This NY Times article does a good job of summarizing the situation surrounding the increasingly likely retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is suffering from thyroid cancer and the effects of the treatment for the condition. The Times article reports that a consensus is developing within the Bush Administration that Justice Rehnquist will step down at the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. According to the Times article, the five names on the Administration’s short list are as follows:

1) Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit,
2) John G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
3) J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and
4) J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and
5) Samuel A. Alito of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who is mentioned as “another possible candidate.”

This is a high caliber list of intellectual heavyweights who, I believe with the exception of Judge Alito, are all former Supreme Court clerks. My personal favorite for the appointment is Judge Roberts, who I have found to be an absolutely superb thinker and writer in the opinions that he has penned while on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

In a somewhat shocking development to a world conditioned to prolonged white collar criminal prosecutions, the prosecution in the criminal trial of former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers announced yesterday that it will not be calling any further witnesses from the company and that it expects to conclude its case-in-chief either today or tomorrow. The government’s statement came after U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones declined to grant the government’s request to call a former WorldCom employee who lost her entire retirement savings when the company collapsed,
Thus, the importance of former WorldCom CFO Scott Sullivan‘s testimony to the government’s case against Ebbers has come into clear focus. The government used Sullivan as the principal witness to connect Ebbers’ involvement in the accounting fraud at WorldCom, and the cross-examination hammered on Sullivan’s lies and misstatements, including a protracted discussion about whether what Sullivan said in a particular conference call constituted the universally understood concept of “B.S.”
Nevertheless, after three weeks of testimony, the government has essentially conceded that there is no paper trail to link Ebbers directly to the fraud. Sullivan’s testimony is that he falsified WorldCom’s accounts on numerous occasions and repeatedly lied about the company’s trading position because Ebbers urged in private conversations that “We have to hit our numbers.”
On cross-examination of Sullivan, the Ebbers defense promoted the “honest idiot defense” theory that Ebbers was the visionary who delegated the details of the company’s accounts to the more sophisticated and better educated Sullivan. Now, with the prosecution’s case winding down, the Ebbers defense team faces the key strategic decision in the case — whether to put Ebbers on the stand or even whether to put on any witnesses other than character witnesses to attest to Ebbers’ good ol’ boy nature. Inasmuch as juries in white collar cases expect to hear what the defendant has to say, they generally hold not testifying against the defendant even though they are not supposed to do so. However, with the WorldCom prosecution’s case relying heavily on Sullivan’s credibility, the Ebbers defense team may decide that Ebbers’ testimony could only hurt their defense and, thus, it’s worth the risk of not putting him on the stand.
Stay tuned on this one, folks. This case may go to the jury be early next week.

In a case that is being followed closely by free speech advocates and lawyers who specialize in defamation cases, Massachusetts Superior Court Ernest B. Murphy hammered The Boston Herald and one of its reporters with a $2.1 million jury verdict for libeling him in a series of articles that portrayed him as being overly lenient toward criminal defendants.
The Herald reported in February 2002 that prosecutors were criticizing Judge Murphy privately for giving overly lenient sentences to criminal defendants, and used as an example a sentence of eight years’ probation for a 17-year-old convicted of two rapes and an armed robbery. In a particularly inflammatory part of one article, the newspaper quoted Judge Murphy as telling prosecutors involved in the case to tell the teenage rape victim: “Tell her to get over it.” The story was picked up by media outlets across the country and Judge Murphy became a target of right wing talk radio shows that tabbed him as “Easy Ernie” and “Evil Ernie.” The Herald’s lead reporter on the story then appeared on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor” after his first story ran and confirmed that Judge Murphy had made the comment to three lawyers involved in the case.
In his suit against the newspaper, Judge Murphy’s essentially accused the Herald of fabricating a sensational story to sell papers. Based on about a dozen articles, Judge Murphy asserted that the Herald had misquoted him in connection with the above particular quote, and that it took other of his remarks out of context. The lawsuit also alleged that the judge was bombarded with hate mail, death threats and calls for his removal from the bench as a result of the Herald’s articles on the judge. The newspaper stood by its reporting of the particular quote and the series of articles in general.
The case is particularly noteworthy because Judge Murphy is a public figure, which means that Judge Murphy had to persuade the jury that either the Herald knew it was reporting false information or that it acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. That is a considerably higher standard than what a normal citizen must fulfill to win a defamation lawsuit.

This Washington Monthly article profiles Tommy Goldstein, the Washington D.C. lawyer who, though still in his 20s, has elbowed his way into the select group of lawyers who regularly appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. What makes Mr. Goldstein’s story most interesting is that he has accomplished this feat while starting and operating his three-lawyer firm out of his house:

He had never clerked for a justice or worked in the SG’s office. He earned his law degree at plebian American University, not Harvard or Yale. Yet Goldstein is already renowned among his peers and has begun to make a lot of money, too. This year, his firm, Goldstein & Howe– Howe is his wife and partner, Amy–will bill close to $1.5 million in fees. “His knowledge of the court is breathtaking,” says Ronald Collins, a First Amendment scholar at the Freedom Forum and former court clerk. “One cannot speak about Supreme Court litigation without breathing Tom’s name. And he has only just begun.”

Hat tip to On Appeal for the link to this interesting story.