Short video with Ilya Shapiro discussing Johnson v. United States Ilya Shapiro April 18, 2015
Senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, Ilya Shapiro explains the confusion concerning what constitutes a violent felony conviction under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In this upcoming Supreme Court case, Petitioner Johnson claims the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague while the government asserts that Johnson’s conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun satisfies the violent felony requirement of the statute. SCOTUScast 1-13-15 featuring Rachel Paulose
Ilya Shapiro is co-counsel on the amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Federal Defenders, Families against Mandatory Minimums and the Cato Institute in support of the Petitioner.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Rachel K. Paulose January 13, 2015
On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Warger v. Shauers. The question in this case was whether a party moving for a new trial may rely upon juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations that suggest juror dishonesty during voir dire (the process by which potential jurors are questioned in order to determine if they are suitable to serve on a particular jury).
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court, which held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit was affirmed.
To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate Confirmed United States Attorney. SCOTUScast 10-22-14 featuring Rachel Paulose
Rachel K. Paulose October 22, 2014
On October 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Warger v. Shauers. The question in this case is whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), a party moving for a new trial may rely upon juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations that suggest juror dishonesty during voir dire (the process by which potential jurors are questioned in order to determine if they are suitable to serve on a particular jury).
To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate confirmed United States Attorney. Professional Responsibility & Legal Education and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
Steven Donziger, a self-styled social activist and Harvard educated lawyer, signed on to a budding class action lawsuit against multinational Texaco (which later merged with Chevron to become the third-largest corporation in America). The suit sought reparations for the Ecuadorian peasants and tribes people whose lives were affected by decades of oil production near their villages and fields. During twenty years of legal hostilities in federal courts in Manhattan and remote provincial tribunals in the Ecuadorian jungle, Mr. Donziger and Chevron’s lawyers followed fierce no-holds-barred rules. Mr. Donziger proved himself adept at influencing the media, Hollywood, and public opinion. He cajoled and coerced Ecuadorian judges on the theory that his noble ends justified any means of persuasion. And in the end, he won a $19 billion judgment against Chevon – the biggest environmental damages award in history. But the company refused to surrender or compromise. Instead, Chevron targeted Mr. Donziger personally, and its counter-attack revealed evidence of his politicking and manipulation of evidence. Suddenly the verdict, and decades of Mr. Donziger’s single-minded pursuit of the case, began to unravel.
Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Mark A. Behrens February 04, 2014
There is a split among appellate courts in the United States over medical monitoring – court-ordered payments to plaintiffs who have been exposed to some potentially harmful product or situation but have no symptoms. Is a present injury a fundamental prerequisite to any award? Should the person or entity that created the product or situation be required to pay plaintiffs for periodic medical testing? Most, but not all, courts say no. Mark Behrens discussed medical monitoring, when and where it might be required, and the latest trends.
- Mark A. Behrens, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.