In a Dec. 31 AP story on ethics charges against the DA prosecuting the Duke lacrosse players, Professor Stanley Goldman was quoted: "Is this going to result in him treating the case more gingerly and deciding it's not worth pursuing, or is he going to get his back up and decide he's got to pursue this case to the end regardless?"
Adjunct Professor Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein was quoted in a Dec. 26 LA Times story about US Jews moving to Israel.
In a Dec. 23 story in the Houston Chronicle about the decision to drop rape charges against the Duke lacrosse players, Professor Stanley Goldman was quoted: "The reality is, what else could the DA do? Once the DNA evidence came out last week, I can't imagine how they could sustain a rape charge."
In a Dec. 22 LA Times story about a federal court’s decision to circumvent a provision in the McCain-Feingold Act, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: "Given the importance and the controversy around this issue, I would be shocked" if the Supreme Court didn’t take the case.
On Dec. 21, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff was interviewed on NPR’s Talk of the Nation about the benefits and drawbacks of snitching: “I think that it's important to look at the nature of the information and the interaction in any given informant or snitching program.”
In a Dec. 14 USA Today story about political groups fined for their roles in the 2004 presidential election, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “"We would not see independent spending on the same scale in 2008 as we did in 2004" if the FEC action survives legal challenges.
Professor Rick Hasen was quoted in a Dec. 8 Sarasota Herald-Tribune story about a call for a revote in the disputed 13th Congressional District.
In a Dec. 8 story in the Chicago Tribune about a murder suspect who confessed on the stand, Professor Samuel Pillsbury was quoted: “Trial work is always about surprises. You can spend a long time with a witness and then have the witness surprise you on the stand."
In a Dec. 8 story in the LA Times about a hate trial in which a judge allowed witnesses and victims to testify anonymously, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “I’ve never heard of that. To the extent that it’s ever happened, I would expect it would have been in a Mafia trial.”
In a Dec. 7 story in the Raleigh, NC News & Observer about illegal immigrants registering to vote, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “If you are in this country illegally, you are likely to do things to stay below the radar. Walking in and committing a felony for no personal gain is not a wise choice.”
On Dec. 6, Roll Call ran Professor Rick Hasen’s op-ed, “It’s Time for the House to Pick Up the Pieces in Florida’s 13th District,” about the ongoing election dispute in the Florida district.
On Dec. 5, Professor Jay Dougherty’s column on the merits of lawsuits surrounding the film Borat appeared in the Hollywood Reporter, Esq.
In a Dec. 5 story in the LA Daily News about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s plans to take over the LA Unified School District despite protests from the district itself, Professor Karl Manheim was referenced, saying that a judge will have to decide whether provisions of the city charter or state law prevail.
In a Dec. 4 story in the LA Times about a shift in attitudes regarding the clergy sex abuse scandal plaguing the Catholic church, Professor Stan Goldman was quoted: “It makes the job easier for prosecutors of all kinds of sex crimes against children. If you have what appears to be a significant number of priests engaging in this kind of behavior, then it could be anybody.”
In a Dec. 1 story in the National Law Journal about more firms recruiting on law school campuses, Graham Sherr, assistant dean for career services, was quoted: “Consistent with the uptick, there's more flexibility on the part of employers.”
In a December story in Diversity Inc. magazine about discrimination in talent casting, Professor Gary Williams was quoted: “"In essence, there is the notion that if you have a legitimate race-based reason to cast a certain race or ethnicity, then it's not a violation of Title VII.”
On Nov. 30, Associate Professor Lauren Willis’s op-ed, “Borrowers May Lose Key State Law Protections,” ran in the LA Daily Journal. It discussed the potential implications of the Supreme Court case Watters v. Wachovia.
In a Nov. 27 story in the LA Daily Journal about the ramifications for the banking industry of the Supreme Court case Watters v. Wachovia, Associate Professor Lauren Willis was quoted: “Having the states provide consumer protection means that a government that is closer to the people, the consumers, can respond to them.”
In a Nov. 25 story in the LA Times about the use of psychodrama to prepare a client for trial, Professor Stan Goldman was quoted: “"It's been true since the day of Homer if not before. Anyone who understands the courtroom understands the jury is just an audience."
In a Nov. 25 Associated Press story about a decision in the case of a woman suing her ex-husband for allegedly giving her an STD, Professor John Nockleby was quoted: “The California Supreme Court case, if it's followed elsewhere, could have a significant effect upon the human sexual relationships of this country."
In a Nov. 20 story in the Nation’s Restaurant News about obesity-based liability lawsuits, Professor Katherine Pratt was cited as advocating requiring nutritional information on menus and menu boards.
On Nov. 19, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff’s op-ed “California Reconsiders Snitching,” ran in the San Francisco Chronicle. The op-ed urged lawmakers to enact legislation to curtail informant policies that benefits criminals.
Professor Laurie Levenson was a frequent source of commentary on the subject of the release of O.J. Simpson’s book, If I Did It, This Is How It Happened.
-In a Nov. 21 LA Times story about the cancellation of O.J. Simpson’s planned book release, Levenson was quoted: “I am not a fan of censorship, but this was so hurtful and in such bad taste. It was picking the scab off a wound. From the public point of view, everyone wants O.J. to go away.”
-In a Nov. 16 story in the Chicago Sun-Times, Levenson was quoted: “Clever lawyering can get you a long way.”
-In a Nov. 16 on CTV News, Levenson was quoted: “Frankly, there’s almost nothing that O.J. can say that’s going to expose him to further criminal prosecution.”
-In a Nov. 16 story in the Guardian of London, Levenson was quoted: “O.J. won’t get rich off this because if the money comes to him, then it’s subject to the civil judgment.”
Professor Stan Goldman commented frequently on the release of O.J. Simpson’s book, If I Did It, This Is How It Happened.
-In a Nov. 18 story in the New York Daily News about the potential for Simpson to profit from the book, Goldman was quoted: “I think they have a better than 80 percent chance of finding out who the money is going to.”
-On a Nov. 15 appearance on NBC’s Today Show, Goldman said, “Here's a man addicted to the limelight, who, about to turn 60, is still unwilling to give it up, even if infamy is the reason for his fame.”
On Nov. 11, the New York Times published Professor Rick Hasen’s op-ed, “Keeping the Voting Clean.” In it, Hasen wrote, “As election mishaps hindered voting on Tuesday from Cleveland to Denver, some people were already calling for giving up on the new electronic voting machines, which were themselves put in place to prevent another hanging-chad fiasco like that in Florida in 2000.” He continued, “But this reaction to the bugs and glitches shows that Americans have not learned the right lesson from 2000: the problem is not with the technology running our elections but rather with the people running them.”
In a Nov. 8 story in the LA Daily Journal about the onslaught of cases against pharmaceutical giant Merck for its drug Vioxx, Professor Georgene Vairo was cited as writing extensively on medical mass torts.
Professor Rick Hasen was a frequent source of commentary in stories about potential litigation surrounding the mid-term elections.
-In a Nov. 7 story in the St. Petersburg Times about lawyers preparing for challenges in the mid-term elections, Hasen was referenced as saying that lawyers likely have become a permanent fixture on the American political scene.
-In a Nov. 7 interview on the Australian Broadcasting Company’s The World Today, Hasen said: “It could be that the balance of power in the US Senate will depend upon the outcome of the Missouri election.”
-A Nov. 6 story in the Washington Post one of Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog.org postings: “If I were a journalist interested in the potential election meltdown of 2006, I’d head to St. Louis.”
-A Nov. 4 story in the New York Times about candidates preparing for legal battles in the mid-term elections referenced Hasen’s count of election-related cases.
In a Nov. 3 story in the LA Times about the filing of murder charges in a fatal Riverside County arson case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “The commission of a felony replaces the element of malice normally needed to prosecute someone for murder.” In a related Nov. 4 story in the Riverside Press Enterprise, Levenson was quoted: “This is a real CSI type situation. It is a by definition a circumstantial case.”
In a Nov. 1 story in the LA Daily Journal story about an investigation into attorneys for Ralphs, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It could be that the attorneys gave their clients bad advice, or it could be that they gave good advice that their clients ignored.”
In an Oct. 29 story in the Whittier, CA Daily News about lawmakers’ spouses traveling tax free, Professor Ted Seto was quoted: “Congress has made this very, very clear. There is no explicit exemption for the first lady on the code either.”
In an Oct. 28 story in the LA Times about a lawsuit seeking to block the pretrial release of the movie Alpha Dog, Professor Laurie Levenson commented on attorneys who write books based on their involvement in trials. “I do see a problem with it,” she said, “Are you going to try a case in the way that is going to sell the most books?”
In an Oct. 25 story in the Orange County Register about voting rights for immigrants, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “The (non-citizen) registrations are more likely to happen than (non-citizen) voting. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get registered to vote because of the bounty hunters.”
In an Oct. 24 story Scripps Howard story about the a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Jerry Brown’s votes for California attorney general, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “They waited too long. They needed to challenge Brown before he was qualified to be on the ballot.”
In an Oct. 24 story in Slate about broiling controversy over the release forms used during filming of Borat, Professor Jay Dougherty was cited as a reference.
In an Oct. 24 story in the San Louis Obispo Tribune about the use of stamps as signatures for people with disabilities, Associate Professor Michael Waterstone was quoted: “I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request by people with disabilities.”
In an Oct. 22 story in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff was quoted: “First, the heart of the matter is that criminals are getting away with crimes. This is very problematic. Second, just because snitches are reporting bad behavior doesn’t mean that snitching is good in itself.”
In an Oct. 21 story in the LA Daily News about the trial of an elderly man whose car careened through the Santa Monica Farmers’ Market, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “This is one of those horrible circumstances where you have 10 people dead and (about 60) people injured.”
On Oct. 16, Professor Laurie Levenson’s op-ed, “Danger of Being Too Creative With Punishment,” ran in the LA Daily Journal.
On Oct. 11, Professor Ellen Aprill’s op-ed, “IRS Must Guide Churches on Political Speech,” ran in the LA Daily Journal.
In an Oct. 11 story in the LA Daily News about a lawsuit challenging LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s authority over LA Unified School District, Professor Karl Manheim was quoted: “It’s not apparent to me that there’s anything in the constitution that would limit the Legislature’s power to transfer some of the power from the school district to the mayors.”
In an Oct. 8 story on the McClatchy-Tribune business news wire about the trial of a deputy accused of using excessive force in a fatal beating, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “The toughest element to prove is usually intent.”
On Oct. 8, Associate Professor Lauren Willis’s op-ed, “The Fleecing of Black Borrowers,” was published in the Washington Post. In it, she wrote, “We can increase the efficiency of the market and decrease race disparities by making price shopping for home loans easier for all Americans.”
In an Oct. 8 story in the Denver Post about a church’s questionable business dealings, Professor Ellen Aprill was quoted: “The transactions as described suggest strongly that the IRS should investigate possible violations.”
In an Oct. 3 story about the campaign for California attorney general in the LA Daily Journal, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “A lot of these ads seem to focus more on if the players could make the law.”
In an Oct. 4 story in the LA Daily Journal about lawsuits faced by Merck for its Vioxx drug, Professor Georgene Vairo was quoted: “You’re going to have to think hard, spend a lot of money and get the right plaintiffs or you’re not going to prevail.”
In the October edition of the Chicago Lawyer, Professor Ellen Aprill was quoted in a story about the patenting of tax strategies: “A taxpayer can infringe a patent without intent or actual knowledge of the patent; ignorance of an applicable patent is not a defense of an infringement action.”
