Legal-decision readers are familiar with quotation parentheticals like (emphasis added/omitted/changed), (alteration in original), (quotation marks and citation omitted), or (cleaned up). A new kid shows up every once in a great while: (emojis omitted). I noticed (emojis omitted) in the August 29, 2024 memorandum decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals Shannon v Indiana, 23A-CR-2744…
Category: Uncategorized
When is lipreading from video footage admissible expert evidence in Michigan?
The question might be relevant in ongoing proceedings before Michigan’s Judicial Tenure Commission. In the Disciplinary Counsel’s August 6, 2024 objection to the Master’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint in FC 106, they note that three expert witnesses who “are certified deaf interpreters who can read Judge Brue’s lips from the video, as they would…
Self-represented litigant receives warning (not sanctions) for submitting “false and nonexistent legal authority”
A federal district court judge in New York’s Southern District recently used her discretion to warn a self-represented litigant about submitting false and nonexistent legal authority to the Court. Sanctions may be imposed for submitting false and nonexistent legal authority to the Court. See, e.g., Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 613-16 (2d Cir. 2024)…
Might the Michigan Supreme Court appoint someone to defend the COA ruling in In re Contempt of Kathy H. Murphy?
SCOTUSblog recently posted a piece about a recent SCOTUS order appointing an attorney to brief and argue a case in defense of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit because the federal government declined to do so (Justices appoint former clerk to argue First Step Act cases). Procedurally, this reminded…
Seeing how judicial decision-making benefits when using a “focus order”
A “focus order” is an order from the court to the parties directing them to focus their upcoming briefing and argument on specified issues. The Michigan Supreme Court routinely includes “focus” instructions in its argument orders. For years, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers has found the focus order tool to be positive and productive…
When 4 jurists write: Prompting Claude.ai to create tables of disagreement and agreement and asking follow-ups in the ex parte decision People v Loew (164133)
Four justices wrote when the Michigan Supreme Court released today’s 93-page decision in People v Loew (164133). Chief Justice Clement penned the 29-page lead majority (joined by Justices Zahra and Viviano). Justice Welch filed a 31-page opinion that concurred and dissented in part (joined by Justice Cavanagh). Justice Bolden wrote for herself in a 15-page…
Prompting Claude.ai to create tables of disagreement and agreement in the indigent/expert-witness decision People v Warner (163805)
A divided Michigan Supreme Court released its 39-page decision in People v Warner (163805) last Thursday. I deleted the Syllabus pages and put Claude.ai (a next-generation AI assistant) to work on the majority and dissenting opinions by creating tables showing the areas of disagreement and agreement. Here is the prompt: Create a three-column table that outlines the key…
Using Claude.ai to understand the package-deal plea withdrawal decision People v Samuels (164050)
A divided Michigan Supreme Court released its 32-page decision in People v Samuels (164050) on Friday. I deleted the Syllabus pages and put Claude.ai (a next-generation AI assistant) to work on the majority and dissenting opinions. First, I asked Claudi.ai to outline the decision using this complex prompt: Draft an opinion outline of the attached…
The case for adding the new Black’s Law Dictionary (12th Edition) to your legal-writing toolbox
The 12th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary was released early last month. Chief Editor Bryan A. Garner and publisher Thomson Reuters highlight that 2,500 new terms have been added to the more than 70,000 law-related words and phrases. Thousands of Latin maxims also make their debut. Plus, every page has been supplemented and revised. Price:…
When does a state supreme court justice not participate in a case?
Michigan Court Rule 2.003 concerns the disqualification of a judicial officer and applies to Michigan Supreme Court Justices. Subparagraph(C) outlines the grounds for when a judicial officer may not be able to preside over a matter. (C) Grounds. (1) Disqualification of a judge is warranted for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The…