- Quickdraw McLaw
- 27 Comments
- 214 Views
- Zane Floyd is asking Judge Richard Boulware for a stay of execution. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Metro arrested 28 in connection with a vehicle theft ring. [RJ]
- The Nevada Police Union and the State are headed to arbitration. [TNI]
- The U.S. Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term and issued 4 opinions this morning including cases dealing with the First and Fourth Amendments. [SCOTUSblog]
Wow they got all 4 correct- when will they rule the NSB shouldn't Represent us AND prosecute lawyers – change names and ask 100 1Ls and 99 would understand that
Well… it depends on where the 1L's are asked. At Boyd, 43.5% would articulately respond with "Huh?" or "What?". 33.5% would have to consult with Siri.
OP here – haha loved it 9:47
Zane Floyd,and his execution status, is a complete non-issue. It's just pointless proceedings, signifying very little or nothing, that crop up each time a supposed "execution date" approaches.
He committed these murders in 1999.
Nevada will never execute him. Not debating whether they should or not, simply that they won't.
Also encounter occasional news stories about whether Nevada will be executing Tracy Petrocelli, who was convicted in, I believe, 1979–over 40 years ago.
So, when they present a no-news news story about whether he will be executed or not, we can spare everyone the suspense, mystery, and uncertainty–No.He will never be executed. Nothing to see here. Move on. Publish some story that may actually constitute "news."
12:19, I hear what you're saying but these matters are(sometimes) still worthy of coverage as they embrace issues beyond the absurdly long delays you refence.
Such as, it is legitimate to report on and discuss why in fact there are these absurdly long delays. One reason, among others, is that these matters are never confined to the state courts that issued the orders of execution, but the federal courts invariably become involved.
Also, it is legitimate to report on the fact that if a state intends to proceed with a pending execution date, they need to assure us they have the proper chemical combinations to effectuate a lethal injection execution, and that all such compounds are currently available to them.
And for some reasons which I am not certain of, we have been confronted with this baffling issue more than once–Nevada apparently lacks some of the necessary compounds to make the (so-called)cocktail for the execution, the company that makes one of the critical compounds has no further supply, is out-of-business, or whatever. Yet the State still insists they wish to proceed with the execution.
Absurd to even have debates and legal proceedings about whether an execution date should proceed if we still don't have all the compounds we need to proceed with an execution.
If these matters have already been delayed for decades, and many of such delays are of a debatable nature, why does the State often resist an additional delay which any reasonable person would agree is a completely legitimate and necessary delay–to make certain that if we insist on executing this person that they are actually executed rather than being horrifically tortured.
Absurd.
Compounds? Get the Noose or the FMJ's. Call it a day.
Continuing yesterday's topic as to weighing in on who is the best and most prestigious law firm in town, it is obviously the Naqvi firm.
How do I know? Well, their billboards and television ads tell me they are the #1 firm.
@4:34 – Exactly, and 11 times in a row at that.
4:34, funny but in your dismissive sarcasm you have appeared to hit on an issue of real merit and concern.
It's too lengthy to discuss all the manifestations of this issue on this blog. But one obvious dynamic is that when a lay person is at home, injured, and watching daytime television, and these ads come on from high volume p.i. firms, the lay person assumes that someone who advertises heavily, and can afford to do so, must be quite successful, and they equate that financial success with an assumption that it is connected to superior legal representation and ability.
Boo hoo. If they're that stupid, then they deserve what they get.
I am going to speak from the heart – I graduated from boyd (re yesterdays comments) and the prof had such a lack of experience they gave me nothing but book learnin' – the classes were more liberal propaganda than deep legal analysis- I knew zero when I left law school- maybe of interest top 10% n law review and soa – I think enough people have worked at WLG that I wont out myself – every good thing I ever learned about law was from marshal willick (I still practice family law) , NO student us ever ready to represent real bnb people in litigation in my opinion
Did you learn grammar and punctuation?
I'd like to express that I had a very different experience at Boyd. I, too, graduated in the top 10% of my class, was on law review/SoA, and did a clinic. I have a hard time believing that any law school right now produces practice-ready graduates, but I thought the school did a great job preparing me for post-graduate life. I'm clerking right now and rely heavily on the principles and background knowledge I learned during school. My writing has been received well by employers (firms and otherwise). I was careful about what classes I took (i.e., I would not take a course taught by a professor who I knew was disorganized or unfocused), and I thought that the professors did a good job focusing on doctrine. It's well known that law school academics tend to lean left, but I didn't think the classes were "liberal propaganda."
My law school prepared practice ready graduates (not Boyd) because you had to clerk to get the hell out of the law school. Trial Advocacy 1 and 2 were basically civil clinics= no NITA fake trials. And we had outside clerkships with firms that worked us. I want to be very clear that when I say "practice ready" that I do not mean "solo practitioner" ready. No one should be a solo practitioner right out of law school.
