By Carlyn Kolker
Off the hook
4/13/12
When Jack Camp was arrested in October 2010 following an
undercover FBI sting operation, it was no ordinary
drug-and-prostitution arrest. Camp was a senior federal judge in
Atlanta at the time, and the charges against him included that
he'd used marijuana, cocaine and prescription painkillers while
conducting a relationship with a stripper. The case prompted
the U.S. Attorney's office in Atlanta to review Camp's decisions
for evidence he may have been under the influence of drugs,
mentally impaired, or evidenced any racism while conducting
official judicial business (the charges against him also
detailed some racially-charged remarks). Prosecutors concluded
that Camp didn't show any bias in the case of 28 defendants who
had requested that their sentences be reviewed, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. (Hat tip: How Appealing). "I am
pleased the report vindicates that my decisions were fair,
impartial and true to the law," Camp, who pleaded guilty to drug
charges, spent 30 days in prison, and resigned from office, told
the AJC in a statement.
A change in direction
4/13/12
For a second, we almost wished we were in Detroit right now.
A symposium entitled "Gender and the Legal Profession's Pipeline to Power," put on by Michigan State University College of Law,
is taking place at a hotel in the Motor City right now.
According to a blog called Feminist Law Professors (the name
pretty much gets to the point, right?), Nancy Gertner, a former
federal judge in Boston and current Harvard Law School
professor, is shaking things up. In employment cases, the courts
have "de facto reversed Title VII" anti-discrimination law,
Gertner said, according to the blog (which also gushed "Nancy
Gertner just rocked my world"). Gertner said courts are now
construing discrimination in the workplace by "losers' rules"
(we're not totally sure what that means, but it doesn't sound
good to us). They are, for example, rejecting evidence of
explicit bias - often dismissing discriminatory comments as
"stray remarks" - and "slicing and dicing" evidence in a manner
so it doesn't piece together a pattern of discrimination. Other
speakers include Linda Greenhouse, formerly of the New York
Times, and Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor.
J&J: Time for Plan B?
4/13/12
Why didn't Johnson & Johnson settle before it was ordered to
pay $1 billion by an Arkansas judge? It's a question the Daily Record asks, and it's one we've wondered, too; Bloomberg also casts doubt on the pharmaceutical company's litigation strategy
in connection with suits involving an antipsychotic drug - even
though the company has succeeded in having cases dismissed in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Here's the background: Johnson & Johnson, as Reuters
reported, was hit with a $1.1 billion penalty by an Arkansas
judge Wednesday for using illegal tactics to market its
anti-psychotic drug Risperdal. The case was brought by the state
attorney general, and it wasn't the first time J&J had been
ordered to pay up in connection with its marketing of Risperdal
in a big state AG case. As the Record notes, J&J has also been
hit with penalties in cases in Louisiana ($258 million) and
South Carolina ($258 million). Plus, in January, as Bloomberg noted, J&J settled a case in Texas over Risperdal marketing for
$158 million. All in all, the company has been sued by 11
different attorneys general. It reportedly has been in talks with the Justice Department over settling a civil investigation
into Risperdal marketing, but a potential settlement has gotten
stuck on price. (Bloomberg in March reported the Justice
Department wants the company to pay about $1.8 billion fine).
So what to make of its recent stumble in Arkansas? Carl
Tobias, a professor at University of Richmond law school, told
Bloomberg the recent fine "ups the ante quite a bit" in terms of
the other state lawsuits. "Three losses in a row means the
company needs to be more realistic about its exposure and come
up with an exit strategy in the form of a settlement." Lawyers
suing J&J say - no surprise here - say that the company's woes
will go on: "They've gotten hit in Louisiana, South Carolina and
Arkansas, and it's not going to stop," the Record quotes Stephen
Sheller, a Philadelphia plaintiffs' attorney suing the company
on behalf of individuals.
J&J, meanwhile, says it will appeal the Arkansas verdict and
that the company "presented abundant evidence showing the
company acted responsibly and fully complied with all laws and
regulations."
Who would have thought it?
4/13/12
For state courts, it seems that the budget woes can't get
any worse. With courts in 42 states slashing funding, according
to the National Center for State Courts, not only are hours and
staffing shrinking, but some proceedings, too, have ground to a
halt, NPR reports. A court in Georgia has stopped hearing civil
cases; courts in Oregon and Kansas are shutting for whole days;
Florida is shedding legal aid attorneys. The budget cuts are
creating some strange bedfellows, too, public radio reports:
"trial lawyers are finding rare common cause with chambers of
commerce and other business groups who recognize that courts are
key to enforcing contracts."
In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the judges are complaining: top
state court judges said at a Boston Bar Association event on
Thursday that five years of budget cuts have created "tremendous
voids" in court operations, according to MassLive. Staffing
levels in Massachusetts trial courts has dropped about 17.5
percent since 2007, and the state's appeals court budget is down
10 percent since 2009, although the state has seen the highest
level of appeals since that time. And in some superior courts,
where serious criminal cases are tried, some sessions have been
suspended.
And on that note, we hope to present some more upbeat news
later today.
Cops, arrest and videotape: the sequel
4/13/12
In January, we brought you news of an interesting case in federal court in Baltimore in which a Maryland citizen,
Christopher Sharp, sued the Baltimore police department for
confiscating his cell phone when he'd used it to videotape the
arrest of his friend at a horseracing event. The U.S. Justice Department, as we reported, filed a brief in the case - which it
is not a party to - supporting Sharp. "The right to engage in
and disseminate speech relating to government misconduct is not
diminished when the government actors are police officers," the
Justice Department wrote.
Fast forward three months, on the nose, and we now tell you
about a case in Suffolk County, New York, in which Philip Datz,
a photojournalist, has sued the local police department for
confiscating his video camera after filming police activity in
July. Datz was arrested and charged with obstructing
governmental administration. While those charges were dismissed,
Datz on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court in the
Eastern District of New York, saying the police department
violated his free speech rights and conducted an unreasonable
search and seizure.
Who does Datz, who is represented by law firm Davis Wright
Tremaine and the New York Civil Liberties Union, quote in the
complaint? The Justice Department. Datz, in his 34-page
complaint, cited the DOJ brief in the Baltimore case, saying the
right to record police officers is "consistent with our
fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of
our government officers, and instill public confidence in the
police officers who serve us daily.'"
In a statement, the Suffolk County Police Department said
that, while it can't comment on the specifics of the litigation,
the department's policy is "members of the media shall not be
precluded from observing incidents, producing recorded media and
commenting regarding an incident."
Summary Judgments for April 12
Summary Judgments for April 11
Summary Judgments for April 10Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal