Harvard Law School celebrates its 50th year of admitting women with a three day program, featuring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Attorney General Janet Reno.

We begin our 30th year of practicing law today--we have no idea where the time went. It really flew.

Our law school class had some 200 students, 11 of whom were women. Women now make up 50% or more of law school classes around the country.

We'd like to see more women criminal defense lawyers in private practice--this field remains very much male-dominated.

To get a real inside glimpse of the hurdles women defense lawyers face -- and the degree of determination needed to suceed, we highly recommend defense lawyer-turned Court TV anchor Rikki Klieman's new book, Fairy Tales Can Come True : How a Driven Woman Changed Her Destiny which debuts May 8--

Buy the Book Today!

We describe the book on CrimeLynx as "a riveting, brutally honest memoir by celebrated criminal trial attorney and Court TV Anchor Rikki Klieman, in which she details not only her triumphs as a pioneer in the male-dominated arena of criminal defense, but the price she paid for success-- and the toll it took on her personal life and physical health. The book becomes filled with spirit and joy, however, as Rikki describes falling in love in middle age and learning that she can have it all."

The Supreme Court today threw out a murder conviction where the police obtained a confession following an illegal arrest. The case is Kaupp v. Texas and you can read the full opinion here. The state had claimed the defendant was merely being detained, not arrested. The Court found otherwise.

Even “an initially consensual encounter . . . can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” (“[A]t some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect’s freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments”). It cannot seriously be suggested that when the detectives began to question Kaupp, a reasonable person in his situation would have thought he was sitting in the interview room as a matter of choice, free to change his mind and go home to bed.

Nat Hentoff charges Ashcroft with muzzling his prosecutors when it comes to speaking with members of Congress or their aides.

The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs has, by order of the attorney general, instructed all members of the Justice Department to inform that office "ahead of time and as soon as possible" before they participate in any briefings on Capitol Hill or engage in "substantive conversations" with members of Congress or their staff on Capitol Hill.

Every Justice Department employee is to be tracked to make sure — said the directive — "that the Department speaks with one voice on Capitol Hill. ... Please let us know when you receive a phone call from, or plan to place a call, to House and Senate staff and members of Congress."

"Moreover," the memorandum adds, "in almost all cases ... we will accompany you to briefings." (In Iraq, before the war, this form of government supervision was exercised by "minders.")

Here is Republican Senator Charles Grassley's reaction:

Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican, called the directive "an attempt to muzzle whistleblowers," saying, on Fox News, that "we are all working for the American people to have maximum communication among the branches of government. This is an attempt to control information. We want to make sure that what we pass in Congress works the way we wanted it to, and that the money is spent the way we intended. We need a maximum flow of information to make the separation of powers work."

Grassley and Sen. Patrick Leahy are leading the charge to reject Ashcroft's secrecy and muzzling. Whistleblowers need protection and the FBI needs reform. Congress has to be allowed access to information detailing the Justice Department's use of its new and expanded powers. We have a right to know that these powers are being used as Congress intended when initially granting them--and that Ashcroft is not exceeding his rule-making authority.

In 2002, there were 1,359 wiretap applications made to state and federal judges in non-terrorism cases . All but one were approved. In fact, it was the only wiretap application rejected in the last four years.

Over the past 11 years, out of over 13,000 wiretap applications, only four were rejected.

An average of 403 conversations are intercepted on each wiretap. Wiretaps are good for 30 days, after which 30 day extensions can be granted. The longest running federal wiretap ran one year, having been extended 11 times. One New York state wiretap ran over two years. 77% of the taps were for cell phones and pagers.

Not surprisingly, Ashcroft had a better year with his secret FISA Court wiretap applications. All 1,228 applications were granted.

Trial begins Monday in Miami for Fabio Ochoa Vasquez, reputedly the biggest Colombian Druglord Extradited since 1977.

Our pals Roy Black and Howard Srebnick are defending Ochoa. Security is so tight that "that the anonymous jurors will be driven back and forth to court in vans with tinted windows to protect their identities."

Ochoa served five years in a Colombian prison in the 1990s for helping pioneer drug smuggling by air. Under the extradition treaty, the United States cannot try him for any of his cartel activities, including his alleged role in the 1986 hit on drug pilot and informant Barry Seal.

The case against him is built instead on allegations he got back into the cocaine business by joining up with a longtime friend and former cartel lieutenant, Alejandro Bernal Madrigal, in an operation that smuggled as much as 30 tons of the drug into this country per month.

Ochoa has denied returning to the cocaine business, proclaiming at the time of his 1999 arrest that he would be "stupid" to get into drugs again. Before his extradition, he erected billboards in Bogota and Medellin declaring: "Yesterday I made a mistake. Today I am innocent."

The case is largely dependent upon testimony of drug dealers who made a deal with the government to testify against Ochoa in exchange for leniency in their own cases.

For Law Day, the National Law Journal publishes its list of judges around the country who are alleged to have acted injudiciuously or incomprehensibly.

At the board meeting of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) in New York this weekend, we were fortunate to be able to hear accounts of the Moussaoui, Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Lynne Stewart cases from their lawyers, two of whom flew to New York just to provide us with historical details of the cases, status updates, and details of unjust Government's conduct.

Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) also flew up to New York to receive our Champion of Justice award for his tireless work on the Innocence Protection Act. This is the second time in a month we have listened to Congressman Delahunt (we met with him in Washington in March as part of an NACDL legislative delegation which we wrote about here.) We are very impressed with Delahunt--he is a former elected District Attorney who truly cares about justice--from the Innocence Protection Act, to exposing proseuctorial and FBI misconduct and supporting grand jury reform, to upholding our civil liberties and opposing the Patriot Act.

