Thursday, October 30, 2008

Great Read for "No on Prop 8"

Please Fight Proposition 8’s Assault On Same-Sex Marriage

(Our Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, sent out a heartfelt letter to supporters yesterday. Below is an edited version. Originally posted on Huffington Post.)

I’m angry and heartsick about what may happen in California on November 4th.

In the most personal way possible, I’m asking you for a favor: help us ensure that gay couples all across California keep their fundamental right to marriage — the basic right to be treated just like anybody else.

I hope you will forgive the indulgence when I speak from the heart and tell you my personal story.

You see, I grew up in a loving and supportive household, where my family believed I could be anything I chose — anything except being an openly gay man. Neither of my parents finished high school, and yet, they believed I could accomplish all I set out to do as I went off to Princeton University and Stanford Law School.

They got me through the toughest of times, scrimped and saved, and always believed that failure wasn’t in the cards for me. They had more faith in me than I often had in myself. Whenever my parents visited me at Princeton, my Dad would slip a $20 bill in my pocket when my Mom wasn’t looking. I never had the courage to tell him that the $20 wouldn’t go very far towards my bills, books and tuition. But, it was his support and belief in me that sustained me more than the tens of thousands of dollars I received in scholarships.

When I finished college, they were hugely proud of my — and their — accomplishments. That was until I told them I was gay and wanted to live life as an openly gay man.

Though I always knew I was gay, I didn’t come out to them for many years, as I was afraid of losing the love and support that had allowed me to succeed against all odds. When I did tell them, they cried and even shouted. I ended up leaving their home that night to spend a sleepless night on a friend’s sofa. We were all heartbroken.

When my Mom and I spoke later, my Mom said, "But, Antonio (that’s the name she uses with me), hasn’t your life been hard enough? People will hurt you and hate you because of this." She, of course, was right — as gay and lesbian people didn’t only suffer discrimination from working-class, Puerto Rican Catholics, but from the broader society. She felt that I had escaped the public housing projects in the Bronx, only to suffer another prejudice — one that might be harder to beat — as the law wasn’t on my side. At the time, it felt like her own homophobia. Now I see there was also a mother’s love and a real desire to protect her son. She was not wrong at a very fundamental level. She knew that treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens — people who may be worthy of “tolerance, ” as some assert, but not of equality — was and still is the last socially-acceptable prejudice.

Even before I came out to them, I struggled to accept myself as a gay man. I didn’t want to lose the love of my family, and I wanted a family of my own — however I defined it. I ultimately chose to find my own way in life as a gay man. This wasn’t as easy as it sounds even though it was the mid-1980s. I watched loved ones and friends die of AIDS. I was convinced I would never see my 40th birthday, much less find a partner whom I could marry.

As years passed, my Mom, Dad and I came to a peace, and they came to love and respect me for who I am. They even came to defend my right to live with equality and dignity — often fighting against the homophobia they heard among their family and friends and in church.

The right to be equal citizens and to marry whomever we wish — unimaginable to me when I first came out — is now ours to lose in California unless we stand up for what’s right. All of us must fight against what’s wrong. In my 43 short years of life, I have seen gay and lesbian people go from pariahs and objects of legally-sanctioned discrimination to being on the cusp of full equality. The unimaginable comes true in our America if we make it happen. But, it requires effort and struggle.

One of the things I love about the ACLU is that it’s an organization that understands we are all in this together. We recognize that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Given what’s at stake in the outcome of this election, I am personally appealing to you for help to fight the forces of intolerance from carrying the day in California next Tuesday.

If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. You can send them a message here.

We need to make sure people keep in mind that gay people are part of every family and every community — that like everyone else, gay people want the same rights to commit to their partners, to take care of each other and to take responsibility for each other. We shouldn’t deny that, and we shouldn’t write discrimination into any constitution in any state. Certainly, we can’t let that happen in California after the highest court in the state granted gay and lesbian people their full equality.

Unfortunately, due to a vicious, deceitful $30 million advertising blitz, the supporters of Prop 8 may be within days of taking that fundamental right away.

