Today I had to object because a judge allowed the Commonwealth additional time to respond to a rule 36 issue which we’ve been raising for the past year, and have had motions filed for over a month.
When PSLawNet asked me to write an essay for their new blog with some advice for public-interest law students, I happily agreed. The essay, “five things I wish I’d known in law school,” went up on the PSLawNet blog today.
(GVR: Grant, Vacate, and Remand — a disposition that is the US Supreme Court’s way of telling a lower court “don’t waste our time; go do what we told you to do.” The court grants certiorari–agreeing to take the case; vacates the judgment below; and remands the case–sends it back to the lower court with instructions to get it right next time).
And that, friends is what happened today in Briscoe v. Virginia–the case that was widely feared (or hoped) to limit the reach of this summer’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. That’s right, folks–you really really have to put the analyst on the witness stand!
And for the record, that is exactly what I predicted they were going to do when they granted cert in this case.
As an astronomer-cum-lawyer and a big word nerd, I am thrilled to see that the Supreme Court took a break from being serious yesterday to learn a new word:
Driver appealing a traffic ticket testifies that she has never had ’so much as a parking ticket.’
Judge: “Let me remind you. You raised your right hand. You swore to tell the truth. You’re telling me you’ve never had so much as a parking ticket. Would you like me to go through your entire five-page driving record?’
Driver murmers something stoogey about different kinds of tickets, and leaves the courtroom with tail between legs.
There’s always something to break the monotony of traffic court…
The next driver pled the bladder defense to speeding, and got off.