The Geunius of Jake Byrd at the OJ Simpson Trial

I love the fact that OJ Simpson is back in the news and back on trial. It's great. First, it gives me a chance to redeem myself. See, back when OJ was on trial the first time, when I was in middle school, I was convinced of his innocence. I tried to tell people (and honestly believed at the time) that my opinion on the Juice's innocence had nothing to do with his past history as a football legend, but I was obviously blinded by that. Everyone signed my yearbook that year, no joke, "Have a great summer. P.S. OJ is Guilty." I still remember the afternoon the verdict was read. A huge group of us piled into Mr. Koponen's room (my 7th grade English teacher) because he was the only one with a working TV. And when the verdict came down not guilty, the room was silent. Except for me. I cheered. Not one of my prouder moments when I look back on it. Although, I still believe, as a matter of law, there was reasonable doubt in that trial, and the verdict was still likely the right verdict from a legal standpoint. From an actual "did OJ do it" standpoint, I'm no long in that camp.

So, OJ is in trouble again, which brings back so many memories of watching that trial (and I watched it from start to finish) and the launching of careers (like Fox News' Greta Van Susteren and ESPN sports legal analyst Roger Cossack who both worked for CNN at the time). It also brings out comedian Jake Byrd. Byrd loves getting himself on television, and yesterday, at the press conference OJ's lawyer held announcing his release from jail, Byrd planted himself right next to the lawyer (and the microphone) and "helped" answer many of the questions that were asked. He was hilarious, wore an OJ T-Shirt and an "I Heart Famous People" hat and Morning Joe this morning had the video. It's awesome video.

I do have to say though, OJ's lawyer really didn't impress me. Answering one of the questions on the video, the lawyer said he did not see a distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent" (Jake Byrd, helpfully, said "he's both dude!"). Of course there's a distinction though. "Innocent" means you didn't do the crime. "Not Guilty" means maybe you didn't do the crime, but in any case, there isn't enough evidence to convict you of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "Not Guilty" is a legal standard. "Innocent" is a categorical statement about whether or not you did it or not. At least regarding that question Jake Byrd, not the lawyer, had it right.

Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict

After not getting much reading done the first half of the summer, I'm really in a groove now. I've already written about how great Phil Rosenthal's You're Lucky You're Funny is and how much I enjoyed John Meacham's American Gospel and this weekend I finished another fascinating book: Jan Greenburg Crawford's Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court

Supreme Conflict is an inside look into the current Supreme Court, spending numerous chapters on each of the confirmation battles over the past quarter century, from Ronald Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the most recent selections of John Roberts, the disaster that was the Harriet Miers nomination, and finally Samuel Alito. For anyone interested in the Supreme Court, or wants an inside look at the confirmation process or how the Supreme Court has functioned during the past 25-years-plus, the book is a must read.

And there are some very interesting revelations in the book. Like many, I never thought to question the media hype machine's story that Clarance Thomas was nothing more than Antonin Scalia's understudy. After reading Crawford's book, though, I have an entirely new appreciation and respect for Justice Thomas. As Greenburg points out, many times during Thomas' first year on the bench, it was his strong will and unwillingness to bend to the views of his colleagues which often got Justice Scalia to change his mind about a case, not the other way around.

I have a hard time deciding which parts of the book I enjoyed more, the stories about the confirmation process (from how George H.W. Bush's Chief of Staff's strong support for David Souter allowed one of the most liberal justices on the Court to get appointed by one of our more conservative Presidents to the lessons George W. Bush learned so he did not make the same mistake with his nominees) or the stories about the individual cases and how the Supreme Court made the decisions they have.

And Crawford brings up some good points as well. As she writes, no matter what else can be said about George W. Bush's failure as a President, whether by accident or design (and with the Harriet Miers debacle, it's probably a bit of both), you can't say he did not put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come.

Historians may judge Bush as less than competent on many levels, but none will be able to write that he was unable to follow through on his campaign promises when it came to the Supreme Court. In pushing through John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Bush White House did indeed give Americans justices closely aligned with Scalia and Thomas.

[. . . ]

Although their outlook on the law and the proper role of the Court may be similar to that of Scalia and Thomas, their impact on its direction over the next three to four decades will be more substantial. The Court is now poised to recede from some of the divisive cultural debates. George W. Bush and his team of lawyers will be shaping the direction of American law and culture long after many of them are dead.

