Claude Jones was executed in Texas in 2000.

Today, several organizations, including the Innocence Project and Texas Monthly, filed motions seeking to prevent the state from destroying a hair that could be subjected to DNA testing, the results of which might show Jones was not the killer.

The Texas Observer, the Innocence Project, the Innocence Project of Texas and the Texas Innocence Network filed motions in state court in San Jacinto County, Texas, today asking for a temporary restraining order that would prevent officials from destroying the only piece of physical evidence in the case – a hair from the crime scene – and seeking a court order to conduct DNA testing that could determine whether the hair matches Claude Jones, who was convicted of murder in 1990 and executed on December 7, 2000.

More....

The LA Times examines the (so far) lack of support for Fred Thompson in Hollywood.

I'd rather see Thompson or Romney get the Republican nomination than Rudy. For that reason, I'm not going to bash Thompson.

The thought of listening to Rudy from February to November of 2008 while he's on the campaign trail, should he get the nomination, is just about unbearable.

Law.com has a long article today on Google's hiring practices when it comes to in-house lawyers.

Finding the right sort of lawyer to fit Google's playful ethos yet steely business sense is -- judging by the army of recruiters assigned to the job -- a challenge. This is not due to a lack of any interest on the part of candidates, according to Jones, but because it takes a very particular sort of person to fit the Google mould.

....Prospective Google lawyers can expect up to 15 interviews, including one with one of the company's founders, as a final hurdle before getting the job.

Over the past year, Jones, who reports to U.S.-based general counsel Kent Walker, has conducted a lengthy search for new members of the team and is now hunting for the right lawyers for Google's Amsterdam, Madrid, Zurich, Milan and Moscow arms, establishing a legal function in all these major European cities.

A few months ago I wrote about the Google hiring perks and checked their website. I couldn't find a single job, legal or otherwise, I was remotely qualified for. Maybe you'll have better luck.

At the Huffington Post, Tom Edsall writes a post titled Frustration OverIraq Could Lead To Dem Primary Challenges. Here is the key line:

A House Democratic leadership aide told the Huffington Post, "We understand their frustration, but we need to elect more Democrats in order to affect real change on Iraq." Another top Democratic leadership aide said, "What in the world are they thinking? All this is going to do is increase the possibility of electing more Republicans. Instead of going after Democrats, they should be focusing their efforts on pressuring Republicans to break with the president.

(Emphasis supplied.) How idiotic are these people? Do they think all we care about is electing Democrats? Do they REALLY think we do not care about the issues? The Democrats won in 2006 because the American People want out of Iraq. They still do. The DEMOCRATIC Congress has failed the American people. Up to now.

They can redeem themselves still. End the Iraq Debacle. Set a date certain for the end of funding of the Iraq Debacle. We do not need more Democrats for that. We do not need any Republicans. We can count. We know that the Constitution gives the Spending Power to the Congress.

More.

Here is John Edwards' strategy to root out and shut down terrorist cells, which I received from his campaign this morning. Click on the "more" button to read the whole thing.

JOHN EDWARDS’ STRATEGY TO ROOT OUT AND SHUT DOWN TERRORIST CELLS

“We need a bold new approach—one that is smart, tough, and targeted. This will require us to look beyond the structures of World War II and the Cold War to new tools that will allow us to target terrorism more precisely. It will require sustained U.S. leadership—but the kind that leverages the power of partnerships, rather than going it alone.”- John Edwards

More....

Could this help Larry Craig? A three judge panel in California reversed a conviction yesterday for soliciting sex in a men's bathroom:

[T]he ruling, which threw out the conviction of Stephen Lake, 51, did not address whether the bathroom stings were discriminatory because they targeted only homosexual activity. Instead, judges Donald Black, Kent Levis and Debra Kazanjian ruled that prosecutors did not establish that someone was likely to be present who would have been offended by Lake's conduct, an element needed to prove a crime took place.

Criag was charged with this section (pdf) of the disorderly conduct statute:

(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

The factual basis for his guilty plea (pdf) was that he engaged in conduct he knew or should have known "tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others."

Could the prosecution have established, as they failed to do in California, that someone was likely to be present who would be alarmed or feel resentment by Craig's toe-tapping and hand movements?

Another question: Will Craig raise the issue that the sting is unconstitutional because it only targets homosexual behavior?

Disgraced ex-DA Mike Nifong reported to jail today to serve his 24 hour sentence for criminal contempt of court. He will be put in a single cell for his safety.

A source close to the three wrongly accused players says they are seeking $30 million in damages and reforms to the legal system. If those demands are rejected, the players will file suit next month.

All of TalkLeft's coverage of the Duke case is available here.
I also highly recommend the new book, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson.

Bump and Update: ABC News has an explanation for the black beard in the Osama photo accompanying his upcoming video:

The "phony beard" may be an important clue as to where bin Laden is hiding, according to Clarke. "One place where a beard would stand out would be southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia," Clarke told ABC News. "No one's thought he was there, but that is an environment where most men, Muslim men don't have beards."

ABC also reports U.S. authorities have obtained a transcript of the tape, which will be directed to suicide bombers.

Original Post 9/6/07
A New Osama bin Laden Video is Imminent

An Islamic website reports that Osama bin Laden will be releasing his first video since 2004 in time for the 6th anniversary of 9/11.

More....

Did Norman Hsu try to commit suicide? The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Hsu was taken off a passenger train at the Grand Junction train station earlier in the day by paramedics who requested a backboard to move him, said Sgt. Lonnie Chavez with the Grand Junction Police Department. Authorities received a request for medical assistance at the train station at about 11:15 a.m., but the exact nature of Hsu's condition was unclear, Chavez said.

Justin Rood at ABC has a good piece today, pointing out that Hsu apparently is not registered to vote. I noted the same thing here.

Original Post 9/6/07
Norman Hsu Arrested in Colorado

Norman Hsu has been found and apprehended -- at a hospital in Grand Junction, Colorado.

More...

John Edwards will announce a plan against terrorism tomorrow.

The former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate is planning to propose creating a "Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." This would serve as a kind of modern-day NATO, giving member countries a way to better track terrorists' communications, recruiting and financing, on the theory that breaking up plots requires cross-border cooperation, as shown in Germany's foiling of an alleged plot this week.

....The new structure is needed, say those advising Edwards, given that NATO does not include many countries in which Islamic terrorists operate, and given that other international bodies, such as the UN and Interpol, include countries that have contributed to the world terror threat. To belong to the new international body, countries would have to pledge to tough criteria for pursuing extremists or terrorism financing within their own borders, and nations that declined to take part would be singled out, which could encourage more assistance from nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Edwards's advisers say.

More...

Michelle Obama has an interview in Glamour magazine. Do we really need to know this?

In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so “snore-y and stinky” when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won’t crawl into bed with him.

Context:

Referring to their daughters, Mrs. Obama says: “We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there — because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?”

Mrs. Obama thinks these sorts of disclosures will prevent Obama from being deified and then knocked down. I think it's information I'd rather not know.

I'd also rather not wonder whether the comment means they sleep in separate beds ("my bed" -- "he's not there") -- some things should stay private and that's one of them.

Update: Glamour Magazine has "corrected" the quote from Mrs. Obama, adding the word "if", which eliminates the interpretation that they sleep in separate beds. See below:

The ACLU scored a big victory for all of us today. A federal judge in New York found the Patriot Act provision pertaining to national security letters -- specifically, the part that gagged recipients of the letter -- unconstitutional.

A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act’s National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.

More...