Squawk gets kicked off SCOTUSblog

The closest we ever got to the U.S. Supreme Court was getting a denial of cert that looked like it was written on the back of a laundry ticket. But since appellate squawkers are expected to take a polite interest in the doings of the Beltway Umps, we take a gander now and then at SCOTUSblog, another fine product of Bloomberg.law.

The other day, the blogversation turned to Perry v. New Hampshire, which is about whether the DA can use a dodgy eyewitness identification so long as it wasn’t “police-arranged.” “Police-arranged” means the cops throw your client in handcuffs against the patrol car and tell the hysterical witness, “We’ve caught the scumbag.”

We had a few thoughts, having noticed that all those funky old Supreme Court cases from back in the ’70’s never said that the purpose of precluding suggestive i.d.’s is to slap the police on the wrist. They were worried about convicting the wrong person. Even before DNA exonerations and eyewitness experiments where nobody notices a gorilla walking into the classroom, at least some judges knew that one person can be mistaken for another pretty easily.

So if the i.d. is so unreliable that it risks getting the wrong person convicted, the DA shouldn’t be allowed to use it, no matter where it came from.

We thought we’d share this with the luminaries of SCOTUSblog, since nobody else had made this particular point. And darned if we didn’t get a prissy e-mail back saying they were giving our comment the heave-ho because “the author didn’t use their real name” [sic sic sic].

What’s unreal about our name? It’s as real as the First Department or the Acme School of Law and Refrigerator Repair. Anonymous squawking in the public interest is a venerable tradition from the Spectator to the Federalist Papers. Scrotumblog can go scratch itself.

About Appellate Squawk

A satirical blog for criminal defense lawyers and their friends who won't give up without a squawk.
This entry was posted in Law, Law & Parody and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Squawk gets kicked off SCOTUSblog

  1. E. Schwartz says:

    I want to say an encouraging “it’s thier lose!” But once again it’s ours. SCOTUS only wants to hear obsequious comments and flattery, I’m sure. I’m tempted to print this out and mail it to them!
    Meanwhile, if your phone wasn’t tapped before, it is now. If the FBI comes to your door- Deny everything! That’s probably exaggerated. But if you keep it up, you may get lucky and they take back you license.


  2. Judge This! says:

    SCROTUMBLOG! YOU MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD! And its been a long unfunny day in court. You’re the best! Keep it up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.