This first hand account of our Patriot Act at work by Jason Halperin was in the Friday L.A. Times--it's a must read (and reprinted by Common Dreams so you don't need an L.A. Times password:)

Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl, police officers kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU, a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.

It happened to two roomates, both U.S. Citizens, during a routine dinner out at an Indian Restaurant in Times Square.

Josh Marshall says he should have figured it out sooner-- Larry King has been feeding cases to Mark Geragos . [link via Instapundit] Josh also reprints the Larry King transcript from the show a few nights ago where Nancy Grace got her come-uppance from Scott Peterson's father. I saw that show--and agree, she had it coming. But she always has it coming. The real question is why does Larry King put her on so much--both as a guest and as a substitute host? The answer is very clear. Ratings. The public loves her "try 'em and fry 'em" mentality, and when she's on the air, ratings go up. I hope that in a future column Josh will address what the more significant and troubling import of the media's massive coverage of the Peterson case: Guilt sells.

The public will tune in to watch a person who under our legal system is presumed innocent-- that is, a person accused but not yet tried for a heinous murder-- get crucified on tv night after night, for weeks and months. I have been in three states since the Peterson case exploded in the media--Colorado, Texas and New York --in all three, it was the topic du jour in public places like airports, hotel bars, taxicabs, beauty salons and department stores. Everyone knew Scott Peterson--and had an opinion about his guilt. Everyone knew that he dyed his hair, had an affair with a woman named Amber and was arrested with $10k in cash in San Diego while DNA tests were being on the remains of his wife and unborn child --they even knew his alibi of going fishing.

Ask yourselves, what happens when someone is found innocent? How long does the case stay in the news? Can you name even one of the 127 persons released from prison or death row after DNA proved their innocence? Of course not. There is a short AP story on the case, usually never to be mentioned again.

Guilt sells. Innocence doesn't. This is what is so sad about the massive, non-stop Peterson coverage. The media disappears when it comes to covering the innocent - because it doesn't get ratings. People aren't interested in watching cases about innocence. We might as well be living in the days of gladiators and the Roman Coliseum. It's a game, a sport to the American public.

The issue shouldn't be whether Mark Geragos gets another case or whether Nancy Grace is a disgrace to the legal profession. The real issue is why does the American viewing public tune in night after night to see a person presumed to be innocent get ravaged, tried and convicted on sheer speculation by former prosecutors, cops, forensic experts and criminologists who have no first-hand knowledge of the facts or evidence in the case?

Gary Condit, John and Patsy Ramsey--none of them were charged, let alone convicted, of the crime for which they were under investigation or "the umbrella of suspicion." Yet former prosecutors went on TV nightly proclaiming their guilt based on rank speculation.

The media is positively giddy about the Peterson case. And like it or not, the coverage is going to continue. I went to the studios five times this week for Fox and MSNBC (two of the five times I was bumped while in the chair when Bush chose the exact moment of my segments to make long winded speeches.) I turned down three more requests due to schedule conflicts. I fly back to Denver at 8 am Sunday morning, will be back on Fox at 4:35 pm EST and then again at 8pm for an hour long show covering the Laci Peterson memorial service. I have already been asked about my availability for the coming week. As they say in the media business, the story has legs.

Personally, I'm glad. I'll take every chance I can get in any case, be it Scott Peterson, John Walker Lindh, Robert Blake, Zacarias Moussaoui or anyone else, to stick up for the presumption of innocence, remind people about reasonable doubt and try to convince the viewing public to view these cases through the lens of the Constitution.

I'm glad Mark Geragos will be representing Scott Peterson. He did a great job for Susan McDougal, is media savvy --essential in defending a high-profile case--and is a seasoned, skilled defense lawyer. He will assemble a team of quality experts to assist him in investigating, preparing and presenting Scott's defense.

As for having to endure Nancy and the legions of former prosecutors who, for whatever reason, don't find anything unprofessional about going on television to voice their opinion that a person is guilty before trial, all I can say is get used to it. This is what the public has dictated it wants to watch, night after night.

Unless people stop watching and ratings go down, the Nancys and Marks are here to stay--as are we defense lawyers. Television is a business. The higher the ratings, the more the stations can charge for advertising and the more money they make. I want people to keep watching. I think we defense lawyers have a point of view that needs to be expressed at every turn. But I'd also like to see intelligent journalists like Josh Marshall cover the real issue--why does guilt sell?

High profile criminal defense lawyer and cable news commentator Mark Geragos announced today he will represent Scott Peterson, who is charged with killing his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child.

Update: Don't miss Josh Marshall on Nancy Grace.

Update: The Daily Howler has a bulls eye view of Nancy Grace as well.

The Dixie Chicks are soaring on their new tour. They are back in favor with the crowds.

A new analyis of Census data finds that extreme poverty numbers are on the rise:

The number of black youths living in extreme poverty is at its highest level in the 23 years that such statistics have been kept, according to a report released Wednesday. More than 932,000 blacks under age 18 are in that category, a 50 percent increase from the 622,000 classified that way in 1999, according to a Children's Defense Fund analysis of Census Bureau data.

[link via Atrios] We agree with Children's Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman, who had this to say about the report's findking:

These numbers are clear indicators that, as a country, we must invest in children now instead of passing irresponsible tax breaks for the rich. “It is shameful that one million Black children are left behind in extreme poverty,” said Edelman. “It is hard to be poor. It is harder to be an extremely poor Black child in America when our President who says we should Leave No Child Behind® is proposing massive new tax breaks for the richest Americans.”

Our view has always been that we must give every child in America an equal chance to succeed. Bush hasn't done that. In fact, he's making this goal more difficult to achieve daily. Out, Out, damn spot. See spot run. See spot hide. See spot fade into oblivion. That's our goal for the spottily accomplished Bush.