Found here and there on the web, some matters on topic, some not:
- Will non-violent drug offenders be unlikely beneficiaries of the economic downturn?
- Speaking of offenders, have a look at Scott Greenfield’s thoughts on forty years of Miranda v. Arizona. (The “right to remain silent…” warning achieves neither what its authors hoped nor what its opponents feared);
- Every question some very strange people ever wanted to ask Slate’s Explainer, but were still unable to get a satisfactory answer on. (Via dispatches from TJICistan);
- Oregon district attorney who charged two 7th graders with assault for slapping girls on the rear, now facing assault charges herself, for slapping her husband in the face. (Via Radley Balko);
- The astounding “police blotter” of Flathead County, Montana (just keep reading, it will be Christmas before you know it);
- Blawg Review #191, on the miracle on Chanukah and the law, is up at Likelihood of Confusion. Well worth your time;
- Speaking of Blawg Reviews, last week’s at The Legal Satyricon covered the Bill of Rights in surprising detail. Who knew that the bar on quartering of troops has relevance to national security law?
This will have to be a short microblog, due to impending depositions, but it’s better than no microblog at all.
One Comment
Miranda: Nice find. So the moral of the story is, should you find yourself in an “interview” room, there are precisely two and only two phrases that should come out of your mouth: 1) “I choose to exercise my right to silence” and 2) “Am I free to go?”