In a Sept. 30 story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the deportation process for an ex-Nazi who lost his citizenship, Adjunct Professor Victor Nieblas was quoted: “You can’t go from a citizen to deported in one day. This is a process. They have to follow these steps even if it’s a formality.”
In a Sept. 29 story in the Christian Science Monitor about Proposition 89, a campaign-finance measure that limits corporate donations, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “We feel the US Supreme Court is ready for a reexamination of campaign-finance regulation.”
In a Sept. 28 story in the LA Daily Journal about the granting of witness immunity in the Hewlett-Packard leak investigation case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It just spreads like germs. And it makes things much more complicated for prosecutors.”
In a Sept. 26 story in the LA Times about a woman acquitted in the Anthony Pellicano wiretapping case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “The fact that you can’t win in a peripheral case does not mean you won’t win the main case.”
A Sept. 26 story in the LA Times about the California Nurses Association’s sponsorship of Proposition 89, which would restrict spending on ballot measures, cited Professor Rick Hasen’s involvement. “The nurses retained Hasen, who last year wrote a law review article opining that the issue was ‘ripe for reexamination in light of the Supreme County’s new-found deference to campaign finance regulation.’”
In a Sept. 25 story in the San Jose Mercury News about campaign spending on a local mayoral race, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “I wouldn’t take this as the last word. This case will now attract national attention.”
In a Sept. 24 story in the New York Times about legal problems that could arise from the use of new voting machine technology, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “We have the real chance of recounts in the coming elections, and if you have differences between the paper trail and the electronic record, which number prevails?"
A Sept. 20 story in the LA Daily Journal about a court ruling that recall petitions do not have to be circulated in multiple languages referenced Professor Rick Hasen.
In a Sept. 17 Washington Post story about how changes in voting technology and laws could cause turmoil in the November elections, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “Parties have become more willing to go to court.”
In a Sept. 13 story in the Washington Post about voting irregularities in Maryland counties, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “Unless there’s a close enough race where this problem could have made a difference in the outcome, then litigation is pretty tough to win.”
In a Sept. 12 LA Daily News story about a lawsuits surrounding a ballot initiative to give the LA City Council an extra four-year term, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “The fact that they are setting the court date in early October suggest they intend on ruling before the election.”
In a Sept. 9 story in the LA Times about a court ruling regarding the extension LA City Council term limits, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “When the court of appeals decides to stay an issue, it’s looking at three issues – the harm to the parties if it gets it wrong, the likelihood that an appealing party is going to win and the public interest.”
In a Sept. 9 story in Entertainment Weekly about a court ruling surrounding the true-crime film Alpha Dog that could limit producers’ access to crime details, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It’d be more difficult in preparing movies such as this.”
In a Sept. 8 Copley News Service story about a judge’s decision to prohibit a ballot initiative to extend LA City Council term limits, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “That would be quite significant in that it would place at least some limits on the ability of city councils, and potentially counties, to place ballot measure before votes that might embrace more than one subject.”
On September 2, the Los Angeles Times ran Professor Rick Hasen’s op-ed about a measure to extend term limits for LA city council members. “Voters may not get a chance to vote on Measure R because opponents have filed suit to have it removed from the ballot. Courts should leave Measure R on the ballot and let the voters decide whether or not to pass it.”
On August 30, the Los Angeles Times ran Professor Lauren Willis’s op-ed about private tax-debt collection. “Unless Congress steps in to stop it, the IRS is set to being implementing a wildly inefficient plan to outsource the collection of past-due taxed form those who owe $25,000 or less.”
In an August 26 column in the Houston Chronicle about a write-in candidacy in former Rep. Tom DeLay’s Texas district, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “It's probably going to be fairly straightforward. Where the crunch comes is if the margin is so small that the outcome turns on ballots where the intent of the voter can be disputed.”
In an August 24 story in the Wall Street Journal about spearheading a letter from professors supporting the nomination of a Treasury Department tax official, Professor Ellen Aprill was quoted: “It's from every kind of school and every kind of professor.”
In an August 24 Associated Press story about the extradition of John Mark Karr for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “"It is like this guy fell out of the sky for them and they're trying to figure out what they have going. They can't really let him go or proceed to convict him until they have the evidence. It's in a bit of a limbo now."
In an August 24 story in The New York Times about a California town’s refusal to count election ballots, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: “The idea that they can just lock up the ballots–not only does that violate election laws, but it’s outrageous.”
In an August 23 column in the Sacramento Bee about “clean-money” initiative Prop. 89, Professor Rick Hasen was sourced on the constitutionality of campaign-finance limits.
On August 20, the Los Angeles Times ran Professor Ellen Aprill’s letter to the editor about the tax-exempt status of churches with political inclinations. “Evangelical leaders are actively recruiting new GOP voters for the November elections. This flies in the face of the Internal Revenue Service's crackdown on nonprofit organizations that engage in politics.”
In an August 20 story in the Baltimore Sun about the burgeoning use of technology in the courtroom, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It becomes much more the theater of the courtroom. It used to depend on the person and the showmanship of the lawyer to have the greatest effect in a closing argument. But there is many a good lawyer who is not a particularly good showman. PowerPoint can make them look a good deal better.”
In an August 19 Associated Press story about the Anthony Pellicano case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “You could still have the parade of Hollywood witnesses even in you don’t have further indictments.”
In an August 18 story in the Los Angeles Daily Journal about proceedings to remove a judge from a case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It’s certainly unusual for a court to recuse a judge. The process goes to the heart of a judge’s conduct in the proceedings.”
In an August 15 story in the Los Angeles Daily Journal about demand for tax LLM degrees, Clinical Professor Jennifer Kowal was paraphrased: “It’s not unusual these days for a disgruntled litigator to refashion himself as a tax specialist by getting an LLM in taxation.”
