Appealing in Nevada : Nevada Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Tami D. Cowden : Nevada Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Okay, just how ironic is it when the judge in an obscenity trial is discovered to have a website containing, according to the LA Times, sexually explicit photos and videos? I write fiction, but if I had written this, I’d have been told it was too implausible.  

Yet this is exactly what happened in the trial of adult-film maker  Ira Isaacs, being prosecuted by the feds who say his films are criminally obscene.  The trial has been stayed for 48 hours due to the discovery that the presiding judge – who is none other than Alex Kozinski, CJ of the Ninth Circuit, had some questionable material on his website. The site is no longer available to public view, but the pictures supposed included such things “a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.”  

And I thought this sort of thing only happened in Nevada. 

See the LA Time story here.

 I wish I had some sort of meter to measure the relative level of amazement produced from a story like this compared to something like - oh, I don't know,  a governor engaging in hundreds of text messages with a woman he insists is not his lover.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting permission to file an oversized supplemental brief. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent to that order was also published. Apparently, the petitioner in the case filed a supplemental brief that was exceeded the word limit, and three weeks later sought retroactive leave to do so. Kozinski would have preferred the court to require a conforming brief to be filed.

Kozinski’s dissent repeats the mantra of legal writing enthusiasts everywhere (indeed, perhaps all writing enthusiasts?): less is more. He concludes his dissent by stating “tightening up petitioner’s brief to conform to our rules would not only help conserve judicial resources and promote respect for our rules, it would better serve the client.”

While flexibility and understanding are certainly desirable qualities in a court, can anyone really argue with that sentiment?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks