Saturday, February 18, 2017
Dana Heyde at Goodreads wrote: “This book prompted me to engage in yet another round of discussions about Avery and the injustice of the legal system. [Cicchini] made dull laws fascinating to discuss, and I would recommend it to everyone who thinks they could never be wrongfully accused of a crime and then convicted of it.”
Also read the earlier reviews from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews.
A common trend among law schools was to hire professors who had very little or no experience practicing law, but who had graduated from elite law schools. Then the trend became hiring JDs who also had a PhD — preferably in the field of economics. Then the trend became hiring candidates with PhDs only. That’s right: law professors who never went to law school. And unfortunately, the lower ranked schools, in a desperate attempt to keep up their peer-reputation scores in the US News law school rankings, followed suit and copied the trend. In a 2012 essay titled Three Rules for Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers, I argued that these fourth-tier schools should instead go in the opposite direction of the elites:
Friday, February 17, 2017
I've also changed the blog's font color to make it darker and, hopefully, easier to read. And now the hyperlinks and blog titles won't go dim once you've clicked on them. As for finding specific posts, scroll down and in the right-hand column you'll find a gadget that lets you filter posts by subject matter, e.g., criminal law, free speech, state bar, etc. If you're viewing The Dog on your phone and can't see the right-hand column, scroll to the bottom and click "web version," and all of these features will appear out of nowhere.
Finally, don't forget about Knightly's reading list at the bottom of the right-hand column. There you'll find links to all sorts of chocolately cookie goodness, including The Dog's longtime friends The Irreverent Lawyer (bar news and first amendment) and Life Sentences (criminal law and sentencing), as well as newcomers On Point (Wisconsin criminal law case summaries) and The College Fix (free speech on campus).
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Donald Trump recently criticized a federal judge by calling him a “so-called judge” and arguing that the judge’s suspension of Trump’s executive order put the country at risk. So of course, the Wisconsin State Bar’s “52-member Board of Governors” had to swing into action and adopt “a unified statement” to protect the federal judiciary from the impact of free speech. Personally, I have no opinion as to whether Trump’s criticism is accurate, but I have serious problems with our state bar — an organization that we Wisconsin lawyers are forced to join and fund — making this so-called unified statement.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
here. The government's lawyer is trying to sell the same nonsense to the Seventh Circuit that the agents sold to Dassey in their interrogation, e.g., "they were just after 'the truth' your honors." The lawyer also claims there were not even implied promises of leniency made to Dassey. (I guess promising Dassey that he wouldn't be arrested if he agreed to confess doesn't count as a direct or even implied promise of leniency.) If you go to Netflix and watch episode three of Making a Murderer, you can see part of the interrogation as well as Larry White's explanation of how the interrogators' repeated directives to "tell us the truth" really meant "tell us what we want to hear." (And, to guide Dassey in the right direction, they even told him what, specifically, they wanted to hear.)
Monday, February 13, 2017
I don't care much (or at all) for the NFL, and I didn't have much of an opinion on Tom Brady until the super bowl when he threw that pick-six. The impressive thing was that, after he threw it, he dove to try to stop the much more athletic defensive player from scoring. As a viewer, I genuinely appreciated the effort. And even though Brady didn't come close to stopping the touchdown -- he looked well out of his depth trying tackle a superior athlete -- he did go on to win the super bowl MVP (again) by leading the biggest comeback in the game's history.
Despite not being a fan of Brady's until (oddly) that pick-six, I had been routing for him in his fight against Roger Goodell in the deflate-gate fiasco. And there was good reason to do so, as there was certainly a lot of evidence on Brady's side. Granted, a Brady win in court would not have been like an indigent defendant winning a criminal jury trial. Rather, a Brady win in court would have been more like "the man" sticking it to "THE MAN." But still . . .
Anyway, Brady did beat Roger but only temporarily -- or so it seemed. It turns out that Brady got the last laugh in the end. Despite serving a four-game suspension earlier this year, he won the super bowl. He won the MVP in the super bowl. Roger was forced to praise him in public and present him with his trophies. And then Brady got to run this post-game commercial.