In an August 13 column in the Dallas Morning News about former Rep. Tom DeLay’s inability to remove himself from the November ballot in Texas, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted: "It may not be logical, but it's simple: Each state gets to pick its own rules for how to deal with candidates who withdraw from the ballot.”
In an August 8 story in the Texas Lawyer on the same subject, Hasen was quoted: "It's hard to get voters to vote for someone who says he's going to resign.”
In an August 5 story in the Mississippi Sun Herald about jailer Regina Rhodes involvement in a prisoner beating case, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “I don't have a magic ball, but based on my experience, my instinct is telling me that (Rhodes) has reached a cooperation agreement, she is going to plead guilty to these charges and is not being indicted. More than likely, she will become a government witness and will assist in the prosecution.”
In an August 4 story about reporters facing contempt charges in the San Francisco Chronicle, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “In the current legal climate, it's not a great time to be a reporter. Prosecutors have become much more aggressive in seeking information from the press. That's not to say that legally they're not entitled to it. I think under the law, as it currently stands, the press has very little protection.''
In an August 2nd Associated Press story about Mel Gibson’s DUI arrest, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “I think they wanted to treat him as normally as possible. And we don't know the facts. Did he walk away or run away? Were his statements to the deputy really threatening? That would make a difference. The biggest costs are not those associated with the legal system. It's the business costs and reputation costs. In the end, this could be the most costly infraction of all time.”
In a July 31st story in the Christian Science Monitor about a Muslim informant in Canada, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff was quoted: “There’s a very corrosive effect in urban communities when the government makes snitching a central law enforcement tool. One of the things we should be worried about is that it will become more like the war on drugs, and law enforcement will become more dependent on informers, and informers will drive investigations rather than investigators picking their targets.”
Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted on the conviction of four leaders of a prison gang on counts of murder, conspiracy and racketeering.
In a July 31 story, the LA Daily Journal quoted Levenson as saying the verdicts will serve “as a morale booster for the prosecution.”
In a July 29th Washington Post story, she was quoted: “It was very successful, and I think that they will use the racketeering charge again. But the truth is, this (gang) is like a hydra: You cut off a limb, and it's going to grow back. These guys have been around a long time, and they're going to get new leaders. It's heartening that law enforcement officers and prosecutors who have to do these cases see that there are some good results. But do I think this marks the end of prison gangs? No way. Nobody thinks that.”
In a July 28th story in the LA Daily Journal about a $17.3 million settlement won by Sutter Health in a defamation case, Associate Professor Lauren Willis was quoted: “It’s an odd outcome. I think it is possible a trial court or an appeals court could reduce the award or hold there was insufficient evidence to uphold these damages. It is somewhat difficult to believe that Sutter could have shown they could have lost this much business.”
Professor Laurie Levenson commented on the case against private investigator John Pellicano:
In a July 28th story in the LA Daily Journal, Levenson was quoted as saying that the decision on mandatory sentencing in US v. Booker “makes it a whole new ball game.”
On the June 11th edition of CBS Sunday Morning, Levenson said, “The tapes reveal that Pellicano was wiretapping everybody–including his own clients–in violation of the law.”
On the CBS Evening News on June 11th, Levenson said, “I think lawyers want to win too much and that’s what happened here. You had lawyers here who wanted to win, and Anthony Pellicano is bringing them the goods.”
“Media attention certainly can and often does have an impact on the way a case is handled, especially as it related to how the lawyers relate to each other and conduct discovery,” Levenson stated in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on May 16th. She was commenting on complaints made by attorneys about their client’s right to a fair trial.
“In Hollywood people don’t have the same boundaries. They’re used to bending the rules. Pellicano was trapped in his own 'Sopranos' movie. This is a city of eccentric people and he was one of them,” Levenson told the Los Angeles Daily Journal on May 23rd.
To the Los Angeles Times on April 27th, Levenson said “The government has taken special precautions to avoid problems with evidence by setting up ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ teams of prosecutors and investigators. They have been created to ensure that those who will try the case are walled off from information that they are not legally entitled to see, such as conversations between defendants and their attorneys. In the Pellicano case, members of the ‘dirty’ team have reviewed tapes of attorney-client conversations so ‘clean’ team members have not been privy to information they should not have seen. The prosecutors knew that Carradine was talking to Pellicano, so to the extent they knew about this, the 'dirty' team is supposed to screen that information, so the prosecutors do not have any privileged confidential information."
Appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown, Levenson said of Pellicano, “He's the PI who's sent out there to get the dirt on people.”
Referring to the law firm Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman, Machtinger & Kinsella's legal concerns because of its link to the investigation of Pellicano, Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on April 13th that the firm "Must really come in and show they were not aware of any misconduct and be as cooperative as possible.''
Commenting in the Los Angeles Times on April 8th on a former music company executive pleading guilty to paying Pellicano for illegal wiretapping, Levenson told the newspaper that “The government's agreement to drop the more serious witness-tampering charge against Pfeifer was a sign that he was cooperating in some way with the government. Pfeifer's plea also sends a message to the other defendants−your best deals are now, when you come in early.”
In a Daily Variety article on April 4th on director John McTiernan being charged with making a false statement, Levenson said, "McTiernan could have been charged with additional crimes such as conspiracy.”
Newsweek on April 3rd, Levenson said, "The biggest shoe left to drop is whether Bert Fields will be indicted."
“Based on the indictment's description of events, the most likely charge against the lawyer who sent Pellicano to Christensen would be aiding and abetting a crime, Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on March 1st. “In order to win a conviction, federal prosecutors would have to show that a crime was committed, that the defendant ‘knowingly and intentionally aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the commission of the crime' and that his or her actions took place before the crime was completed. It is not enough that the defendant merely associated with the people committing the crime or unknowingly or unintentionally did things that were helpful to the principal perpetrator of the crime. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping the commission of the crime."