To stop the forces of discrimination from succeeding, we have to win over conflicted voters who aren’t sure they’re ready for gay marriage but who are also uncomfortable going into a voting booth and stripping away people’s rights. With the ACLU contributing time, energy and millions of dollars to the effort, we’re working hard to reach those key voters before next Tuesday.

If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. Share this email with them. Call them. Direct them to the ACLU of Northern California’s Prop. 8 webpage for more information.

Don’t let other young people grow up to be afraid to be who they are because of the discrimination and prejudice they might face. Let them see a future that the generation before them couldn’t even dream of — a future as full and equal citizens of the greatest democracy on earth.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." As we strive to defeat Prop. 8 and the injustice it represents, the ACLU is trying to make that arc a little shorter.

On behalf of my Mom and family, and on behalf of all the people who will never face legally-sanctioned discrimination, I thank you for being part of this struggle and for doing everything you can to help.

It is a privilege and honor to have you as allies in this fight for dignity and equality.

For additional information on Prop. 8 and tools for advancing LGBT equality in your community, visit  

If you've made it this far down the post, please let people to vote "no" on Prop 8.  Quite simply, it is the just, fair, equitable, and more importantly, it is the right thing to do.

Monday, October 27, 2008

One Week...

Will this be enough?  We shall see...

Sunday, October 19, 2008

USF Law Moot Court Board Administers Dismal AYC Competition

The USF Law Moot Court Board runs an annual competition, Advocate of the Year (AYC), and this year they seem to truly missed the mark in running this year's program.

Advocate of the Year is an intramural appellate advocacy competition open to all USF law students who have completed 1L Spring Moot Court. Participants are presented with an issue upon which they are to research and brief the issues of the case.

After submitting briefs, competitors argue in preliminary rounds before judges. In the preliminary round, each competitor argues twice: once as petition against one opponent and once as respondent against another opponent. If you win both arguments, you advance to the second round. If you lose both arguments you are eliminated. If you lose one, but win one, your score will determine if you advance to the second round.

In the second round, the format is the same as the first, two arguments, two competitors. If one goes undefeated in the second round, regardless of how they did in the first round, they have a shot at the final round in which two competitors argue for title of Advocate of the Year.

And this final round is where the Moot Court Board has shown itself to be inept in administering this program. This year, four contestants emerged as finalist according to a flyer posted on the Moot Court bulletin board. Three of these contestants were undefeated in both rounds (say Contestant A, Contestant B, Contestant C) and the fourth lost one argument in the first round (Contestant D). Yet, in the flyer next to this posting it lists Contestant C and Contestant D as the finalists. This means that Contestant A and Contestant B were eliminated from the competition without ever losing an argument! To put it another way, a competitor who has lost an argument is jumping ahead into the final round despite the fact that there remains eligible two competitors who have not lost ANY arguments.

This policy makes no sense and is unfair to the competitors. The Moot Court Board presumes that by winning both their arguments in the second round, each candidate is equal and it would only be fair to judge them by their scores. This argument might hold some ground if each candidate remained undefeated through two rounds. But this is not the case because one of the candidates is defeated- he lost an argument in a previous round. Because he has a loss, he is therefore, not equal to the remaining three who have never lost. It therefore makes no sense that he is put into the final round.

To add further insult to injury, Contestant A actually defeated the contestant (Contestant E) who Contestant D lost to in an earlier round. By that logic, even if can be argued that Contestant A is inferior to Contestant B and Contestant C by some arbitrary measure, he should at least, at a minimum, be considered superior to Contestant D because he defeated Contestant E who was better than Contestant D. It therefore reasons that Contestant A would be better than Contestant D.  If E>D and A>E then A>D.  

Even further, the Moot Court Board seems to entirely miss the point of the competition. The point of the competition isn't to score points. The point of the competition is to see who is the best advocate by pitting advocates against each other. Scoring is merely a way to determine who did better in that argument relative to their immediate competitor- not a third party who is not arguing.

