DOCSLIB.ORG

Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES November 2, 2020 AGENDA Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules November 2, 2020 1. Opening Business A. Chair’s Remarks and Administrative Announcements (Oral Report) B. ACTION: Review and Approval of Minutes • Draft Minutes of the May 5, 2020 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules .......................................................23 C. Report of the Rules Committee Staff • Report on the June 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure • Draft Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure ...............49 • Report on the September 2020 Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States • September 2020 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States (appendices omitted) ............................79 • Rules and Projects Pending Before Congress, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Conference, and the Rules Committees • Chart Tracking Proposed Rules Amendments ...............103 • Legislative Update • Legislation That Directly or Effectively Amends the Federal Rules (116th Congress) ...............................109 2. Draft New Rule 62 (Rules Emergency) A. Reporters’ Memorandum (October 14, 2020) ............................................121 B. Supporting Materials • Draft New Rule 62 and Committee Note .....................................141 • Chart Comparing Draft New Rule 62 with the CARES Act .......153 • Memorandum from Kevin Crenny, Rules Law Clerk, Regarding Constitutionality of Bench Trial Without Prosecution’s Consent (October 7, 2020) ....................................155 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 3 of 193 Meeting Agenda Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules November 2, 2020 Page 2 3. Rule 6: Grand Jury Secrecy and Delay of Notification • Reporters’ Memorandum (October 9, 2020) ...........................................167 • Suggestion 20-CR-H ................................................................................169 4. New Suggestion: Procedure for Enforcing/Challenging Subpoenas and Appealing from Rulings • Reporters’ Memorandum (October 9, 2020) ...........................................179 • Suggestion 19-CR-E ................................................................................181 5. New Suggestion: Disparity Between Criminal Rule 59(b)(1) and Civil Rule 72(b) • Reporters’ Memorandum (October 9, 2020) ...........................................185 • Suggestion 20-CR-F.................................................................................187 6. New Suggestion: Videoconferencing for Initial Appearances, Arraignments, Detention Hearings, and Changes of Plea • Reporters’ Memorandum (October 9, 2020) ...........................................191 • Suggestion 20-CR-G ................................................................................193 7. Next Meeting Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 4 of 193 RULES COMMITTEES — CHAIRS AND REPORTERS Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Standing Committee) Chair Reporter Honorable John D. Bates Professor Catherine T. Struve United States District Court University of Pennsylvania Law School E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse 3501 Sansom Street 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Philadelphia, PA 19104 Washington, DC 20001 Secretary Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Esq. Secretary, Standing Committee and Rules Committee Chief Counsel Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 7-300 Washington, DC 20544 Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules Chair Reporter Honorable Jay S. Bybee Professor Edward Hartnett United States Court of Appeals Richard J. Hughes Professor of Law Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse Seton Hall University School of Law 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 7080 One Newark Center Las Vegas, NV 89101-7065 Newark, NJ 07102 Effective: October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 Page 1 Revised: October 15, 2020 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 5 of 193 RULES COMMITTEES — CHAIRS AND REPORTERS Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules Chair Reporter Honorable Dennis R. Dow Professor S. Elizabeth Gibson United States Bankruptcy Court University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Charles Evans Whittaker U.S. Courthouse 5073 Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, C.B. #3380 400 East Ninth Street, Room 6562 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 Kansas City, MO 64106 Associate Reporter Professor Laura B. Bartell Wayne State University Law School 471 W. Palmer Detroit, MI 48202 Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Chair Reporter Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. Professor Edward H. Cooper United States District Court University of Michigan Law School Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse 312 Hutchins Hall 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1978 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 Chicago, IL 60604 Associate Reporter