1. Home
2. Daily News
3. House committee drops information request…

Education Law

House committee drops information request about law clinics amid ‘ongoing negotiations’ with Northwestern

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 10:59 am CDT

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Workforce has withdrawn its request for information on law clinics at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, citing “ongoing negotiations” with the university and an intent to pursue “other means of inquiry.”

The committee withdrew the request Thursday during an emergency hearing in federal court in Chicago, a day after two law professors filed a lawsuit challenging the request.

A letter filed with the court April 10 said the withdrawal was based on the committee’s “ongoing negotiations with Northwestern University” related to alleged antisemitism, Law360 reports.

“We expect to pursue other means of inquiry in coming weeks as part of Congress’ oversight authority under the U.S. Constitution,” the April 10 letter adds.

The committee had initially sought information in a March 27 letter that expressed concern about antisemitism and funding of “left-wing advocacy with its institutional resources,” raising “significant concerns about the university’s role as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”

The suit alleged that the information request violated two clinical law professors’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association and their right to petition for redress of grievances. The suit also alleged retaliation for expression of First Amendment rights and violation of their clients’ Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights.

“Here, defendants threaten federal funding to Northwestern based on the viewpoints and associations of plaintiffs and their clients,” the suit said. “Defendants are leveraging funding to regulate speech on the basis of viewpoint and content.”

The committee’s request for information from Northwestern University was one of five information requests sent to colleges March 27, according to a press release announcing the committee’s retreat.

The suit plaintiffs are Sheila A. Bedi and Lynn Cohn, who work with programs operating within Northwestern University’s Bluhm Legal Clinic. Bedi is the director of the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, while Cohn is a clinical law professor at the Center on Negotiation, Mediation, and Restorative Justice.

Jon Yates, a Northwestern University spokesman, previously said Bedi’s civil rights clinic represents clients across the political and legal spectrum, and cases chosen by the clinic don’t necessarily reflect the views of the school.

Yates also said the school is collaborating with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law “to fight antisemitism.”

The case is Bedi v. U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Publications covering the dropped request, in addition to Law360, include Reuters and the Daily Northwestern.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth Amendment right to counsel during trial recess

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 2:37 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a judge banned him from discussing his ongoing testimony when meeting with his lawyers during an overnight trial recess.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of David Asa Villarreal on April 7, report SCOTUSblog, Law360 and Law.com.

Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial for fatally stabbing his boyfriend Aaron Estrada, according to prior coverage by SCOTUSblog. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Two prior Supreme Court decisions have led to a lower-court split on whether defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to talk to their lawyers about their testimony when it is interrupted by an overnight break, according to the cert petition and a brief opposing cert filed by prosecutors in Texas.

In Geders v. United States, a decision in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are violated when a judge prohibits the defendant from conferring with their lawyer during an overnight break.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Perry v. Leeke that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are not violated by a ban on consulting with their lawyer during a 15-minute recess between direct and cross-examination.

Six federal appeals courts and three state supreme courts have held that defendants have a right to confer with a lawyer about testimony during an overnight recess, according to the cert petition. The top state supreme courts or criminal courts in four other states—including Texas, in a ruling against Villarreal—have reached the opposite conclusion, according to the cert petition.

The case is Villarreal v. Texas.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net…

Criminal Justice

Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net worth of negative $3.3M, criminal court document says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2025, 3:21 pm CST

A U.S. magistrate judge wrongly concluded that SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein could finance his defense in a tax evasion case with his bank accounts, the former U.S. Supreme Court litigator asserted in a court filing Wednesday.

Goldstein currently has a negative net worth of more than $3.3 million, according to a pretrial services report that Goldstein cited in a Feb. 5 motion.

Law360, Bloomberg Law and PokerNews have coverage.

Among the allegations in Goldstein’s Jan. 16 indictment are that he schemed to understate gambling winnings on tax returns that he earned in “ultrahigh-stakes” poker matches while using his boutique law firm to pay debts.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan of the District of Maryland had required Goldstein to use his marital home as collateral to guarantee his criminal court appearance while rejecting the lawyer’s request last month to substitute property owned by family members.

Goldstein wants to tap the equity in his marital home to fund his defense.The magistrate judge’s refusal to substitute properties violates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Goldstein said.

The substitute properties are worth more than the $3.2 million marital home when the outstanding $1.8 million mortgage is taken into account, the motion said.

Refusing to allow substitute collateral also prejudices Goldstein’s wife, “who all agree is an entirely innocent party,” Goldstein wrote. Goldstein is married to SCOTUSblog co-founder and reporter Amy Howe.

In addition, Goldstein wrote, “The magistrate judge’s conclusion that Mr. Goldstein might flee—and strip his closest family members of by far their most significant assets—is not supported by the record,” including a pretrial services report that recommended no secured bond.

Goldstein described himself as “a deeply respected member of the bar who practiced at the highest levels for decades.”

Bloomberg Law reports he argued 45 cases before the Supreme Court before he retired in 2023.