And looking back on the Court's most recent term, with decisions on free speech and affirmative action, and the obvious imprint both Alito and Roberts have had, Crawford's words could not have been more accurate.

And this is not to say the book was perfect. Although not an epic (the book weighs in at just over 300 pages, not short, but not the 700 page Theodore Roosevelt biography I am tackling next) it does get repetitive at points, as the same cases are discussed multiple times in different portions of the book. And while it is obvious Crawford spent countless hours reviewing notes, interviews, previous stories, and doing many of her own interviews and explorations, the book reads in spots as too much like a book report. Crawford weaves together so many different sources in such a fluid way, it makes it seem as if anyone who did the research could have written the same book. Which, isn't true of course, and, as I said previously, Crawford's voice comes through in places, but overall, not enough. And perhaps I wouldn't have noticed so much, but after just reading Phil Rosenthal's memoir, which had such a conversational style which was so easy to read, the academic nature of Supreme Conflict was especially evident.

Overall though, a great read, and followers of the Court should blow right through this book in no time. It certainly gives you a new perspective on the current Justices and a new view of just how politics has changed the confirmation process for the foreseeable future.

The Lightning Round: The Lost Season Finale, Legal Happenings, and Johnnie Morton Gets KO'd

Wow. The Detroit Pistons get themselves into a tough series with Cleveland, the Detroit Tigers bullpen implodes in on itself, and suddenly, that's all I'm really blogging about. So let's get caught up, with lots of good stuff to cover, from the Lost season finale to former Detroit Lions wide receiver Johnnie Morton having a debut in Mixed Martial Arts that he'd like to forget (and, actually, probably has forgotten, and not of his own volition).

** So, the Lost season finale was almost two weeks ago now, so everything that needs to be said has been said already. The Televisionary had a great review, showrunner Carlton Cuse was interviewed by TV Guide and showrunner Damon Lindelof was interviewed by Kristen @ E-Online.

I thought the finale was brilliant. Some of the best television I watched all season, and right up there with some of Lost's finest hours. After a very, very slow start to the season (the season premier was great, but then the rest of the "fall mini season" dragged) the show was on fire in the weeks leading up to the finale, and they really delivered. I loved the ending reveal of Jack's flashbacks being flashforwards was great, and I didn't see it coming. I was watching it with my buddies Ethan and Dave, and while Dave astutely pointed out that Jack's cell phone seemed too modern to be used in a flashback, we chalked it up to an error on the producers part. Ye of too little faith.

So this leads to all sorts of questions for next season, which starts in February of 2008 (man -- so far away). Who was in the coffin? What was Jack "lying" about and why is it so important for him to get back to the island (were people left behind?) and why does he need maps to find it if they were rescued? Is the island still shielded from view and impossible to return to once you leave? And if so, then who really rescued the castaways? And what about the "sickness" people are supposed to get on the island? Has that storyline been dropped completely or will we be getting back to it (it wasn't brought up in the finale, but I'm still waiting). Overall, a great, great finale.

** A few interesting television legal things which broke over the past week or so. Joe over at the great "I Am A TV Junkie" Blog sent me a link to a lawsuit filed by a former producer of Dateline NBC who was fired, she alleges, after she blew the whistle about unethical practices by the team behind "To Catch a Predator." NBC says she was let go in a cost cutting move. It's an interesting claim, but her allegations really don't surprise me. Even though Dateline is a news-magazine, the "To Catch a Predator" segments were turned into their own series, and seemed as much like entertainment programs as anything. As she alleges, some of the people featured in the broadcasts were "led into additional acts of humiliation (such as being encouraged to remove their clothes) in order to enhance the comedic effect of the public exposure of these persons", but I think that the claim has a few pretty obvious defenses. A) From what I saw (which wasn't much, but I would watch some segments while channel surfing) the suspects being asked to remove their clothes was not done so much for comedic effect as it was to show how serious they were about performing illegal acts and B)It's probably not great strategy to try to draw sympathy for alleged child predators. I understand her point that it may violate ethical standards or standards of news reporting, but people are not going to feel bad about it happening.