The more modern notion that law students should come out of law school ready to practice is flawed.
Law school should teach logical thinking, case analysis and of course black letter law. The practice of law is learned by real world experience, clerking then junior associate. An MD's education is structured in the same way, except the experience is baked in as a multi year residency. By analogy, the trades (plumber & pipe fiters, electrician's, etc) come out of trade school but have to apprentice.
Learn the law, learn how to think.
4:53. Good point, but it seems that 4:47's problem may go well beyond grammar, diction and spelling challenges.
It's almost as if 4:47 is suffering a cognitive or neurological episode, or stroke, at the time they are writing their comment.
If no such medical incident occurred, and this is the way someone in the top 10% of that university writes and communicates…well…enough said.
7:49–And most law schools don't even really make much of a pretense that they are supposedly preparing students for real life practice.
But some do place emphasis, in recent years, on preparing students to pass the Bar Exam–but not because they truly give a real damn about these students' futures, but because it makes the law school look inept if a relatively low percentage of their graduating class passes the Bar Exam of the state the law school is located in.
And the Bra Exam itself has very little to do with real life practice, so your point is well-taken.
I recall that during Boyd's earlier years their graduates passed the Bar Exam at a noticeable lower rate than graduates form out-of-state law schools. Thus Boyd started placing an emphasis on preparing their 3-L students for the exam.
After all, it is hard to attract donors, or to improve in the school's ratings, if their graduates pass the Bar Exam at a lower rate than applicants coming from out-of-state universities.
Your point is well taken. I've had 20 years of experience in a specific area of law. I've served a judicial officer as well. I've heard, or served as an attorney, on over 10,000 cases. I would love to teach in the specific area of law. However, I am relegated to teaching at career colleges and paralegal schools. The type of person who teaches at a law school is not the kind of teacher who will prepare you for actual practice.
June 24-9:08 AM-Boyd and the Bar. The first couple of years of Boyd graduates did poorly on the bar exam. The bar exam scoring was made easier and given twice a year to give Boyd a boost. The net result was that California and out of state attorneys passed in droves because it was given twice a year and graded more leniently. Boyd had several good professors for their "Academic Success" program who made a difference. Now that they have a higher pass rate, they should go back to the previous grading. I have tutored students who never answered the essay but only structured the question with no analysis, issue spotting or legal reasoning. These type of answers were almost given a passing grade. I wish I was joking but true. I saw the questions, answers and scores. I was quite astonished. So much for the bar exam.
Standards are racist. The focus of the bar is equity and inclusion, not screening people for competency.
@9:08 I remember my law school years and 3 years of bra exams. Man I had game back then. Now not so much.
Our new age requires everything be seen through grievance lenses. No one cares about competency or content of character. If a female/minority/trans/fat/woke attorney loses a case it must be a result of oppression. This applies even if the judge is a member of the same female/minority/trans/fat/woke group. The triumph of nativism/tribalism.
On a lighter note, a conservative gay friend of mine was recently lamenting that he can't stand being pigeon-holed according to his sexuality. I laughed. Too late, buddy. You can't be gay and a Republican. Get in line, comrade.
Thank you 9:30
"The type of person who teaches at a law school is not the kind of teacher who will prepare you for actual practice."
That sadly says it all!
I interviewed to be a law professor when I was a third year and I was told that I "might have too much private practice experience" to land a law professor gig. It's all about ivy degrees, clerkships, and a dedication to drafting articles.
12:36-True, them telling you that you have too much practical attorney experience to teach at a law school, means those things you say it means.
But, in fairness, it also means something beyond those more self-serving, ego-driven reasons that you(quite validly) point out.
Thus, there is also a semi-valid reason for the approach they take. And that is they force feed a lot of black letter law to students that they must memorize, and having a professor with too much real-life practical legal experience can conceivably interfere with that.
For example, I had two instructors for Civil Procedure. One was the full-time official professor(a real academian article publishing-type with little or no real practice experience as he stated teaching full-time by 27 or 28).
The other instructor(who was a practicing attorney with over 20 years experience) was sort of a regular guest lecturer who pretty much took the lead every third or fourth class by being the primary lecturer.
But when these two were both present to teach a class, it was a baffling disaster.
The professor would, for example, simply teach a number of rules to memorize, such as "For this discovery request, you need to respond within 30 days. So, that's what you need to remember about this rule."
The attorney lecturer would then cause confusion by saying "The 30 day rule doesn't really apply as our firm habitually grants, and receives, continuances to respond of varying lengths."
Good luck to those students in answering about that rule on the upcoming exam.
1:25, the students can respond, on the exam, as follows:
"The rule requires that responses be tendered within 30 days after they are served. However, attorneys are able to arrive at stipulated agreements to grant extensions beyond such 30 day response period."
OP here, dear 5:20 thank u for ur thoughtful response, dear 4:53 yay bud I'm gonna worry about all that while texting