When Contestant X argues against Contestant Y in a match, their score reflects only how well Contestant X did relative to Contestant Y. Now say, in the future, Contestant X is arguing against Contestant Z. The winner of this argument should be who ever argues better relative to each other. Can Contestant X argue more persuasively than Contestant Z? It would be mind boggling to forgo competition and declare Contestant X a better arguer than Contestant Z simply because Contestant X had a better score against Contestant Y than Contestant Z did against Contestant W. The scores are apples and oranges. Indeed, it makes no sense to substitute a past score for immediate competition. This would be like forgoing the actual presidential election on November 4 and declaring Barack Obama the winner because he's leading in the polls today.

What the Moot Court Board should do is have the four competitors actually compete in an additional round. The two winners of that round should then be the finalists. If a semi final round cannot be conducted, then, as a last resort, the three competitors who have remained undefeated through out could possibly average out their total scores with the top two averages advancing. Or possibly, look for any overlap where competitors have faced the same opponents and looked to see who scored better.

It is unfortunate that instead of having a top notch competition featuring the best competitors winning and losing by their own merits, we have a substandard event in its place.  This is not due, however, to a deficit of ready, intelligent, and intense competitors. But because of a Moot Court Board that is, for lack of better words, lazy.  Instead of putting together a competition that competed all the way through- competitors advancing through head to head competition with other competitors- the Moot Court Board chose to take the easy way out and determine winners based on apples and oranges scores. It's defrauds the competitors who put so much time and energy into AYC, it cheats the school and its student body from being able to host and enjoy a strong, substantive academic competition, and it dishonors the integrity of the competition itself.

As a clarifying matter, I don't intend this critique to be a broad based assualt on the Moot Court program itself or its Case Counselers who work hard in the summer to teach 1Ls proper advoacy techniques come the spring.  Nor do I have a bias in the outcome of the competition for I did not participate.  I comment only as an observer.  Indeed, this critique is very narrowly aimed at those Moot Court members who planned, supervised, and executed this competition.   
While I give the greatest respect to the two competitors who are competing the finals, it appears unfortunate that their contest will be tainted with the suggestion that the best competitors might not actually be competing. I can only hope that next year's Moot Court Board cares enough about the value of the AYC competition to correct the mistakes of this year's Board.

Justice Thomas and Originalism

Found in the Wall St. Journal, an Op-Ed piece by Justice Clarence Thomas explaining his rationale for the originalist way of interpretting the Constitution- the basis for how he makes his decisions:

As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

Why Colin Powell Will Be Voting For Barack Obama

I couldn't have said it better myself.  

Saturday, October 18, 2008

USF Basketball Begins: Season Preview

While folks partied away their Friday evenings, I chose to stick around school and attend USF Basketball's Midnight Madness.  Midnight Madness is a way for the mens and womens basketball teams to gain some campus exposure and generate some excitement. 

Well, in that regard, they failed.   

I got to the gym about 930pm.  The event started at 10pm.  They were serving hot dogs and hamburgers outisde, which was nice.  And they gave out Los Locos t-shirts to students- or pretty much anyone who asked.  Except for me of course.  The girl demanded to see my student identification after passing out a passing out a t-shirt to some middle aged guy without looking because she was too busy talking to her sororiety sister friend.  Apparently me looking her in the eye and saying, "what's the matter don't you trust I'm a student?" didn't invoke any sympathy for my plight.  She, again, looking me right back in the eye, asked for my student ID.  I gave her my ID.  

After getting my hard bargained for t-shirt, I entered the gym and took a seat.  It was about a quarter of the way full.  At 10pm, it was still less than half way full.  At that point, the women's team came out and did a little cheorgraphed dance routine to some Michael Jackson songs.  They seemed to have a good time, and it was entertaining enough.  Then they scrimmaged.  Then the men's team came out and did, pretty much, the same thing.  My thoughts were I certainly hope they play with more enthusiam than their scrimmages.