In Daily Variety on March 27th, Levenson said: "If you're on the tape, you're in trouble. If you're not on the tape, prosecutors have to shore up their case. The end result could be an indictment or a plea aimed at avoiding jail time. The one outcome that won't happen is exoneration. There are lots of reasons why federal authorities decide not to prosecute, but it's not a clean bill of health. You're always under a cloud."
In the Los Angeles Times on March 21st, Levenson described the motion made by attorney Steven Gruel (who represents Anthony Pellicano: “The initial shot across the bow suggests the attorney will play hard ball, that he will show the court and the world that this was a dirty prosecution.”
Commenting on the Pellicano case, Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on March 20th, “Both sides are getting information and trying to make sure the other side gives them more. That is the dance - how much can I get you to show about your case, and how much do I have to give in return.The prosecution's goal in the weeks ahead is to try to link Fields and Pellicano as directly as possible.”
“It's clear that the prosecutors' next step is to figure out whether he [divorce attorney Dennis M. Wasser] is just a matchmaker between Pellicano and Christensen or whether he is an aider and abettor in the wiretap," Levenson told the Los Angeles Daily Journal on February 28th.
"Terry Christensen's attorneys want the friendliest venue possible, and they would rather have Judge Takasugi hear the case because he will put the government through its paces," Levenson told the Los Angeles Times for a February 23rd article on the Pellicano case. According the newspaper, the judge is well-favored among defense attorneys.
"What they have here is dynamite," Levenson told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on February 17th. "This is very important evidence because you don't have the question of credibility. Tapes don't lie." Levenson was commenting on an attorney who allegedly paid Anthony Pellicano for private investigation services.
"In terms of Hollywood corruption, this is the decade's version of LA Confidential," Levenson told the South China Morning Post for a February 12th article.
In the February 4th Los Angeles Times, Levenson commented on whether those who hired Pellicano would part of the probe: "I don't know if this is the last chapter. What we seem to have here is the inner team of violators and the question is: ‘Did they act on behalf of anyone? Are there others involved?'"
On February 3rd, the Daily News (NY) reported that former private Anthony Pellicano was facing new wiretapping charges. "It's making people nervous," commented Levenson.
On July 26th, the San Francisco Chronicle ran Associate Professor Lauren Willis’s Voter Reward Act op-ed: “Arizona's ballot initiative to turn voting into gambling sends citizens the wrong message about both. We should not frame democracy as a crapshoot, a high-stakes game that requires no effort or thought. The kind of voting we want to encourage--voting that reflects the considered judgment of the governed--requires work.”
In a July 26th story in the Wall Street Journal about tax strategy patents, Professor Ellen Aprill was quoted: “The proliferation of tax-strategy patents would change and burden tax practice.”
On July 26th, Professor Jay Dougherty appeared on CNBC to discuss the lack of payment for many involved in the film Crash. “The more money the film makes, the more that’s at stake and the more likely there are to be inquiries into whether the accounting has been done correctly and properly,“ he said.
In a July 25th story in the LA Times about the shrinking staff of US attorney’s office in LA, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “It’s been absolutely demoralizing. Given there are more responsibilities with the war on terror, it’s a huge disservice to the people in this district.”
In a July 22nd story in the San Jose Mercury News about the Barry Bonds steroid case, Professors Laurie Levenson and Stan Goldman were quoted. "Prosecutors have learned the lesson it is better to be cautious when taking on a high-profile case rather than lose it," Levenson said. Goldman added: "It's not like they have to do this before the end of the trading deadline. They don't have to worry about Bonds finishing the season. They can indict him in the middle of the World Series if they want."
In a July 21st story about election litigation in the Boston Globe, Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: "This trend is likely to continue into the 2006 and 2008 elections, especially with new controversies over voter identification and voter registration laws."
In a July 21st story in the LA Times about a judge who denied a woman a restraining order because she was an illegal immigrant, Adjunct Professor Victor Nieblas was quoted: “This is what the judge doesn’t understand. You can’t assume that because someone is here without documents that the automatic result is deportation.”
In a July 20th reading on the floor of the US Senate by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: “In the most recent 1998 to 20002 period, DOJ objected to a meager 0.05 percent of preclearance requests.”
In a July 18th story in the LA Times about a class-action law firm making illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted as saying that the assistant US attorney’s statements were “an indication that people are continuing to cooperate” in the case.
In a July 17th story about new election laws in US News & World Report, Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: “We're just asking for trouble in the future."
In a July 14th story about the Voting Rights Act in the Christian Science Monitor, Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: “One problem is, how do you come up with evidence of (racial injustice) when the VRA has been such a good deterrent?”
In a July 14th LA Times story about a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former aid Lewis “Scooter” Libby and presidential counselor Karl Rove, Professor John Nockleby was quoted: “The key point is that filing the lawsuit will permit Plame-Wilson to subpoena witnesses – such as Robert Novak – to provide testimony. As a result, we may finally learn who is the mystery person who first spoke to Novak.”
On July 13th, Professor Ellen Aprill testified before the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. “The topic of patenting tax strategies raises a broad range of issues, from the most theoretical to the most practical,” she said. “Questions of theory and policy include whether it is desirable for the patent law to authorize tax strategy patents and whether the government monopoly granted to a patent holder is fundamentally inconsistent with the policies underlying our tax system.”
In a July 12th story in the Chicago Tribune about the Voting Rights Act, Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: “If Congress goes and passes the current version…as is, with a 25-year extension…then there is a significant danger that the measure is struck down. What I sense is that there are a number of people who are supporters of the act, but who don’t want to speak up for political reasons and say the act has to be updated, to say that 2006 is not the same as 1965.”
In a July 13th story in the LA Daily News about a proposal to lengthen sentences for robbers who wear ski masks, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “The robbers may be harder to catch, but it would be easier to prosecute them. I know police just want to do something, but by and large, we’ve learned that increasing a sentence doesn’t deter a crime.”