The indictment also accuses Goldstein of failing to report cryptocurrency transactions, using his firm’s money to pay women he was pursuing or with whom he was involved, and failing to report money owed in debts and taxes when he applied for a mortgage.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Should defendants without court-appointed…

Criminal Justice

Should defendants without court-appointed lawyers be released? Should charges be dropped? Judge weighs remedies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 27, 2025, 3:06 pm CST

A Maine judge is considering how to remedy the state’s failure to provide lawyers to indigent defendants on a timely basis.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine is urging Judge Michaela Murphy of Kennebec County, Maine, to order the Maine Commission on Public Defender Services to provide counsel from the time that a defendant is charged. Murphy should give the organization 30 days to come up with an implementation plan, the ACLU said.

Defendants without a court-appointed lawyer after seven days should be released from jail, and those without a lawyer after 45 days should have their charges dismissed until a defense lawyer is available, the ACLU argued.

The Portland Press Herald (in stories here, here and here) and Maine Public Radio have coverage.

Murphy ruled Jan. 3 that Maine is violating the Sixth Amendment rights of criminal defendants who remain unrepresented after arraignment or first appearances. The judge had a three-day hearing focusing on remedies that ended Friday.

The state is arguing that remedies for the late appointment of a lawyer could be handled on an individual basis.

When Maine adopted a full-time public defender system in 2022, it was the last state to do so. But the state still has a hybrid system in which it relies on private attorneys to handle much of the work, the Portland Press Herald explains. The state also has a “lawyer of the day” program in which temporary lawyers represent defendants for their first court appearance when a permanent lawyer can’t be found.

In testimony on remedies, Walter McKee, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, said it was important to have permanent legal representation early in the case, according to Portland Press Herald.

“These are processes that are important to be dealt with, right from Day 1,” McKee said. “Law enforcement has had a significant amount of time to investigate and follow up. They’re way ahead of the defendant. Those delays are significant, right from the start.”

The ACLU case is State of Maine v. Robbins.

See also:

Defenseless: Lack of public defenders creates a crisis for indigent clients and increased caseloads for lawyers

Federal judge orders release of county’s unrepresented defendants, says problem is ‘complete tragedy’

Citing ‘Sixth Amendment nightmare,’ 9th Circuit allows pretrial release of defendants without lawyers

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Despite lyrics mistake by AI, lawyer wasn’t…

Technology

Despite lyrics mistake by AI, lawyer wasn’t ineffective for using tech in rapper’s case, federal judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 3, 2024, 12:09 pm CDT

A federal judge has refused to grant a new trial in a case of a rapper convicted for using straw donors in a back-channel lobbying campaign, despite evidence of a mistake by an artificial intelligence program used to help draft closing arguments.

Senior U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District of Columbia upheld the verdict against Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, who was convicted in connection with his lobbying to get the United States to drop the case against a fugitive financier in connection with the collapse of the sovereign wealth fund 1MBD.

Michel’s crimes were related to “conduit contributions, witness tampering and foreign lobbying,” according to Kollar-Kotelly’s Aug. 30 opinion.

Kollar-Kotelly said the lyrics mistake by the AI program, in which another rapper’s lyrics were attributed to Michel, a member of the Fugees, a hip-hop group, did not undermine the case, even though Michel’s lawyer repeated the mistake in closing arguments.

Kollar-Kotelly said Michel had not established that his trial lawyers were ineffective for using the AI program because there was no showing of prejudice.

The Associated Press has coverage, while the Volokh Conspiracy published opinion highlights.

Michel’s lawyers had sought help from an AI program created by EyeLevel.AI with this prompt: “I am a passionate attorney who believes in my clients [sic] innocence. Write a powerful, emotionally compelling closing argument and integrate lyrics from ‘Ghetto [Supastar]’ by the band the Fugees.”

The AI program generated a closing argument that cited these lyrics by Puff Daddy, who is now known as Diddy: “Every step I take, every move I make, Every single day, every time I pray, I’ll be missing you.”

Michel’s lawyer used the lyrics in his closing this way: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the prolific words of a band called the Fugees founded by Mr. Michel, there was a prescient song—I am not going to try to sing or rap, then you would all throw me out of the courtroom. But the lyrics went, ‘Every single day, every time I pray, I will be missing you.’ These words though originally written in a totally different context, speak to the profound impact this trial has had on Mr. Michel’s life. The weight of the decision as to how he moves forward in life lies within your sound common sense and judgment, which I know that you will bring to these deliberations.”

Kollar-Kotelly said Michel did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different with correct attribution of a lyric to Michel.

Kollar-Kotelly also rejected an argument that Michel’s lawyers apparently had an undisclosed financial conflict of interest in the company that launched EyeLevel.AI. In a press release, one of Michel’s lawyers said use of the AI program had been a “game changer” during the trial. The press release said the AI program had been launched with technology partner CaseFile Connect, which was partly owned by two of Michel’s lawyers.

But neither lawyer had a financial interest in EyeLevel.AI. Rather, the lawyers asked that the CaseFile Connect language be included in the press release to get free press for the company, one of the lawyers had testified.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judiciary ‘has no power to unimpeach,’ federal…

Judiciary

Judiciary ‘has no power to unimpeach,’ federal judge says while citing Dr. Seuss

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2024, 8:57 am CDT

A federal judge has tossed former Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pro se lawsuit seeking the right to run for political office, despite his impeachment and conviction, saying the complaint is “riddled with problems” and is an “Issue-Spotting Wonderland.”