On that note, let's get to the real point of this post: USF Men's basketball.  The main star is Dior Lowhorn.  Leading the WCC in scoring last season, he averaged 20 ppg last season (and 7.4 rebounds per game) and is a pre-season all WCC conference player.  Another top player is guard Manny Quezada.  He ended the season with 14ppg and 4.6 assists per game (though an unimpressive 3.9 turnovers per game).   Even with such talent, USF will have a tough year.  They're coming off of a 10-21 season (5-9 conference).  They have a new, unproven coach in Rex Walters, who came over from undistinguished Florida Atlantic University (15-18; 8-10 in the Sun Belt Conference).  

In the pre-conference, the Dons face some tough challenges in Cal, USC, Boise St., UCSB,  and Pacific.  And it doesn't get easier during the conference.  Gonazaga, St. Mary's, and San Diego, will, in that order, once again, likely dominate the conference by a large margin.  If USF can scratch out some conference wins and top Santa Clara for fourth place, I'd consider that a very successful season. 

Overall, it's definetly a rebuilding year.  I'd say give Walters a few years to get his own recruits in and see how he does.  We should have a pretty good idea by the time conference games roll around as to his coaching ability.  I'm still guessing a 5th or 6th place finish, depending on how Pepperdine fares.     

PS:  Home games to watch for: UCSB (11/24, 7pm), San Diego (1/9, 7pm), St. Mary's (1/11, 7pm), Gonzaga (2/14, 7pm), and Santa Clara (2/21, 7pm).    I hope to be at a few of, see you at War Memorial!  Until next time, Go Dons!    

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Kerry Max Cook event at USF a success

This posting is somewhat overdue, since the Kerry Max Cook event was on October 2, but hopefully it is better late than never. Mr. Cook came to USF to give a presentation, and the event was co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society and the Criminal Law Society. Prof. Richard Leo was also prominently involved in enabling Mr. Cook to attend, and the Sociology department and the Leo McCarthy Center (on the undergrad campus) were very generous in providing funding for the event. In all, it seemed about 70-80 people attended (room 100 was pretty full), and I'd say 70-80 people in attendance is enough to label the event a success! Pictures can be found here, for those who are interested.

For those who were unable to attend, but are interested in Mr. Cook's story, here's the deal: Cook was arrested in 1977 for the rape and murder of a 21 year old woman he had met once, briefly, at an apartment complex pool. Cook was also 21 at the time of the murder, and was arrested based on a single fingerprint found in the victim's apartment. In total, over a dozen unique fingerprints were found in the apartment, but only one set showed a match in the law enforcement database--Cook's (Cook had a record as a minor for car theft and other joy-riding related offenses). A bloody fingerprint was also found in the apartment. That print did not match Cook's, but it did not lead to the arrest of any other suspects.

At trial, Cook was convicted based on this fingerprint (and a police investigator's assertion that he could determine the finger print was left at the time of death--however, "time stamping" a finger print is impossible); the testimony of the victim's roommate, who identified, at trial, Cook as the killer, despite initially identifying the victim's ex-boyfriend, and describing the killer as having gray hair, cut around the ears (Cook, at the time, had long brown hair, as seen in this picture--the witness explained this contradiction by claiming her memory had improved in the year before trial, despite research showing that memory is best in the immediate aftermath of an event, and does not improve overtime); the testimony of a friend who claimed to have been with Cook the night of the murder (on appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared this testimony prejudicial and contradictory--as another prosecution witness placed Cook in a different place at the same time--and ruled the testimony could not be read on appeal because, as a result of the testimony, Cook's conviction was obtained through fraud and in violation of the law); and the testimony of a jailhouse snitch, Edward "Shyster" Jackson, who claimed Cook had confessed to him while the two were serving time together, though prison records would later show Jackson and Cook were not housed together at the time Jackson claimed Cook confessed (Jackson later admitted he fabricated the confession in order to gain his release from prison--at the time, Jackson was serving a sentence for murder, and, after gaining release in exchange for his testimony, was arrested and convicted of two other murders).