Professor Richard L. Marcus University of California Hastings College of the Law 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 Effective: October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 Page 2 Revised: October 15, 2020 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 6 of 193 RULES COMMITTEES — CHAIRS AND REPORTERS Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules Chair Reporter Honorable Raymond M. Kethledge Professor Sara Sun Beale United States Court of Appeals Duke Law School Federal Building 210 Science Drive 200 East Liberty Street, Suite 224 Durham, NC 27708-0360 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Associate Reporter Professor Nancy J. King Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21st Avenue South, Room 248 Nashville, TN 37203-1181 Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Chair Reporter Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz Professor Daniel J. Capra United States District Court Fordham University United States Courthouse School of Law 300 South Fourth Street, Room 14E 150 West 62nd Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 New York, NY 10023 Effective: October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 Page 3 Revised: October 15, 2020 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 7 of 193 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES Chair Reporter Honorable Raymond M. Kethledge Professor Sara Sun Beale United States Court of Appeals Duke Law School Federal Building 210 Science Drive 200 East Liberty Street, Suite 224 Durham, NC 27708-0360 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Associate Reporter Professor Nancy J. King Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21st Avenue South, Room 248 Nashville, TN 37203-1181 Members Honorable James C. Dever III Professor Roger A. Fairfax United States District Court George Washington University Law School Terry Sanford Federal Building 2000 H Street, NW 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 716 Washington, DC 20052 Raleigh, NC 27601-1418 Honorable Gary Feinerman Honorable Michael J. Garcia United States District Court New York State Court of Appeals Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse 20 Eagle Street 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2156 Albany, NY 12207 Chicago, IL 60604 Lisa Hay, Esq. Honorable Denise P. Hood Federal Public Defender United States District Court One Main Place Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse 101 Southwest Main Street, Room 1700 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Room 251 Portland, OR 97204 Detroit, MI 48226 Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan Honorable Bruce J. McGiverin United States District Court United States District Court Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse Federico Degetau Federal Building 500 Pearl Street, Room 2240 150 Carlos Chardon Avenue, Room 483 New York, NY 10007-1312 San Juan, PR 00918-1767 Effective: October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 Page 1 Revised: October 15, 2020 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 8 of 193 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES Members (continued) Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen Honorable Brian C. Rabbitt* United States Court of Appeals Acting Assistant Attorney General (ex Richard H. Chambers Court of officio) Appeals Building United States Department of Justice 125 South Grand Avenue, Room 603 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Pasadena, CA 91105-1621 Washington, DC 20530-0001 * Alternate Representative: Jonathan J. Wroblewski, Esq. United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Catherine M. Recker, Esq. Susan M. Robinson, Esq. Welsh & Recker PC Thomas Combs & Spann PLLC 2000 Market Street, Suite 2903 P. O. Box 3824 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Charleston, WV 25338 Liaisons Honorable Jesse M. Furman (Standing) United States District Court Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, NY 10007-1501 Clerk of Court Representative James N. Hatten Clerk United States District Court Richard B. Russell Federal Building 75 Spring Street, S. W., Room 2217 Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 Secretary, Standing Committee and Rules Committee Chief Counsel Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Esq. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts One Columbus Circle, N.E., Room 7-300 Washington, DC 20544 Effective: October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 Page 2 Revised: October 15, 2020 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules | November 2, 2020 Page 9 of 193 Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules Members Position District/Circuit Start Date End Date Raymond M. Kethledge Member: 2013 ---- Chair C Sixth Circuit Chair: 2019 2022 North Carolina James C. Dever III D (Eastern) 2014 2021 Roger A. Fairfax, Jr. ACAD Washington, DC 2019 2022 Gary Feinerman D Illinois (Northern) 2014 2020 Michael J. Garcia JUST New York 2018 2021 Lisa Hay FPD Oregon 2020 2022 Denise Page Hood D Michigan (Eastern) 2015 2021
Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court