It will be interesting to see what happens though. If she was "sole producer" of "To Catch A Predator" as she claims, she likely knows quite a bit about what was really happening behind the scenes. On the other hand, Dateline NBC is undergoing a lot of cost cutting (NBC as a network is tightening things, and Dateline in particular let loose Stone Phillips, their standard bearer) and unless the former producer has some real "smoking gun" evidence, it may be hard to prove it wasn't a cost cutting move. "To Catch a Predator" was a series of specials anyway, so if they aren't producing anymore episodes, they probably don't need a producer. We'll see where it goes.

Then, this weekend, in news which probably frightened quite a few people who download television shows off the internet, The FBI filed charges against a man who posted episodes of 24 on YouTube and other filing sharing services.

The FBI filed a criminal complaint Friday against a Chicago man for allegedly uploading four episodes of the hit series "24" to LiveDigital.com, a video hosting site, before their primetime broadcast. If convicted on a felony count, Jorge Romero, 24, could face up to three years in prison.

The action represents a renewed aggressiveness to crack down on Internet bootleggers, particularly in the television industry, which has not been as vocal about anti-piracy activities as the music and movie businesses.

While the Internet is awash in pirated video content, it is rare for programs to find their way online before airdate. But eight days before the "24" TV premiere, Romero found the original file on a file-sharing service through Mininova.org, a bit torrent tracking site, according to the FBI affidavit.

Romero allegedly downloaded them from an illegal file-sharing service and subsequently uploaded them to LiveDigital, and also posted Web links to the pirated episodes on Digg.com.

It's a pretty aggressive act by the FBI, I am also surprised about how long it took for criminal action to be taken in a case like this. And especially with these 24 episodes, which were leaked before their airdate, which also interfered with a DVD release of the episodes days after the aired for the first time.

The networks, to their credit, have all done a great job in the past year establishing quality online video players for their episodes, which in many ways makes downloading them illegally unnecessary. But, at the same time, if you miss an episode of a show, which is not archived by the network's website, or sold on a system like ITunes, you have very few options other than downloading from BitTorrent if you want to watch the episode. These episodes, obviously though, were leaked before their aired. And I remember that too, because I had to restrain myself from downloading them because I was really looking forward to the 24 premiere.

In many ways, this probably is what the music industry should have been doing years ago. If you want to scare college kids away from downloading music, don't sue them, have them arrested.

** And lastly, former Detroit Lion wide receiver Johnnie Morton made his debut in Mixed Martial Arts fighting, and not as a gimmick, but as a serious new career path. He probably should have stayed with football. He was knocked out in 38 seconds and left on a backboard. Oops.

Ouch. Sort of makes being hit by John Lynch look docile by comparison.

CNBC's Erin Brunett Covers Digg Revolt on "Street Signs"

I was watching CNBC's Street Signs with Erin Burnett, as I often do afternoons 2:00-3:00 and near the end of her show, she started talking about copy-protection of DVDs and the recent uprising at website Digg.com. For those unfamiliar, Digg is a social news site where news stories are "digged" to the top of the pile and "buried" to the bottom if they aren't good. What shows up on the Digg front page is whatever the Digg faithful votes for. Until earlier this week, when Digg chose to remove posts which contained a crack to the decryption of the new HD-DVD Technology after receiving a "cease and desist" letter from the HD-DVD crowd. Needless to say, the Digg folks revolted, flooded the site with posts and diggs, and eventually Digg changed their ways. Burnett had two guests on this afternoon to talk about the Digg revolt and copy protection in general, and it was a very interesting discussion. The video is below.

Dry Cleaners Lose Pants; Judge Sues for $67 Million

In one of those lawsuits which makes me sort of ashamed to admit I am in law school, a judge in Washington D.C. is suing his local dry cleaners for $67 million after they lost his favorite pairs of pants. No, that wasn't a misprint. Or a internet urban myth. Apparently these pants were quite meaningful to the judge, and he is suing for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort", the last two of which I don't really think are actionable. ABC News has more.

Pearson says in court papers that he took a pair of pants in to Custom Cleaners in the Fort Lincoln section of D.C. that year, and the pants were lost. So Jin and Soo Chung, the Korean immigrant couple who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops, gave Pearson a $150 check for a new pair of pants.

Three years later, Pearson says he returned to Custom Cleaners and - like some real life "Groundhog Day'' nightmare - his trousers went missing.

Again.

So, when they went missing the second time, he sued. And now, years later, the court case is causing a financial headache for the owner of the dry cleaner, who is being besieged with legal fees.