All told, Cook was tried three times, resulting in two convictions and one hung jury. He spent 22 years in prison and 13 on Death Row--in conditions so horrendous, Texas' Death Row was later declared to violate cruel and unusual punishment. Before Cook's fourth trial, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled the prosecution could not use the prejudicial and contradictory testimony of Cook's friend. The Court's opinion also harshly criticized the conduct of the police and the prosecution, saying the investigation was intentionally misleading.

Without this prejudicial testimony, the prosecution could not place Cook near the scene of the crime at or near the time of death. Rather than dismiss the case (or try the case without the prejudicial testimony, running the "substantial risk that without the testimony . . . [Cook] would walk the streets free from this," as the prosecutor said), the prosecution offered Cook a plea to time served. Cook ultimately plead "no contest" in exchange for a sentence of time served.

Two months after Cook's plea, DNA test results of a semen stain on the victim's panties returned, showing the DNA did not match Cook's. Instead, the DNA matched the victim's ex-boyfriend--the person whom the victim's roommate initially identified as the murderer. According to the prosecution, this finding was not exculpatory. The deputy assigned to the case in advance of Cooks' fourth trial would, after the results of the DNA analysis were revealed, describe the prosecution's goal as "to ensure [Cook] got a conviction for murder that would follow him the rest of his life." This would be the same conviction the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals described as obtained through fraud and in violation of the law.

Due to his plea, Cook remains a convicted murderer under Texas law. His story has been featured in a PBS documentary, in a play entitled "The Exonerated," and in Cook's book "Chasing Justice." Cook was also called the most persecuted man in America by the Houston Chronicle. 

Friday, October 3, 2008

California is Running Out of Money Due to Global Credit Crunch

The LA Times recently ran a story that hits home exactly how the crisis on Wall St. directly hurts Main St.  In a letter to US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that California needs an emergency loan of $7 billion dollars in order to cover California's day to day expenses.  According to the LA Times, this means that " If the state is unable to access the cash, administration officials say, payments to schools and other government entities could quickly be suspended and state employees could be laid off."  

Why, now, is California asking for this money?  Well, California relies heavily on short term debt in order to meet its budget obligations.  Indeed, it relies on taxes, of course.  But, until money rolls in from tax season, and sales tax revenue from the holidays, it needs to float short term loans to get immediate cash.  This means that in order to raise money, California sells short term bonds to investors.  This money goes to pay salaries and fund schools.  This is a pretty standard practice for California; indeed for most businesses.  

The financial crisis we are in has caused considerable fear in the bond market- i.e. where California gets its money through short term loans.  Investors are simply unsure of the market and as a result, there is little trading, meaning there are few buyers for people wanting to sell their debt.  This means California cannot get people to buy it's loans.  When investors don't buy their loans, California doesn't receive cash.  When California doesn't receive cash, employees don't get paid.  When employees can't be paid, employees get laid off.  When employees get laid off, they can't purchase as many goods from local retailers. When local retailers lose business, they go out of business.  And so on and so on in a downward cycle.  This exact situation applies to many other employers who take out short term loans to meet payroll or need the money to add extra inventory for the Christmas season.

The Senate recently passed its rescue plan.  Let's hope that the House, which votes on their resucue plan Friday, can get it together to pass theirs.  We simply cannot afford to have states, like California, running out of money.  This, I'm sure, is in all of our interests.   

Thursday, October 2, 2008

SCOTUS Case Index for Upcoming Term

Found on SCOTUS Wiki, these are the cases to be heard in October, November, and December by the US Supreme Court:

October 6 Sitting

October 6

  1. Altria Group v. Good (07-562) - Preemption, "light" cigarettes
  2. Locke v. Karass (07-610) - Public sector unions, agency fees
  3. Vaden v. Discover Bank (07-773) - Federal jurisdiction, arbitration

October 7

  1. Herring v. United States (07-513) - Fourth Amendment, police error
  2. Arizona v. Gant (07-542) - Fourth Amendment, car searches
  3. Kennedy v. Plan Adm. for Dupont Savings (07-636) - ERISA, divorced spouses

