The Sacramento Bee, February 19, 2011 by Bogdan Kipling
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/19/3416316/congress-bail-out-states-yes.html
Christopher Edley, the dean of the law school … has proposed that hard-up states be allowed to take advances on some of the federal funds they’re due in future years.
InformationWeek, February 18, 2011 by Charles Babcock
http://bit.ly/eNImJH
A member of the audience suggested that the recent decision in the Bilski vs. Kappos case by the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the software patent issue in favor of more restricted software patents. But Professor Menell disagreed. It was argued on a basis of business processes, not software, and resolved nothing, he said.
The Daily Californian, February 18, 2011 by Amruta Trivedi
http://www.dailycal.org/article/112002/uc_online_program_in_running_for_gates_grant
Though Edley maintained that the prize money, if received, would hardly sustain the program for the long-term, he stressed the importance of adopting online education as a means to expand the UC’s technological presence. “I believe a more promising diffusion strategy is for leading institutions known for excellence to demonstrate the value of new technologies,” Edley said in an e-mail.
-City on a Hill Press (UCSC), February 17, 2011 by Joey Bien-Kahn
http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2011/02/17/killing-them-softly/
Semel said that during moratoriums like the current one, the needless nature of capital punishment is most evident…. “If we can go that long without executing anyone, why do we need it?” she said. “It doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us a more just society.”
-KPIX-TV, February 22, 2011 Host Robert Lyles
http://bit.ly/hbVmha
Professor Lis Semel says … our juries are condemning people to die, so every appeal should receive the highest scrutiny. Even if he’s had three trials. “There is most certainly a remedy, and the remedy is the abolition of the death penalty.”
BusinessWire, February 17, 2011
http://bit.ly/h5APT2
“Both scholars are fluent in the details of law and legal institutions,” said Judge Fletcher. “They produce work that is consistent with ALI’s goals of clarifying the law and adapting it to social needs and the administration of justice.”
Contra Costa Times, February 16, 2011 by Thomas Peele
http://www.contracostatimes.com/my-town/ci_17407139?nclick_check=1
Eleanor Swift, professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, said it seems unusual for a judge to go through jury screening, a process called voir dire, with a motion for venue change undecided. Claims of excessive publicity tainting a jury pool are generally decided after a “ballpark determination is made on the effects on the jury pool,” Swift said.
San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 2011 by Marisa Lagos
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-16/news/28538700_1_teens-free-e-editions-prison
“If I’m a prosecutor, and could try someone as an adult, why wouldn’t I? Then the state gets to pay for their incarceration,” said Barry Krisberg … who specializes in juvenile justice. “What incentive is there to send them to a county program, where the county has to pay and they are really different than the other kids they are working with?”
The Wall Street Journal, China Real Time Report, February 16, 2011 by Stanley Lubman
http://on.wsj.com/ef4jpY
Social pressure expressed via the Internet and other social media is energizing citizen protests against violations of Chinese law and creating pressure for legal reform, especially at the local level. But it will remain considerably more difficult for the Internet to become an effective medium for successful pressure for legal reform beyond individual cases.
Oakland Tribune, February 16, 2011 by Sean Maher
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_17407163
Barry Krisberg, a gang injunctions expert and lecturer at UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law, testified that gang injunctions generally do more harm than good to communities and that defining “gang members” is troubling because of the term’s ambiguity.
The New York Times, February 16, 2011 by Lawrence Hurley
http://nyti.ms/eJrsfG
“There are considerations either way,” said Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Her instinct is that the Justice Department won’t appeal, for the simple reason that “they won’t want to piss off the judge any more than they already have.”