"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees,'' Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees... we've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress.''

While the judge's explanation for his $67 million claim at least has some basis in reality (According to ABC's story he's suing for ten years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store -- though how this amounts to $67 million is puzzling, must be all that "mental anguish" he suffered) this whole case is sad. Sad for the dry cleaner who is being financially ruined by this silly lawsuit. Sad for the judge who obviously has some sort of vindictive nature to him to go this far with the case (the ABC report says he plans on calling 63 (!!) witnesses at the civil trial). And sad for our legal system, which gets another black eye because of this ridiculous lawsuit.

Major League Baseball and Highlight Clips

A few days ago, I posted a blog entry on the Detroit Tigers 6-5 come from behind victory over the Chicago White Sox. I included a video of the game winning hit, Placido Polanco's game winning single. Today, that video-clip was removed from YouTube as an alleged violation of Major League Baseball's copyright. I don't know very much about the law in this area, but my good buddy and fellow University of Michigan Law Student, Kurt, who writes his own great blog over @ Clever WoT, has studied the issue of internet copyright quite a bit and is working on a note now about YouTube and fair use video clips. Kurt has some analysis of Major League Baseball's takedown of my video, and its well worth checking out. Interesting stuff.

Flashback of Judge Larry Seidlin

Yes, it's another edition of "The Ridiculous Note of the Day." The Anna Nicole Smith diaries failed to sell at auction this weekend according to the Associated Press.

Two diaries written by Anna Nicole Smith in the early 1990s failed to sell at an auction this weekend, but are now available for a minimum bid of $25,000 each, an the auction house said Sunday.

“We have a buy-it-now situation,” said Doug Norwine, the director of music and entertainment memorabilia at Heritage Auction Galleries of Dallas.

So, of the course the question running through your mind is, "Why, Scott, do you care about the Anna Nicole Smith diaries?" And the answer is, "I don't." But, the story gives me an opportunity to paste in two videos from Countdown with Keith Olbermann of Judge Larry Seidlin. For those unfamiliar, Judge Larry rose to fame when presiding over the hearings over where to bury Anna Nicole, and he was wacky. So if you missed him the first time, or need a refresher of "Judge Larry" to get through the day and need a good laugh, enjoy the two videos below.




Judge Larry. Quite the character. Hopefully he gets a TV deal soon, because he's incredibly entertaining.

Poison Pills and NFL Free Agency: The Issue Hardly Anybody is Talking About

One of the biggest stories of the National Football League off-season is unfolding before our eyes and hardly anybody in the "mainstream" media is covering it. Not ESPN, not CNNSI, not Fox Sports. Until just today, only the good folks over at Pro Football Talk have even discussed the connection between "poison pills" and "collusion." Scary words, especially for NFL owners and teams, but until now, the controversy has not garnered little attention.

That ended today when the Orlando Sentinel reported that the NFLPA (the National Football League Players Association for those unfamiliar) is requesting the NFL Management Council look into dealings between the New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins as it regards a trade made earlier this month for wide reciever Wes Welker. Or, maybe it didn't, if the Boston Herald is to be believed.

In any case, we'll get back to Welker and his specific complaint in a moment. But, first, some helpful background. Last season, the Seattle Seahawks named All-Pro offensive guard Steve Hutchinson their "Transition Player." This meant that while Hutchinson was a free agent, any offer he signed could be matched by Seattle. The Minnesota Vikings signed Hutchinson to an offer-sheet which cleverly included a clause which said that if Hutchinson was not the highest paid lineman on his team (he wouldn't have been in Seattle because of a previous contract with tackle Walter Jones) his entire contract became instantly guaranteed. Seattle, unwilling to make such a radical promise, let Hutchinson go.

Not to be out-foxed, however, Seattle responded by returning the favor. They signed Minnesota restricted free agent Nate Burleson soon after and included an even more radical poison pill. That clause said that if Burleson played more than 5 games in the state of Minnesota during any one year of the contract (which he would do if the Vikings matched the offer) the contract (worth $49 million in total) would also become instantly guaranteed, just like with Hutchinson.

Needless to say, the NFL front office was not happy with the use of such clauses, but during this off-season, despite renegotiating and extending the league's Collective Bargaining Agreement, nothing was done to end the use of the poison pill.