On July 11th, Roll Call ran Professor Richard Hasen’s Voting Rights Act op-ed: “Members of the House should vote to renew the act, but they also should vote for an amendment to be offered by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) to create what I have termed ‘proactive bailout.’ The amendment strengthens the act by helping to insulate the renewed VRA against inevitable constitutional challenge.”
In a July 6th story in the Santa Monica Daily Press about the city of Santa Monica’s use of design immunity as a defense in the Farmer’s Market tort case, Professor David Leonard was quoted: “A municipality can be held responsible for negligence in such things as how it creates an intersection or where it places things like stop signs. Oftentimes, people responsible for a car accident will claim the stop sign they ran wasn’t visible where it was placed, such as on top of a steep hill, and that caused them to crash. But if the city designed something – in this case the layout of the Farmer’s Market, including where barriers are to be places – and that design was approved by the proper authority and conforms to current standards, then the city is protected. That is design immunity.”
On July 5th, KPCC’s Pat Morrison Show interviewed Professor John Nockleby about how celebrities affect the legal system.
Professor Richard Hasen was quoted on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Vermont campaign contribution limits:
In a June 27th USA Today story, Hasen was quoted: “The court has never before struck down a contribution limit as too low.”
A June 27th story in The New York Times quoted Hasen as saying that Justice Samuel Alito’s brief opinion that Vermont had not raised a sufficiently direct challenge to the campaign-spending-limit precedent appeared to invite such a direct challenge.
In a June 27th story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Hasen was quoted: “For the foreseeable future, we’ve hit the high-water mark” on campaign-finance restrictions.
On June 26th,Hasen was interviewed on NPR’s All Things Considered. “It’s actually the best opinion that supporters of campaign finance laws could have hoped for from this new Roberts Court,” he said.
Professor Georgene Vairo was quoted in the June 27th Los Angeles Daily Journal on lawsuits involving the prescription drug Vioxx. In a story about a damaging correction by the New England Journal of Medicine, she said, “This is something that is really going to hurt Merck,” referring to the drug’s manufacturer. Regarding the consolidation of cases in a June 29th story, she said, “The jury hears a couple of sob stories that give them a sense of the pervasiveness of the harm done.”
Professor Stanley Goldman was cited frequently on rape charges against members of the Duke University lacrosse team:
In a June 24th story in the St. Petersburg Times Goldman was quoted: “You kind of find it hard to believe that this case in this condition can find its way to trial unless the prosecution has something going for it that we just don’t know.”
In a June 24th story in the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) about inconsistencies in the alleged rape victim’s story, Goldman was quoted: “I’ve never seen a case go to trial with this many inconsistencies in the victim’s sequence of events.”
The Baltimore Sun quoted Goldman in an April 11th story: "Isn't the absence of DNA evidence, given the way the victim has described the crime, in and of itself almost enough to raise a reasonable doubt? That's all the defense has to do."
Professor Laurie Levenson evaluated the usefulness of witnesses who had pleaded guilty to charges related to the case in a June 27th story in The Los Angeles Times. “On one hand, these witnesses are damaged goods because of their admission that they themselves committed criminal acts,” she said. “On the other hand, there is strength in numbers. Why would they admit to crimes if they didn’t commit them?”
Commenting on federal charges leveled against civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman, Professor Laurie Levenson told The Los Angeles Times on June 24th that he “painted a target on himself by the nature of his practice and the manner in which he practice: extremely aggressive, very personal, enjoying the fight. Now he is on the opposite end of it.”
In a June 23rd story about government failures in redacting sensitive information from legal documents, the San Francisco Chronicle quoted Professor Laurie Levenson: “There’s no uniform standard on how to redact documents and distribute documents. They only learn by getting burned.”
On June 20th, the Los Angeles Daily Journal published an op-ed by Professor Laurie Levenson: “A Delicate Balance: The Exigent-Circumstances Exception.” In it, she wrote, “Application of the exigent-circumstances exception requires a delicate balancing by the courts of a person’s right of privacy and the need for officers to maintain public safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.”
The New York Times quoted Adjunct Professor Victor D. Nieblas in a June 11th story about con artists who prey on immigrants. ''Every time there's talk of a new law passing, these scammers basically pop up'' and aim at immigrants, he said. ''It's big business.''
Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 on May 30th, Professor Laurie Levenson commented on an altered border patrol document. “From the prosecutor's point of view, they have no choice. They have to have practical guidelines. They cannot prosecute all of these cases, there are just too many. So they pick the most egregious ones by saying, 'The guy who smuggles 10, 20 people, we're going to prosecute. The guy who brings one or two, we can't bother with him.'"
In a June 10th story in The Los Angeles Times about a lawsuit against the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Beverly Hills Police Department, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “There is somewhat of an incestuous relationship between private security and police officers.”
In a June 8th story in The Los Angeles Times about an upset victory in a Los Angeles judicial election, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “[The incumbent judge] has an odd name. And she is thrown out by someone who is not even practicing law. It makes me very troubled by our whole judicial election process. This is the poster child for how really messed up things are.”
In a June 8th Voice of America story about the Disability Rights Legal Center, Visiting Professor Eve Hill was quoted: “I really think most people battling cancer don’t need litigation in their lives. We try to find very practical resolutions for people.”
In a June 6th story about schools barring students from wearing “Stop Snitchin’” T-shirts in The Contra Costa Times, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff was quoted: “For youth, the best way to glamorize something is to ban it and take it away.”
In a June 3rd story in The Los Angeles Times about Venezuelan ties to a maker of US election equipment, Professor Richard Hasen said, “Anything that further erodes the public’s confidence in the integrity of our system of counting votes is troublesome.”