October 8

  1. Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (07-1239) - Navy sonar, separation of powers
  2. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (06-1595) - Title VII, retaliation
  3. Summers, et al. v. Earth Island Institute, et al. (07-463) - Environmental, justiciability

October 13 - Legal Holiday

October 14

  1. Bartlett v. Strickland (07-689) - Voting Rights Act, minority districts
  2. Pearson v. Callahan (07-751) - 4th Amendment, qualified immunity
  3. Oregon v. Ice (07-901) - Sixth Amendment, consecutive sentences

October 15

  1. Waddington v. Sarausad (07-772) - Habeas, jury instructions
  2. Chrones v. Pulido (07-544) - Habeas, jury instructions

November 3 Sitting

November 3

  1. Wyeth v. Levine (06-1249) - Preemption, drug labels
  2. Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (07-869) - First Amendment, payroll deductions
  3. Carcieri v. Kempthorne (07-526) - Indian Law, federal-state power

November 4

  1. FCC v. Fox Television Stations (07-582) - Administrative law, "fleeting expletives"
  2. United States v. Eurodif (07-1059) - Anti-Dumping laws, uranium enrichment
  3. Jimenez v. Quarterman (07-6984) - Habeas, statute of limitations

November 5

  1. Negusie v. Mukasey (07-499) - Asylum, persecutor bar
  2. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (07-854) - Prosecutorial immunity, wrongful convictions

November 10

  1. Chambers v. United States (06-11206) - Armed Career Criminal Act, enhanced sentencing
  2. United States v. Hayes (07-608) - Criminal, "domestic violence"
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (07-591) - Confrontation Clause, forensic analysts

November 11 - Legal Holiday

November 12

  1. Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (07-665) - First Amendment, public monuments
  2. Bell v. Kelly (07-1223) - Habeas, ineffective assistance of counsel

December 1 Sitting

December 1

  1. Kansas v. Colorado (105, Orig.) - Arkansas River
  2. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (07-581) - Arbitration, civil rights claims

December 2

  1. Entergy Corp. v. EPA (07-588) and consolidated cases - Clean Water Act, cooling structures
  2. Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee, et al. (07-1125) - Sex discrimination, Title IX

December 3

  1. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams (07-1216) - Punitive damages, state bars
  2. Haywood v. Drown (07-10374) - State court jurisdiction, federal constitutional claims

December 8

  1. Peake. v. Sanders (07-1209) - Notice, veterans' claims
  2. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512) - Antitrust, "price squeeze" claims

December 9

  1. Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122) - 4th Amendment, passenger searches
  2. Cone v. Bell (07-1114) - Habeas, procedural default

December 10

  1. Ashcroft, Former ATT'Y Gen. v. Iqbal (07-1015) - Prisoner abuse, liability of high-ranking officials
  2. AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (07-543) - Title VII, pregnancy leave credits

Unscheduled OT08

  1. Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi (07-615) - Terrorism, victim compensation
  2. Harbison v. Bell (07-8521) - Clemency proceedings, appointed counsel
  3. Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. and Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. (07-984/07-990) - Clean Water Act, fill permits
  4. Knowles v. Mirzayance (07-1315) - Habeas, ineffective assistance of counsel
  5. Boyle v. United States (07-1309) - RICO, association-in-fact
  6. Kansas v. Ventris (07-1356) - Voluntary statements, absence of a knowing waiver
  7. Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al. (07-1372) - State settlement with native Hawaiians
  8. United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410) - Indian coal lease amendments, breach of government fiduciary duties
  9. Montejo v. Louisiana (07-1529) - Interrogation of indigent defendant in absence of attorney
  10. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v. United States; Shell Oil Company v. United States (07-1601; 07-1607) - Environmental clean-up costs
  11. Puckett v. United States (07-9712) - Breach of plea agreement claims
  12. Rivera v. Illinois (07-9995) - Peremptory challenges
  13. Corley v. United States (07-10441) - Suppression of a voluntary confession
  14. Vermont v. Brillon (08-88) - Speedy trial