Except, the poison pill has not been used at all this off-season. Restricted free agents have been signed to offer sheets, but not one contract includes use of a poison pill. The folks over at Pro Football Talk's NFL Rumor Mill are rightfully suspicious of the sudden absence of the pill. After all, if a team wanted to sign a free agent, why wouldn't they use such a pill to ensure success and prevent the player's former team from matching the offer-sheet. It doesn't make sense, not to Pro Football Talk, not to me, and now, not to the NFLPA.

The controversy regarding Welker is a perfect example. Earlier in the off-season, it appeared the Patriots were set to sign Walker to an offer-sheet worth $38.5 million over seven seasons. They would lose a second-round draft choice by doing so, but if they wanted Welker (which they clearly did) all they needed to do was include a Burleson-like "poison pill" into the contract, and he'd be theirs.

That isn't, though, what the Patriots did. Instead of signing Welker to an offer-sheet, which would have cost them a 2nd round draft pick if they had included a poison pill and Miami declined to match, they chose to trade for him instead, giving Miami both a second and a seventh round draft pick. On its face, this seemingly made no sense. They could have had Welker for just a second-round pick, so why give up the extra draft choice?

The deal became even more suspicious when the Patriots announced their new contract with Welker was only for $18.1 million over 5 seasons, not the $38.5 million earlier reported. If the Patriots and Dolphins got together, on their own, and agreed to avoid the headache and cost of using the poison pill by simply arranging a trade for Welker, which would allow the Patriots to sign him at a lower price (since the larger contract was in part inflated as a way to prevent the Dolphins from matching it), that would be collusion and against the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Which is why Pro Football Talk has been talking about the deal for more than a week now, and why the Orlando Sentinel reported today that the NFLPA similarly wanted more information.

"They may have violated the CBA rule that says one club can't offer the player's former team anything that would [sway] that team from matching their offer," the source said. "Anti-collusion [rule], that's another thing that may come into play."

The source added that the NFLPA's interest in the matter stemmed from complaints made by Welker's agent, Vann McElroy, regarding the devaluation of his client because of possible violations.

The Boston Globe reports tonight that there is more smoke then fire regarding the Sentinel's report, and that no action is likely to be taken. Which wouldn't be a surprise if the NFL truly wanted to eliminate use of the poison pill. As free agency continues and the off-season progresses, this story will hopefully gain traction, and more mainstream outlets will report on it. I'm going to do my own research for a term paper in my Sports Law course here at the Law School and I'll keep updates coming in the blog as they develop. (And yes, for those keeping track at home, that's two papers this semester on sports -- The NFL Poison Pill and the previously discussed Major League Baseball/DirecTV Extra Innings move. Now If I can just find a similarly themed sports topic for my Presidential Power seminar, I'll be all set. I'm open to suggestions.)

Why the Scooter Libby Verdict Shows Our Legal System Works

In watching and reading the reaction to the Scooter Libby verdict in the past 48-hours, the whole controversy is incredibly fascinating. Some say he should be pardoned, others say the case should have never been brought in the first place and the whole trial was a travesty of justice, while yet others say the verdict does not go far enough in exposing the lies and misdeeds of the Bush administration.

Yet, putting aside one's view of whether the case was rightfully brought to trial (which I understand is hard to do if you believe the case should have never existed) listening to and reading the explanations of the jury for their verdict and what their feelings toward Scooter Libby are, it is hard to say that our criminal justice system didn't work exactly how it was supposed to throughout this trial.

It is so easy to be pessimistic about our legal system. Rich celebrities seem to get away with murder (literally sometimes) because OJ Simpson can buy a 'Dream Team' defense while others seem to be convicted because of their cold, callous behavior (Martha Stewart comes to mind) even if what they did was questionable and the prosecutions case is flimsy. Juries are often viewed as incompetent, unable to understand the law, the rules of the court, and esepcially the judge's lengthy and often confusing instructions before they start deliberations. Some legal realists don't believe juries follow the law at all, and instead acquit or convict on whether they think the defendant is a good guy or not no matter how strong or weak the prosecutions case is. If a defendant is sympathetic and likable, it seems he's more likely he'll be acquitted.

That didn't happen in the Scooter Libby case though. One of Libby's jurors said convicting Libby was one of the hardest things she's ever had to do.