Professor Laurie Levenson said in the May 30th edition of the Daily News (Los Angeles), “You usually get more credit for taking responsibility than blaming others. [Judge] Feess is really a straightforward judge and expects defendants to be so as well.''
Professor Robert Benson told the Los Angeles Times in a May 26th article on the Enron verdicts: “They got called to account, but what about the electricity consumers like us, who were put through that phony energy crisis and presumably ripped off of lots of money? We won’t see any reimbursement for the crime here in California.”
Professor Laurie Levenson also was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on May 26th on the Envron verdicts: “Jury instruction is always problematic because it goes to issue of intent.”
Professor Georgene Vairo commented in the May 17th Los Angeles Daily Journal on two Vioxx cases which may be consolidated into one liability trial. Vairo said, “Merck’s one-case-at-a-time approach is a classic defense move.” And on Merck’s motion for summary judgment, Vairo added that it “could be that they discovered something new. It could be that it is a way to make it less likely that the cases will go forward together.”
Commenting on the ACLU’s request that the FBI release documents on post-911 surveillance of California mosques and Muslims, Professor William Araiza told the Los Angeles Time on May 16th: “The FBI should release the documents, if any exist, under the Freedom of Information Act. The Act is a fairly aggressive statute in terms of disclosure. The only possible exception I see would be if releasing these records interfers wit an ongoing criminal investigation.”
On the LAPD's increased self-monitoring, Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on May 13th: “It cuts both ways. It illustrates a department cleaning its own house, but it also shows a department cleaning house because of the consent decree. But it does show it is no longer business as usual.”
“The overall effect is that it will be harder for the government to use experts to give testimony of this type,” Professor Laurie Levenson said in the May 12th Los Angeles Daily Journal, commenting on a federal judge’s refusal to let a DEA chemist testify about seized chemicals and speculate on how much PCP could be made from the substance.
“The judge [US District Judge Gary A. Feess] has been very reliant on him [Michael Cherkasky] and I think the judge trusts him,” Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on May 11th. Cherkasky is the monitor overseeing Los Angeles Police Department reform. Levenson said, “Having appointed Cherkasky as his eyes and ears on the consent decree, Feess probably will give considerable weight to the independent monitor’s position.”
“It’s a grand slam for [Bruce] Lisker,” Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on May 6th. “It’s going to be hard for the attorney general to attack [Judge Ralph Zarefsky’s] work.” Lisker was convicted of murdering his mother in 1985 and is seeking a new trial because of an incompetent defense attorney.
Commenting on the same case a day earlier in the Los Angeles Times, on May 5th, Levenson described the Lisker development: “It’s huge. To me, it means the jailhouse doors may be slowly starting to open.”
The Charlotte Observer on May 5th quoted Professor Alexandra Natapoff on "snitching" and its effects on communities: "The community is showing that law enforcement is failing. Many feel like they can’t trust the police.”
"The bottom line is that people in high office should avoid looking like they're doing favors," Professor Laurie Levenson said in the Los Angeles Times on May 1st, referring to an Orange County sheriff who is seeking a third term amid controversy.
On overturning a guilty verdict by claiming that a juror was unduly pressured, Professor Laurie Levenson said in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 29th, "Courts don't want to invade the deliberative process. We favor finality, and we don't want to send a message to jurors that you can do whatever you want to do because if you have second thoughts we can undo it."
Visiting Professor Eve Hill was quoted in Newsday on April 23rd: “Pre-1970s, people with disabilities were viewed just as objects to pity and objects of charity. They were presumed incompetent to work, to be parents, to be fully functioning members of society. We wanted to vote, participate in families, go to schools, and do all the things people don’t want to do, like jury service. That all started to push us to the civil rights model.”
“It’s a good starting place for the defense, but there’s something unseemly about putting the [sister’s] future at risk. Even if she’s never tried in this case, she will have it hanging over her head that she’s a murderer.” Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on April 22nd.
"If he was using phrases like, 'I believe,' or, 'to the best of my memory,' then you don't have a perjury prosecution. You may not have a model citizen, but you don't have a perjury prosecution,'' Professor Laurie Levenson told the San Francisco Chronicle on April 15th on Barry Bonds.
Professor Laurie Levenson spoke to NPR’s Morning Edition on April 14th on a California murder trial involving imprisoned Aryan Brotherhood members. She stated, “It would be silly of the prosecutors, or the witnesses, to try to pretend that these witnesses are anything other than they are, because they're going to be torn apart on cross-examination. It's far better for the jurors to see them with their warts and all."
NPR interviewed Professor Laurie Levenson on April 12th on prosecuting rape cases without DNA evidence. She said, “There are some jurisdictions who don't have the resources to do DNA in all these cases. But most, at least big cities these days, do try to use the physical evidence because that's what the jurors expect. Post CSI, they want DNA.”
Commenting on the trial of former Fleishman-Hillard executives, Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los AngelesTimes on April 3rd, “The trial could shed unflattering light on city contracting practices, although it will have limited political effect because the alleged wrongdoing took place during the previous administration, headed by former Mayor James K. Hahn. I would expect the defense will exploit any negative practices at City Hall."
In a related article in the Daily News (Los Angeles), Levenson stated, “It's unusual for a major investigation to gain momentum after two years have passed. It looks like it's dying a slow death. You can't be sure. But unless you're lucky, things don't get hotter down the road.”
In the March 29th USA Today, Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff told the newspaper, "Based on federal statistics, one of every four black men from 20 to 29 is behind bars, on probation or on parole and under pressure to snitch. Every family gathering, every party, every backyard barbecue probably has someone who's secretly working as an informer."
Professor Richard Hasen's op-ed on reforming 527s was published in the March 27th issue of Roll Call. He wrote, "The way to deal with this concern over unfair access is not to clamp down on 527s. Instead, we should ask why Members of Congress and their staff give such access to lobbyists. Regulating 527s in the guise of lobbying reform is just more politics as usual in Washington."
