All Blog Posts from Couric & Co.

It's a landmark case in Internet law. You may remember the Missouri woman accused of posing as a teenage boy on MySpace. Using the fake identity, she allegedly began taunting a 13-year-old neighborhood girl who eventually committed suicide.

Lori Drew was called a monster, a predator, a cyber bully ... but she's not charged in the girl's death. Missouri prosecutors said no laws were broken. Instead, Drew is now on trial in Los Angeles for allegedly violating her MySpace agreement. Some say it's a legal stretch, while others can't understand why she isn't being tried for a much more serious offense.

It's a reminder that our laws don't always keep up with ever-changing technology. Every day people post things on-line they would never say in person. But those digital words matter, a lesson Lori Drew found out the hard way, and a 13-year-old girl is dead.

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

A Midsummer night’s dream (or, 10 headlines I’d like to see but probably won’t)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigns, James Comey named successor;
Pledges “return of professionalism and independence” to Justice Department

In unusual deal with lawmakers, Gonzales says he’ll leave “public service”;
Vows return to Texas in exchange for immunity from perjury prosecution

Executive privilege fight avoided by compromise in U.S. Attorney probe;
White House officials to testify under oath in private about prosecutor purge

U.S. closes controversial, expensive Guantanamo Bay detention facility;
Feds establish new “terrorism” court system to handle remaining suspects

Congress overrides Bush veto on new warrantless surveillance rules;
New legislation provides more oversight over White House programs

Supreme Court stays all executions nationwide pending procedural review;
Justices suggest detailed, uniform rules governing lethal injection protocols

Supreme Court blocks campaign advertisements in judicial races nationwide;
Justices say free speech concerns trumped by need for decorum, independence

Congress passes new federal “shield law” protecting reporter’s privilege;
President vows to sign legislation; Justice Department pledges cooperation

Congress, White House agree on new system for judicial appointments;
Deal will break confirmation logjam; restore vital personnel to courts

Presidential candidates pledge to focus on makeup of High Court;
GOP and Dems will debate role of Justices in run-up to 2008 vote

Cable networks vow to end all coverage of “celebrity” legal gossip;
Lohan, Hilton depart California for exile on island near Arctic Circle

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

Have you ever wondered if you could be sued for defamation for what you say in court while testifying under oath as a witness in a case? Wonder no more. Unless you go absolutely bonkers on the stand, and call the defendant a murderer when you are testifying about contract case, you are immune from liability under a privilege that covers “testimony or pleadings in a judicial proceeding.” Makes sense, right? After all, it’s hard enough to get people to testify without forcing them to worry about getting sued for what they say.

You would think that a brain surgeon would understand all this. But, if you did, you would think wrong. A neurosurgeon named Margaret MacGregor just lost a battle in federal court with another neurosurgeon, a fellow named L. David Rutberg. The latter had testified against the former as an expert witness in a malpractice case against MacGregor. She won that malpractice case and then, apparently unprepared to stay out of court, promptly sued Rutberg, claiming that he had defamed her with his testimony. Lord knows what he said about her but, on Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Rutberg and against MacGregor.

Turns out, fabled 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner declared, that “litigation is costly enough without judges making it more so by throwing open the door to defamation suites against expert witnesses. That would not only tend to turn one case into two or more cases (depending on the number of expert witnesses) but also drive up the cost of expert witnesses fees; expert witnesses would demand as part of their fee for testifying compensation for assuming the risk of being sued because of what they testified to.” So the court extended to the area of expert witnesses the old rule that had applied to regular witnesses—no liability unless the testimony is “unarguably irrelevant to the case in which it was given.”

The judge is right. Expert witnesses—even ones who aren’t brain surgeons-- already command outrageous fees from their clients. There is no reason to make things worse by requiring them to fear secondary lawsuits every time they open their mouths. And it’s not like Rutberg got off scot-free for his alleged transgression. As a result of his testimony and conduct during the MacGregor malpractice case, Judge Posner noted, Rutberg indeed was expelled from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons for violating its rules. And the moral of the story? When you say something nasty about someone while under oath in court, make sure it has something to do with why you are there in the first place.

Read full post…

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

What a day. Federal jurors in Washington, D.C. are hearing closing arguments to determine whether Anna Nicole Smith is entitled to punitive damages resulting from her indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yes, I know that is not exactly right. But it sure would make tidy what has otherwise been a messy day of legal wrangling and resolution all over the country.

In Florida, Smith’s friends and family fought bitterly again today over what to do with her body. In Oregon, the parties in a landmark tobacco case now will have to renew their fight over the amount of damages that Phillip Morris ought to pay for its tobacco sins. In the nation’s capital, lawyers spoke and jurors listened for an entire day of closing arguments at the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby perjury and obstruction of justice trial. And, also in Washington, a federal appeals court dealt another blow to the Guantanamo Bay terror detainees.

Tuesday’s quartet of legal stories was related only by its timing. And, in the long run, the story that made the biggest splash of the day—the raucous, unseemly garbage pail of a hearing for Smith in Florida—will make the smallest splash in the ocean of history. Far more important is the Supreme Court’s decision to limit punitive damage awards in the future (and in the present) by providing a more restricting test for judges and juries to apply when figuring out such awards.

As for the other two stories, the Gitmo ruling and the Libby trial, there just isn’t any way yet to tell what the day means. Surely the losing side will appeal today’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, which ultimately will have to decide upon the constitutionality of the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. That Congressional effort prompted the federal appeals court to declare that terror detainees have very limited rights when it comes to trying to have their cases heard by civilian judges. For Lewis Libby, meanwhile, the jury is (almost literally) out. He will go to sleep tonight wondering if it is the last night he will spend on Earth without being a convicted felon.