Saying “I don’t want him to go to jail,” a member of the jury that convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case called Wednesday for President Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The woman, Ann Redington, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that she cried when the verdicts against Libby were read Tuesday. She said Libby seemed to be “a really nice guy.”

That's an incredible statement and an even more incredible validation of our legal system. This jury did exactly what was required of them. They looked at the evidence, and testimony, and came to a conclusion regardless of their personal feelings toward Libby or whether they believed he deserved to go to jail or not. It would have been really easy for them to say "forget the law" and acquit Libby because they were sympathetic towards him. But, something told this jury that the law was more important than their personal beliefs. That the law mattered and that they could not overlook what they believed was a violation of the law, no matter how much they didn't want to see Libby sent to jail.

The legal system (so far as the trial went) worked flawlessly. Evidence was presented, both prosecution and defense were able to put on their case, and a jury spent 10 days in a room pouring over testimony, diagramming timelines, and ultimately reaching a conclusion on whether the law was broken without ever considering their personal feelings toward the defendant. They didn't like having to convict Scooter Libby, but after looking at the evidence, they felt they had no other choice. And that is exactly how our legal system should work.

Now the question turns to whether Libby should receive a Presidential pardon. Many media outlets have said that he should. MSNBC does not yet have a transcript up of tonight's edition of Hardball but once they do I will update this post because Chris Matthews and The National Review's Kate O'Beirne had a great debate about a potential pardon which I thought gave both the liberal and conservative points of view equal time. Matthews and O'Beirne also argued about the comparisons between the Libby prosecution and impeachment of President Clinton which have incredible parallels and show the hypocrisy of both the right and the left (the same people decrying Libby's conviction as an independent counsel run amok are the same people who praised Ken Starr; Likewise, the same people cheering Libby's conviction are the same people who decried Clinton's impeachment). It was fascinating television, and well worth taking a look at once the transcripts are released.

Update: MSNBC has now posted the aforementioned Hardball transcript and it is really worth taking a look at. The exchange between Matthews and O'Beirne starts about midway through the page. Here are some of the highlights.

O‘BEIRNE: Perjury should be punished. Bill Clinton admitted his perjury. He said—he plead guilty to it. I told falsehoods in my testimony, he admitted it.

MATTHEWS: Scooter was found guilty by a judgment of his peers.

O‘BEIRNE: Scooter Libby has not. Scooter Libby maintains that the discrepancies were owing to his faulty memory. I think reasonable people can conclude that that is the case. I think the jury did a very diligent job, clearly looked at everything.

[. . . ]

MATTHEWS: OK. You believe that if he accepts a pardon, he is accepting guilt? Because that is the legal precedent that Jerry Ford honored when he pardoned Richard Nixon? Do you believe that he should accept guilt, which you don‘t accept? You say he is innocent.

O‘BEIRNE: He doesn‘t have to accept guilt by accepting a pardon. He doesn‘t have to do that.

MATTHEWS: Well, that is the law.

[. . . ]

MATTHEWS: Should [President Clinton] have been kicked out of the White House—the presidency for perjury?

O‘BEIRNE: Yes. It‘s an impeachable offense, Chris.

MATTHEWS: He should be kicked out of the presidency for perjury, but Scooter ought to get a—what, a hall slip or permission slip? What do you want to give him?

O‘BEIRNE: If you‘re guilty of perjury...

MATTHEWS: Perjury...

O‘BEIRNE: ... and as I said, he‘s a—he—he admits his perjury.

It‘s an impeachable offense.

MATTHEWS: Scooter was just found guilty in a court of perjury.

O‘BEIRNE: He maintains—he maintains...

MATTHEWS: I don‘t care what he maintains. Of course—this country is filled with prisons, with maybe a million people in these prisons, and every one of them says they‘re innocent!

O‘BEIRNE: Maybe some of them are.

[. . . ]

MATTHEWS: Well, then why are you taking a position on this case?

O‘BEIRNE: Because a political dispute has been criminalized in a poisonous way that shouldn‘t have been permitted to happen. And it happened to some extent...

MATTHEWS: This is exactly...

O‘BEIRNE: ... because of the Bush administration.

MATTHEWS: ... why this is so ironic. It‘s so ironic, Ann. You‘re a juror. This is exactly the argument made by people like Hillary Clinton back when her husband got in trouble. It was a vast right-wing conspiracy. It wasn‘t a matter of her husband‘s perjury and obstruction of justice, it was all a big conspiracy that should have never been brought to court.