"I think the Democrats have called for lobbying reform, and as a matter of electoral strategy they may be in better shape if nothing passes through Congress this year because then they can say that the Republicans who controlled the House and Senate and the presidency have not done anything," Professor Richard Hasen told NPR's "Marketplace" on March 27th.
"He's pushed the envelope to get judgments against public officials who before were not held accountable," said Professor Laurie Levenson in the March 22nd Los Angeles Times, commenting on Attorney Stephen Yagman who claims he has more than 500 lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles.
"Right now, a corporation or a union can't run an ad saying John Kerry is great, or George Bush is terrible," Professor Richard Hasen told the Star Tribune (MN) on March 20th. "But that rule doesn't apply to Internet-based communication. So what happens when we have convergence, when the Internet and TV are basically the same? Reformers also are concerned about situations in which bloggers are paid to advocate a certain point of view, but don't reveal it to their readers."
Professor Yxta Maya Murray 's short story, "Aqua Girl," appeared in the March 19th Los Angeles Times' West Magazine.
In an article on a San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department deputy charged in a shooting, Professor Laurie Levenson told The Press Enterprise on March 16th: "The deputy came up with the best statement he could when he first was confronted by fellow officers. But it turns out that the first statement was an embellishment of the facts. And because it wasn't true, it makes it less likely that his second statement will be believed. But a good defense lawyer can pick apart the tape and offer a good explanation as to why the two statements are different."
"This is a huge case because of the numbers of defendants who could get the death penalty," Professor Laurie Levenson told the San Francisco Chronicle on March 14th. "Nobody should get a pass at killing people. Maybe if they wipe out this level of leadership, it will slow them down." Leveson was referring to the trials of Aryan Brotherhood members.
"She's perfect for the job," said Professor Laurie Levenson, commenting in the Los Angeles Times on March 10th on Nora M. Manella's appointment to the State Court of Appeal. "She's so smart. She's so experienced. She's a virtual judicial powerhouse-and a class act."
Professor Laurie Levenson appeared on CNN on March 9th in a segment on cameras mounted in police cars. "A lot can happen between the time the public sees the tape and a jury considers the evidence. It's hard to prosecute police officers because, frankly, we've learned from the Rodney King case that the tape doesn't necessarily tell the whole story."
In a Los Angeles Times article on March 2nd on a proposed initiative curbing plaintiffs' rights to collect punitive damages, Professor John Nockleby was quoted: "Somebody could be grossly negligent and escape having to pay punitive damages, provided they didn't deliberately withhold information from any governmental body."
USA Today on February 28th quoted Professor Richard Hasen: "The court is at a crossroads where it's being asked to intervene pretty aggressively in the political process. It has to make some fundamental decisions on how much to intervene in state races."
On February 28th, the Los Angeles Daily Journal published an op-ed by Professor Laurie Levenson: "Keeping Up with the Changes: Wiretapping Laws Pull Ahead."
On February 27th, in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Professor Richard Hasen was quoted: "The court, though divided, has been increasingly deferential to campaign finance regulations, culminating in its 2003 decision in McDonnell v. FEC that upheld the bulk of the 'McCain-Feingold' campaign finance law passed by Congress in 2002."
Comparing the ability of the federal government to Los Angeles officials when it comes to investigating fundraising infractions, "It's night and day," Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on February 22nd. "They have everything from the FBI to the grand jury, and they can ramp up for a major investigation."
The Los Angeles Daily Journal quoted Professor Richard Hasen on February 17th: "In one sense, the opinion is good news for people who practice in the area in that the court has clarified some issues as to what the rules are regarding pre-election review and how much an initiative proponent can deviate from the strict rules of the election code and still have the measure appear on the ballot."
In a February 16th article in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted on court decisions on personnel records: "Even though there is no case specifically on point, it's not hard to read these cases and see the courts are taking an expansive view of what constitutes a personnel record."
"Generally speaking, if the only damage one suffers is by watching some event unfold, you ordinarily are not able to get recovery for that," said Professor John Nockleby, commenting on a lawsuit over an airliner that developed a hole before takeoff in an article in the Los Angeles Times on February 4th.
Professor Richard Hasen was quoted by The New York Times on February 1st: "Switching Alito for O'Connor is likely to have profound consequences from campaign finance to the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act itself."
Referring to Governor Schwarzenegger's new chief of staff, Professor Richard Hasen told the Los Angeles Times on February 1st: "I think it is very hard for the person to separate the two tasks. Inevitably, if you are doing government work, you are going to be thinking about its effect on the campaign."
Professor Jay Dougherty told Daily Variety on January 27th, "Untrue factual statements about a celebrity's sexuality are classic grounds for libel, especially in Britain, where the libel laws are more favorable to the plaintiff."
Professor Richard Hasen was quoted on a Supreme Court decision on political advertising:
In a January 24th article in The New York Times, Hasen said, ''It puts the Federal Election Commission and the courts back in the business of evaluating the subjective intent of each ad.''
The Los Angeles Times on January 24th quoted Hasen: "There was nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would require California to elect judges through a partisan election.it was possible that a candidate might run a partisan campaign with the hope that the existing state law eventually would be overturned."
In a Washington Post article, Hasen commented: "This is a delaying tactic by the Supreme Court. However, with the Supreme Court changing and the realistic potential that the new justices will be more sympathetic."
Professor Laurie Levenson commented on new charges against a retired Catholic priest:
In The New York Times on January 23rd, Levenson was quoted: "That could prove a problem for jurors. Even if they are able to separate clearly in their minds the old charges from the new, they will still pause before they let a priest go when he has done so much harm to so many. They would be worried about the message it would send."
In the January 20th Los Angeles Times Levenson said: "The defense had little choice but to concede the earlier abuse or be buried in testimony of the other victims."