interests the appellate lawyer in me, because the question I keep coming back to here, is: so what?

If any of the news reports are to be believed, and obviously those outside of the parties won’t know until the trial, if there is one, the government has built a relatively strong case against Tsarnaev without his help. So even if some of his statements are suppressed, it doesn’t really matter because the government will still have plenty of evidence to go around. Presumably, the people who did the interrogating had a really good sense of what evidence they already had against him. Perhaps, sure in its case (even though the investigation was in the infancy), the government opted to question Tsarnaev and ask him everything it could think of. Worst case scenario, some cumulative evidence gets suppressed.

Continue ReadingThe Boston Case: Moving the Line on the Public Safety Exception

New Marquette Lawyer Magazine Focuses on Chicago and Milwaukee “Megacity”

Marquette LawyerProvocative essays on the future of Milwaukee in the emerging Chicago megacity lead the content of a packed and wide-ranging new edition of Marquette Lawyer, the Marquette University Law School semiannual magazine.

The megacity that stretches along Lake Michigan, from north of Milwaukee down through Chicago to northwestern Indiana, was the focus of a July 2012 conference at Marquette Law School, “Milwaukee’s Future in the Chicago Megacity.” The magazine includes two essays building on presentations at that conference: “Rivalry, Resignation, and Regionalization,” by historian John Gurda, and “Flying Too Close to the Sun?” by urban blogger and expert Aaron Renn. My own contribution is an overview of efforts to build cooperation in economic development in the tri-state region.

The magazine also presents “The Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Origins of Birthright Citizenship,” an essay by Columbia University historian Eric Foner based on his Boden Lecture at Marquette Law School last fall, and “The Accidental Crime Commission: Its Legacies and Lessons,” by Franklin E. Zimring, of the University of California, Berkeley’s law school, based on his Fall 2012 Barrock Lecture here.

Marquette Law Professor David Ray Papke gave a lecture in Uganda on the connection between the law and social power. “Exploring Socio-Legal Dominance in Context: An Approach to American Legal History,” based on his talk, is included in the new magazine.

The magazine also contains news of the Law School and of some of its students and alumni. The printed magazine is being sent to Law School students and alumni across the country and to many others. You can get a jump on reading this issue on the Law School’s website.

To read the interactive version of the magazine, click here.

To read specific articles and sections, click on any of these:

For all three pieces on the Chicago megacity, click here.

The individual pieces are available by clicking on each of these:

Emerging Megacity: Perspectives on the Future of Chicago and Milwaukee

Thinking and Acting (and Flourishing?) as a Region

Rivalry, Resignation, and Regionalization

Flying Too Close to the Sun? 

And you can click on each of these:

The Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Origins of Birthright Citizenship

The Accidental Crime Commission: Its Legacies and Lessons

Exploring Socio-Legal Dominance in Context: An Approach to American Legal History

Law School News

Remarks of Dean Joseph D. Kearney at the Investiture of Circuit Judge Lindsey Grady

From the Dean

Alumni Class Notes

Alumni Awards

 

 

 

 

Continue ReadingNew Marquette Lawyer Magazine Focuses on Chicago and Milwaukee “Megacity”

Seventh Circuit Honors the Late Judge John L. Coffey at Eckstein Hall

coffeyforwebJudge John L. Coffey, a man of strong conviction and strong faith, was remembered for his positive impact on family, the courts, and the legal profession in a ceremony April 17 in the Appellate Courtroom of Eckstein Hall.

Nine judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit were on the bench at the ceremonial session in memory of Coffey, who died last November at 90. Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook said the location was appropriate because Coffey “thought the world of this school—this is where Jack Coffey would have wanted this celebration.” Coffey graduated from Marquette University in 1943 and from Marquette Law School in 1948 and was well known for his loyalty to Marquette.

Beginning in 1954, Coffey served as a judge in Milwaukee County, until he became a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1978. He joined the federal appeals court in 1982. In 2012, he announced he would not take part in cases—although, as was noted during the session, he didn’t really say he was retiring either.

“Jack did not see much ambiguity,” Easterbrook said. He described Coffey as a passionate advocate who once emphasized a written point he was making by underlining, bold-facing, and italicizing the passage. “He missed only the opportunity to put it in a larger font,” Easterbrook said.

Coffey was “a rock when it came to defending his principles,” Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin told the audience of about 200.

Marquette Law School Dean Joseph D. Kearney said, “Jack Coffey focused relentlessly on the future,” including the future of the Law School. Coffey was one of the first alumni to encourage Kearney to consider leading the Law School out of Sensenbrenner Hall.

Francis Schmitz, who was a law clerk for Coffey in 1983-84, said that working for Coffey “was not unlike the parental concept known as tough love.” The judge was a demanding, no-excuses, no- cutting-corners boss who cared greatly and compassionately about those who worked for him, Schmitz said.

Peter Robbins, a grandson of the judge, said Coffey asked for divine guidance every day because he sat in judgment of others. He believed in hard work—“he always endeavored to know more”—but his family meant everything to him, Robbins said.

Coffey’s son, Peter Coffey, recounted how his father was one of ten children, all of whom graduated from Marquette.

Easterbrook said that Coffey had a reputation of being a dissenter, but during Coffey’s time on the federal appeals bench, there were 93 cases heard en banc and Coffey was in the majority in 78. He wrote the opinions in 11, which, Easterbrook said, was more than his share. “We miss his presence in our circles,” Easterbrook said.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Honors the Late Judge John L. Coffey at Eckstein Hall