O‘BEIRNE: That‘s not the same argument at all!

MATTHEWS: No, it‘s exactly the same argument.

O‘BEIRNE: No, it‘s not!

Okay, that was more than I wanted to really quote, but as I said, it was good, even better watching it live. Check the transcript for the whole exchange, as I said, both sides got to get their points across and that's the best kind of political debate.

Scooter Libby Guilty -- Now it gets interesting

After 10 days of deliberations the jury in the Scooter Libby trial came back today and Libby was convicted on four counts including lying to the FBI, perjury, and obstructing justice.

I followed the case from afar, mainly from watching David Schuster's great reports on MSNBC's Hardball news program. And while it was disappointing that neither Libby nor Vice President Dick Cheney testified in the case so we could get a true picture of what was going on in the Vice President's office when this whole scandal was developing, it seems like a just verdict. Libby's explanation that he had so many other important things on his mind that he forgot he was once told that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA operative wasn't very believable. Especially given the testimony which showed how obsessed both Libby and (more importantly) Vice President Cheney were with discrediting Plame's husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson.

If there's one person I wouldn't want to have my credibility held up against, it would be NBC's Tim Russert and that's what Libby tried to do. Russert is pretty credible and when he says he learned Plame's name from Libby, it's very believable. As one of the jurors said afterwards, even if they believed Libby did have a bad memory (which they believed he did) he was told about Plame at least 9 times before his conversation with Russert where Libby claimed he learned about Plame for the first time (or, it was the first time he remembered learning about her name). That's hard to fight your way out of.

This is a big conviction and an important one when one considers how the Iraq War was sold to the American people and how desperate at least some in the Administration were to sell the war and discredit anyone who dared speak either against the war plan or against the evidence which was used to create the need for the war (which we now know was bogus, and with any investigation would have been proven bogus back then). Whether one was for or against the war at the start (or are for or against our continued operations in Iraq) it is scary to consider the tactics used to sell the war when it started.

And now, Scooter Libby is facing 25-years in jail for his role in the entire fiasco (though, of course, he wasn't convicted of leaking Plame's name, but for lying about it afterwards, which just goes to show, it's always the cover-up which kills you). So, the question becomes, what will his sentence be (it will surely be a number of years in jail most likely) and will Libby turn on the administration to save himself? As Chris Matthews on Hardball has continually speculated, if Libby was convicted (and now he has been) it would be in his best personal interest to talk to the prosecutors and say what he knows about the disclosure of Plame's identity. If he was told by Vice President Cheney to lie to reporters or leak Plame's name, now that he is facing years in prison, it would be the time to bargain for a reduced sentence in exchange for that testimony. So far, Libby has been very loyal to the administration and there's no indication this will change now that he faces time in jail, but, how far does loyalty go? The jury itself, in comments made by a jury member afterwards, felt Libby was the fall-guy for Karl Rove and perhaps even the Vice President. It was even indicated that some jurors were upset that they had to convict Libby because they believed he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole operation, but he did lie and obstruct justice. Given that, I don't know how Libby could continue to stay quiet if there is a deal to be made. Either way, I'm sure there are some very worried people in Washington right now, and it should be a very interesting few months before sentencing in June.

Baseball Matchups: Detroit Tigers v. New York Yankees and DirecTV v. Baseball Fans

Despite the 26-degree weather outside, this March afternoon was dedicated to the game of baseball, both in terms of academics and extracurriculars.

While watching ESPN's broadcast of the Detroit Tigers v. New York Yankees Spring Training baseball game (impressions I'll get to in a moment) I was also scanning statutes, cases, and law review notes in anticipation of my upcoming term paper for my Mass Media Law course. As many baseball fans know, Major League Baseball is currently finalizing negotiations with DirecTV to move their "Extra Innings" package, formerly available to cable subscribers through iNDemand, exclusively to DirecTV. Needless to say, many fans subscribing to the package who either don't want to subscribe to DirecTV, can't afford it, or can't even get DirecTV if they wanted to (because of building restrictions or because they happen to live on the side of a high-rise which blocks reception from DirecTV's satellites) are none to happy, and both Senator John Kerry and the Federal Communications Commission are looking into the antitrust implications of the agreement. And, so am I. I will be writing my term paper analyzing the proposed deal, first by looking at the similarly themed 'NFL Sunday Ticket' (and the lawsuit filed by disgruntled fans against the service) and then trying to figure out whether Extra Innings would be subject to the same scrutiny (or even more considering some of the factors which years ago weighed in favor of allowing NFL Sunday Ticket do not hold true today with Major League Baseball). I know a lot of people are interested in the legality of the pact, and as I continue my research and work on my essay, I'll post periodic progress reports.

