June 23 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 23, 2009

  • In case you were waiting for it: update on “toxic-bra” litigation [OnPoint News, Kashmir Hill, Above the Law (noting that rashes can have many different causes); earlier]
  • Parts 5 & 6 of White Coat’s malpractice-suit saga [opposition's expert witness; emotional support]
  • “Global Insurance Fraud by North Korea Outlined” [Washington Post]
  • British cops aren’t saying which famous buildings you can be stopped/searched for photographing [BoingBoing]
  • FBI said to probe whether construction-defect lawyers have improper ties to Nevada homeowner associations that give them business [Carter Wood at Point of Law]
  • With junk science in even criminal prosecutions, is there hope of keeping it out of civil cases? [Coyote]
  • “Remember when you could fight with a sibling and not face arrest?” [Obscure Store, 10-year-old Texas girl]
  • Australian man obtains patent on “circular transportation facilitation device”, otherwise known as “the wheel”, to make point about ease of obtaining weak patents [eight years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 5 comments }

1 Xmas 06.23.09 at 9:15 am

Remember when you could spank your children for being unruly and they’d learn through negative reinforcement that fighting is bad.

2 Joe 06.23.09 at 9:38 am

Honestly, what AREN’T we going to start arresting people for these days? A 10 year-old fighting with her sibling? That’s ridiculous.

3 DAV 06.23.09 at 10:51 am

Were ALL of the adults involved in the sibling fight arrest below average intelligence?

“Remember when you could spank your children for being unruly and they’d learn through negative reinforcement that fighting is bad.”

You stll can — just dont get caught.

4 smurfy 06.23.09 at 12:44 pm

I wonder if the 10 year old will be charged as an adult?

5 Bill Poser 06.23.09 at 3:59 pm

I suspect that junk science is a greater problem in criminal than civil cases. For one thing, in the typical criminal case, the resources of the prosecution, especially in the forensic area, are considerably greater than those of the defense. If the district attorney can get some sort of criminalist or law enforcement officer to testify to nonsense, how is the non-celebrity defense attorney or public defender to attack it?

A prime example is the long and sordid history of the admission of speaker recognition evidence, which at least until quite recently was entirely without scientific foundation.

Comments on this entry are closed.