Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Crime-Lab Evidence

seventh circuitThe Supreme Court was not the only court wrestling this week with the admissibility of crime-lab evidence.  A day after the Justices heard oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, the Seventh Circuit decided United States v. Turner (No. 08-3109).  Both cases put into question the vitality of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009).

A jury convicted Turner of selling crack to an undercover police officer.  The drugs were sent to the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory, where they were analyzed by a chemist named Hanson, who confirmed that they were indeed crack.  The government intended to call Hanson to testify to this effect, but she went on maternity leave before the trial.  So Hanson’s supervisor, Block, was summoned instead.  Based on Hanson’s notes and data, Block testified that he agreed with her conclusion that the drugs were crack.

On appeal, Turner argued that Block’s testimony violated Melendez-Diaz. 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Weighs in on Crime-Lab Evidence

Good Night, Sleep Tight, Don’t Let The Bedbugs Bite

sleeping babyToday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the latest in a grim series of articles reporting on infants dying while sleeping with adults.    A number of infant deaths in similar circumstances late last year led to City of Milwaukee health officials launching a “safe-sleep” information campaign.  Billboards have been placed throughout the city, and the Health Department website includes information on keeping infants in a safer sleep environment.    Parents are advised to place babies in their own safety-approved cribs or bassinets with no stuffed toys, blankets or bumper pads.  Babies, we are told, should always sleep on their backs to reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

As a person who has been studying children’s issues for many years, I find a number of things about this campaign to be noteworthy.

Continue ReadingGood Night, Sleep Tight, Don’t Let The Bedbugs Bite

What Should Be Done With Legal Education? (Part II)

This post argues that recent changes in legal education have harmed rather than helped most students and that legal education needs to change significantly, and predicts that no change will occur until it’s too late.

One significant change in law schools over the past twenty-five years is the bureaucratization of the institution. What were once fairly lean organizations have become bloated, and the increase in administrators is one cause of the greater-than-inflation increases in law school tuition. This increase in administrators, with the concomitant rise in tuition, has created a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.

The high cost of tuition has made many law schools leery of academic attrition (in part because if those former students don’t pay back their loans, the institution may find itself in trouble). You rarely see exclusion of one-third of the student body (I can think of just one school). But especially where bar exam passing rates have ranged considerably, because such rates can readily be compared, academic attrition has increased among a number of law schools in the past decade in order to pump up bar exam results.  One consequence has been the creation and rapid expansion of academic support programs for those students who are struggling. The theory behind such programs is sound. But though such programs can offer students tips on how to organize their study, and offer some study skills, I don’t think they can actually provide “academic” support in practice. 

Continue ReadingWhat Should Be Done With Legal Education? (Part II)