But, it was not all work this afternoon, as I watched the Yankees/Tigers game thankfully broadcast on ESPN (and not DirecTV). It was your typical Spring Training game, with inconsitencies both on the plate and on the mound, but I liked what I saw from the Tigers. Joel Zumaya throwing 101 Miles Per Hour in March is incredible. As I blogged over @ MLive this afternoon, Zumaya said he wants to slow down a bit this year to confuse batters, he was throwing smoke against the Yankees. Just an incredible talent. Anytime you can follow a 100 MPH fastball with an 84 MPH breaking ball, it just isn't fair to the batter.

And he wasn't the only one showing off this afternoon. 2006 Rookie of the Year Justin Verlander started the game, and while he struggled a bit in the second inning, he looked very impressive in the first. And what is even more impressive about Verlander is his dedication and willingness to work to improve. It would be easy to sit back after such a successful rookie campaign, but Verlander wasn't satisified. Talking to the ESPN crew in-between innings, he talked about how he moved to Lakeland (the Tigers Spring Training home) during the off-season so he could work with Tigers trainers to strengthen his shoulder muscles so he could more easily withstand the punishment a long season takes on his body. His maturity level for such a young player is great to see. And the next big Tigers prospect, 6'6" Andrew Miller also pitched two innings, and as expected, was a bit hot and cold. But, despite struggling in the first inning he pitched, he rebounded, and recovered nicely. He didn't let a few bad pitches get to him. There is no reason to believe, after watching Miller pitch, that he won't blow through the minor leagues like Verlander did before him, and be a starting and successful pitcher at the Major League level sooner than later.

The offense looked good too, but it is so early. The Tigers continually loaded the bases in the early innings on the Yankees, but couldn't score many runs. The success so far this spring from the likes of Pudge Rodriguez and the patience at the plate the Tigers showed today was encouraging. Today was also my first chance to see the newest Tiger, Gary Sheffield, and he had some loud, long foul balls. And he showed that he can be a force in the middle of the Tigers lineup, the big bat the Tigers were really missing last year. As I post this, the Tigers are leading 5-4 going into the ninth inning, and win or lose (and records in Spring Training are pretty meaningless) it was an encouraging game.

Sure, it was only a Spring Training game, and the regulars who were there didn't even play the whole game, but it was fun to watch baseball again. The Tigers were down for so long, the idea of taking an afternoon to watch a Spring Training game would have seemed like a waste. But, no more, and that's great to see.

What I'm Watching: Boston Legal -- Season Two

So as earlier mentioned, I have the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam coming up a week from today (it's a test, with the Bar Exam, which must be passed before one can practice law) and while I've done a bit of studying for the exam over my Spring Break from law school, I've spent more time watching my DVDs of the second season of Boston Legal. Television shows based on the practice of law are not new. David E. Kelley, creator of Boston Legal, has had some of the best, including The Practice, from which Boston Legal spun off from. The Practice is supposed to be released on DVD this year and the first two seasons of Boston Legal are already available. Other than Shark airing on CBS (Thursday night @ 10:00), and the various formations of Law & Order, which aren't so much legal shows as they are criminal procedurals with some law thrown in (depending on the version), Boston Legal is one of the only legal shows left on TV, but it is a great, great show. It's both funny and topical, serious and entertaining, James Spader's Alan Shore and William Shatner's Denny Crane are some of the best characters on television. Sure, sometimes the storylines are outrageous, but as I currently watch an episode from November 1, 2005, as Spader's character rants against the Iraq war, the show's old episode are as relevant today as they were when they first aired.

Plus, the characters break so many ethical rules on the show, it is great review for the upcoming MPRE, as the lawyers at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt likely would have been disbarred had this been reality TV instead of a television drama. In any case, well worth checking out the DVDs, or failing that, tuning in Tuesday's at 10:00 on ABC.