U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois said Blagojevich made several mistakes when he claimed that the Illinois Senate violated the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and the 14th Amendment by disqualifying him from future office in the state, in violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.

Among the problems cited by Seeger: Blagojevich wrongly sued the state of Illinois and the Illinois General Assembly, rather than naming a person as a defendant under Section 1983; he cites the Sixth Amendment, but it applies to criminal cases and not impeachment proceedings; he lacks standing to assert First Amendment voting rights of voters; and he has said he is unsure whether he even wants to run for office, which could mean that his claim isn’t ripe for adjudication.

The bigger problem, Seeger said in his March 21 opinion, is that a federal court can’t get involved in impeachment decisions.

“The bottom line is that the judiciary has no power to unimpeach, unconvict and unremove a public official,” Seeger wrote. “The legislature taketh away, and the judiciary cannot giveth back.”

The Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press and Law360 are among the publications with coverage.

In 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in prison for political corruption, but he served only eight years before then-President Donald Trump commuted the sentence in February 2020. Blagojevich was a lawyer before his May 2020 disbarment, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Seeger is known for his opinions pillorying lawyers. He said a food labeling lawyer’s “warehouse of complaints” are “not fit for public consumption,” a Chicago lawyer’s motion was littered with “unnecessary potshots and hyperbole,” and lawyers in a trademark suit should be aware that “‘judge shopping’ ain’t a thing here.”

In the hyperbole case, Seeger declared that “searching for over-the-top sentences in the motion is like shooting fish in a barrel.”

Seeger returned to the analogy in Blagojevich’s case.

“The complaint is riddled with problems,” he wrote. “If the problems are fish in a barrel, the complaint contains an entire school of tuna. It is a target-rich environment. The complaint is an Issue-Spotting Wonderland.”

Seeger noted that the case began with “great fanfare” as Blagojevich announced with “a gaggle of press in tow” that he might want to return to public life.

“The case started with a megaphone, but it ends with a whimper,” Seeger wrote. “Sometimes cases in the federal courthouse attract publicity. But the courthouse is no place for a publicity stunt.”

Seeger quoted from the 1972 Dr. Seuss book Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just Go. Go. Go! I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go now!”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Only 1 out of 5 defendants in this Mississippi…

Sixth Amendment

Only 1 out of 5 defendants in this Mississippi county get court-appointed lawyers before indictment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2024, 8:22 am CST

The right to counsel is “tenuous” in a small Mississippi justice court in Yalobusha County, Mississippi, where two judges appointed lawyers for felony defendants in only 20% of the cases opened in 2022, according to an investigative report.

Experts estimate that the national rate of lawyer appointments is 80% in felony cases, at some point in the legal process, according to the article by the Marshall Project, which was produced in partnership with the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal and ProPublica.

Felony defendants make their first appearance in justice court or municipal court in Yalobusha County, where judges are tasked with evaluating whether the defendant can pay for a lawyer and to appoint one if necessary. A review of court files in the county found 63 cases in which defendants appeared before a justice court judge in 2022. Two cases were excluded because it was unclear whether a listed lawyer was appointed or hired.

The appointment rate in the remaining cases was 20%. In 61% of the cases, the defendant had no attorney, whether privately hired or publicly funded, the article reports.

The cases move to a circuit court after an indictment. Out of 15 cases now in the circuit court that were initiated in 2022, only four defendants received appointed lawyers in justice court. Thirteen defendants got court-appointed lawyers in the circuit court, the article reports.

The two justice court judges, Judge Trent Howell and Judge Janet Caulder, did not comment on their appointment rates to reporters working on the investigative report.

Caulder said, however, that she tells defendants about their right to a lawyer. But she doesn’t ask whether they can afford one, and she doesn’t appoint one unless they request it.

“I don’t question them. I don’t try to force indigency on them,” she said.

Howell said he has a duty to spend taxpayer money wisely. He is more likely to appoint a lawyer if a defendant is in jail, he said. In one case in which a woman accused of shooting and wounding her stepfather, Howell said, “She just didn’t strike me as an indigent person.”

“Mississippi is among the worst states in the country in providing attorneys for poor criminal defendants,” the article reports. “It’s one of a handful of states where public defense is managed and funded almost entirely by local governments, and the way they do so varies greatly from county to county. Defendants in some places see appointed lawyers quickly and remain represented thereafter; elsewhere, sometimes right over the county line, defendants can wait months just to see a lawyer or can go long periods without having one at all.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court has issued several rules intended to improve the process.

“But it is up to locally elected judges to carry out those mandates, and there’s no oversight to make sure they’re doing it right,” the article reports.

Lisa M. Wayne, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told the Marshall Project that Mississippi is an outlier.

“We don’t hear from many places other than Mississippi of judges simply ignoring or deferring the question of whether the right to counsel applies,” Wayne said.