    In the United States District Court

    Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-06802-WHP Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Companies, Plaintiffs, v. NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF STEVEN F. BENZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 17 I, Steven F. Benz, declare as follows: 1. I submit this declaration in support of preliminary approval of the settlement reached on behalf of the certified Class and Defendants News Corporation, News America, Inc., News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., and News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). 2. I am a partner with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg Huber”), which is Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of plaintiffs certified by the Court on June 18, 2015. I am a member of good standing of the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota bars, and am admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. I became involved in this case at its inception in 2011 and am closely familiar with all aspects of this case since that time. 3. Both Kellogg Huber and I personally have significant experience with antitrust litigation and class actions, including settlements thereof. Copies of my firm’s resume and my personal profile are annexed to this declaration as Exhibit A.
  • Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 2 Article 7 2016 Neuroscience and Sentencing Nancy Gertner Harvard Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Nancy Gertner, Neuroscience and Sentencing, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 533 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEUROSCIENCE AND SENTENCING Nancy Gertner* INTRODUCTION This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career.1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposed were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate.2 Everything that I thought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by the insights of science. The question is how to do that: How can neuroscience contribute to the enterprise and what are the pitfalls? This Article represents a few of my preliminary conclusions, but my retrospective analysis is not complete.
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys

    History of the U.S. Attorneys

    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
  • Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 46 Article 4 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey March 2016 Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation , Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 46 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. xiii (2016). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol46/iss1/4 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 37275-ggl_46-1 Sheet No. 7 Side A 01/13/2016 11:44:49 \\jciprod01\productn\G\GGL\46-1\bio461.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-JAN-16 9:24 et al.: Judges of the Ninth Circuit JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1 CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY R. THOMAS Judge Thomas is currently serving a seven-year term as chief judge. President Clinton nominated Judge Thomas to the Ninth Circuit on July 19, 1995, and the Senate confirmed him on January 2, 1996. He received his B.A. from Montana State University in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1978. Judge Thomas practiced law with the firm of Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather from 1978 until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. He served as an Adjunct Instructor at Rocky Mountain College from 1982 to 1995.
  • March 12, 2013

    March 12, 2013

    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 12, 2013 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2013, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch Judge Paul J. Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee Judge Joel A. Pisano,1 District of New Jersey Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, District of Maryland 1Designated by the Chief Justice as a substitute for Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster, Western District of Pennsylvania, who was unable to attend. Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Judge Thomas A. Varlan, Eastern District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Judge Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge William Jay Riley Judge Rodney W. Sippel, Eastern District of Missouri Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of Washington Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe Judge Dee V. Benson, District of Utah Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina Judge W. Louis Sands, Middle District of Georgia 2 Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 District of Columbia Circuit: Chief Judge Merrick B.
  • Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Neuroscience and Sentencing

    NEUROSCIENCE AND SENTENCING Nancy Gertner* INTRODUCTION This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career.1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposed were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate.2 Everything that I thought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by the insights of science. The question is how to do that: How can neuroscience contribute to the enterprise and what are the pitfalls? This Article represents a few of my preliminary conclusions, but my retrospective analysis is not complete. I approach the issue of neuroscience and sentencing from three vantage points. First, I look at the sentencer’s brain. I ask who the sentencing decision maker is and what cognitive and other pressures the sentencer experiences.3 The insights of neuroscience will be a nullity if they are filtered through a system—like the one I labored under—that makes them irrelevant, ignored, and even trivialized. Likewise, science will be irrelevant if decades of a mandatory sentencing system has affected the cognitive lens through which judges today see the sentencing task, as I believe it has. Nearly thirty years of sentencing by a flawed formula—of avoiding the exercise of meaningful discretion; of major changes in the division of labor on * Senior Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; Judge (Ret.), U.S.
  • September(27+29,(2013( Hon

    September(27+29,(2013( Hon

    Jus4ces(and( Judges( Women&Transforming&Our& Communi1es&and&the&World& September(27+29,(2013( Hon. Ruth I. Abrams Class of 1956 “… it was clear one judge didn’t want me in the courtroom [even though I was the Assistant DA in Middlesex County]. He said I could not be in the courtroom without a hat and white gloves. The white hat and gloves were an excuse. Do you know how dirty the old Middlesex County courthouse was?” Honorable Ruth I. Abrams (Ret.) Justice, First Female Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Harvard Law School Class of 1956 Radcliffe College (A.B., 1953) Hon. Cynthia G. Aaron '84 Hon. Sharon V. Burrell '82 Hon. Mary Grace Diehl '77 Hon. Justice Arden '70 Hon. Zoe A. Bush '79 Hon. Raya S. Dreben '54 Hon. Christine M. Arguello '80 Hon. V. Buthelezi-Khampepe '82 Hon. Fernande R. V. Duffly '78 Hon. Deborah A. Batts '72 Hon. Diane O. Campbell '76 Hon. Antoinette L. Dupont '54 Hon. Carol Berkman '67 Hon. Yvonne E. Campos '88 Hon. Jacquelyn P. Eckert '94 Hon. Marie-France Bich '80 Hon. Susan L. Carney '77 Hon. Maryanne E. Elliott '90 Hon. Cathy Bissoon '93 Hon. Denise Jefferson Casper '94 Hon. Christine C. Ewell '86 Hon. Catherine C. Blake '75 Hon. Shelley C. Chapman '81 Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer '84 Hon. Karen J. Brandt '79 Hon. Dorothy Chin-Brandt '75 Hon. Dale S. Fischer '80 Hon. F. S. Brenneman '53 Hon. Cynthia J. Cohen '75 Hon. Fern Fisher '78 Hon. Eileen M. Brewer '87 Hon. Laura A. Cordero '88 Hon.
  • Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Presents Charles A

    Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Presents Charles A

    TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER PRESENTS CHARLES A. REICH (1928-2019) Charles Reich was born in New York City in 1928. His father Carl was a doctor who specialized in hematology. His mother pursued a career in school administration. Charles’ younger brother Peter was born in 1931. At his mother’s direction, Charles attended progressive schools in New York City. After high school, Charles attended Oberlin, where he excelled as a liberal arts student. Uncertain about what to do after graduation, he decided to apply to Yale Law School. This decision was made after speaking with Professor Tom Emerson, a family friend and professor at the law school. Reich was admitted and matriculated in the fall of 1949. Although he often shied away from speaking in class, Reich was an excellent law student. His strong academic performance earned him an early slot on the Yale Law Journal. Later he was elected editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. During his last year of law school, Reich applied for a clerkship with Justice Hugo Black. He found Black’s dissents in a number of civil liberties cases inspiring and enlisted support from Dean Wesley Sturges, Professor Emerson, and Professor David Haber for his application. In his letter of recommendation, Professor Haber noted that “despite an outer appearance of reticence and modesty, [Reich] proves to be an extremely warm and outgoing person, quite sensitive to, and aware of some of the problems of leading a life that has integrity and meaning.” Reich interviewed with Justice Black, and was offered the clerkship.
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List

    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List

    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
  • The Magazine of Ucla School of Law In-Depth Engagement

    The Magazine of Ucla School of Law In-Depth Engagement

    THE MAGAZINE OF UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s Centers and Programs Produce Path-breaking Research and Purposeful Reform NINTH CIRCUIT ALUMNI APPOINTMENTS Jacqueline Nguyen ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 217111_Cover_R4.indd 1 9/6/12 10:49 AM contents 38 47 48 ninth circuit student assists new global reach appointments orleans community of student work Alumni Jacqueline Nguyen May Thi Nguyen ’13 Students conduct field ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 returned to New Orleans research in the Democratic are appointed to the U.S. to assist in the wake of Republic of the Congo. Court of Appeals for the the 2010 oil spill and Ninth Circuit. Hurricane Katrina. IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s centers and programs produce path-breaking research and purposeful reform UCLA School of Law has always pursued a distinctive approach to achieving impact at the local, state, national and international level. At UCLA Law, the mastery of doctrine, skills and theory serves as the foundation for transformative influence through advocacy and service. These priorities are reinforced through the work of the law school’s more than 20 interdisciplinary centers of excellence, which are shaping law and policy and carving an extraordinary path toward lasting change. 217111_Cover_R2.inddU 2 9/5/12 8:11 AM FALL 2012 VOL. 35 NO. 1 51 also inside... 02 Message from the Dean 16 Faculty Scholarship 36th annual 50 Law School Hosts Inaugural NYU-UCLA ucla entertainment symposium Tax Policy Conference CBS Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer 53 UCLA Law Celebrates Law School “Legends” Leslie Moonves was the keynote speaker.
  • Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies

    Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies

    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 4 Article 6 May 2019 Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies Carl Tobias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Repository Citation Carl Tobias, Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1113 (2019), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss4/6 Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj FILLING THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACANCIES Carl Tobias* ABSTRACT Upon Republican President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit experienced some pressing appellate vacancies, which the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) carefully identified as “judicial emergencies” because the tribunal resolves a massive docket. Last year’s death of the iconic liberal champion Stephen Reinhardt and the late 2017 departure of libertarian former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski—who both assumed pivotal circuit leadership roles over numerous years—and a few of their colleagues’ decision to leave active court service thereafter, mean the tribunal presently confronts four judicial emergencies and resolves most slowly the largest number of appeals. The 2016 and 2018 federal election cycles—which render uncertain the party that will capture the presidency and the Senate at the polls in 2020—show that more posts could open when additional jurists determine that they will change status across the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, striking partisanship will frustrate the effort to appoint Ninth Circuit judges.