I recently received a mailing from Jon P. Axelrod who is running for state bar president. He provides a bullet-point list of some things he wants to accomplish. I have an opinion on three of those things. First, Axelrod wants to “provid[e] money to forgive student loans” to encourage law school graduates to practice in “underserved areas of
Wisconsin.” I’m not sure where this money would come from,
but this debt-forgiveness frolic had better not be funded by our bar dues. As the Irreverent Lawyer has shown us, Wisconsin’s
state bar bureaucracy is already one of the most expensive in the country. Also, there’s simply no need to encourage new
lawyers to take jobs. There is a glut of
lawyers in Wisconsin already, and
they’re scrambling to find work. Only 64 percent of UW grads and 62 percent of MU grads from the class of 2015 found
long-term, full-time legal jobs.
here and here) are based on our two controlled studies that empirically prove what was already obvious from a linguistic and logical perspective. That is, when a burden of proof instruction concludes by telling jurors "not to search for doubt" but instead "to search for the truth," the court is lowering the burden of proof below the constitutionally guaranteed reasonable-doubt standard. In both studies, mock jurors who were so instructed convicted the defendant at significantly higher rates than jurors who were simply and properly instructed on reasonable doubt.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
My forthcoming book, “Convicting Avery: The Bizarre Laws and Broken System behind Making a Murderer,” recently received two great reviews.
Publishers Weekly writes: “Cicchini convincingly demonstrates that the Kafkaesque criminal justice in Avery’s case was not an anomaly, and his work is an accessible entree into the debate over how defendants’ rights should be protected.”
Kirkus Reviews writes: “Overall, Cicchini makes his case clearly. . . . [Convicting Avery] will engage fans of the series and readers who wonder if prosecutors really do cut corners in their campaigns against serious criminals.”
The book will be released on April 4th, and can be pre-ordered on amazon.com.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
here to read my latest column at the Wisconsin Law Journal, which is an excerpt from the chapter titled "Weird Science" in my forthcoming book Convicting Avery. (The book will be published by Prometheus Books on April 4th, and is available for pre-order here.)
Monday, December 19, 2016
When the number of law school applicants plummeted a few years ago, many schools dipped very deep into the applicant pool – as in near open enrollment – to fill seats and boost revenues. Not surprisingly, three years later when these students graduated, some schools’ bar passage rates dipped – and in some cases went into free-fall. (You can see the carnage in
for example, here.) The problem is that a
low enough bar passage rate for a long enough period of time could put the
school’s ABA accreditation at
risk. So the natural response of some law
schools was to blame the bar exam as being an unfair test – a position that now
aligns nicely with their desire to fill their seats with any student loan
conduit applicant who can pass the mirror test. But now, two deans have written an op-ed on
the Tax Prof Blog to point out the flaws in law schools’ worn-out arguments. Kudos to them; you can find their work
Friday, December 16, 2016
I just saw the Joe Mixon video on
, and it’s also available here. I wish they would have discussed two things. First, Mixon starts to walk away
at which point the victim appears to say something to him, pushes him, and then
smacks him in the side of the head — all before he strikes her. Maybe it’s just the criminal defense lawyer
in me, but I’d like to hear a debate about what type of response, if any,
would have qualified as reasonably necessary to terminate her unlawful interference
with his person. (As an example of a self-defense statute, Sports
Center Wisconsin’s is here.) Would a shove have been okay? What if the shove was forceful enough to put her on the ground but did not cause any injury? Second, according to , Mixon “pleaded guilty to
the charge without making an admission of guilt.” How can a person plead guilty without
admitting guilt? Isn’t that what
a no contest plea accomplishes? (This is
either bad reporting or a quirk in Sports
law.) Finally, an observation. From a purely practical standpoint, there’s
a lesson here that should not be overlooked: If you don’t push and smack a person in the head, you will
dramatically decrease your odds of getting knocked out. You know, an ounce of prevention and all that.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
I just read a Boston Globe article about
agreeing to pay $100
million to settle a lawsuit. (Hat tip to “the Chow.”) The suit
alleged that DeVry provided misleading employment data to prospective
students. The school had boasted a 90
percent employment rate. However, “DeVry
was counting students who found jobs outside the fields they studied” including
“a graduate who studied in the health care field but found work as a restaurant
server and another who worked as a car salesman[.]” DeVry