The Trick Was On Us
(GETTY)
All Blog Posts from Courtwatch
Read all 'In The News' posts in Courtwatch
October 31, 2009 10:56 AM And so it came to pass that on the day before Halloween 2009 we all were reminded that most of the biggest tricks of the past decade were on us.
October 19, 2009 4:19 PM 
It is easy both to overstate and understate the meaning of the Justice Department's decision Monday to alter its policy toward medical marijuana.
The Obama Administration's ballyhooed shift away from federal prosecution for state-sanctioned pot sales and use does not necessarily signal a turning point in the effort to legalize (and tax) marijuana. We are probably still a generation or two away from that. But the new White House policy is no small matter, either, for it means that tens of thousands of Americans now are free from federal persecution and prosecution for conduct that is completely legal in their own states.
Federal prosecutors now will get little internal blame for failing to bring criminal charges against people who are lawfully selling or using medical marijuana. Nor will federal lawyers necessarily get kudos within the department if they aggressively pursue medical marijuana cases. Forget all the nonsense about federal funding and national endorsements of drug use. The official government position now reverts simply to something akin to legal neutrality: if you smoke it, we won't come, because we have more important things to do with our time.
New Pot Policy Is Not Yet a Turning Point
(CBS/iStockphoto)
The Obama Administration's ballyhooed shift away from federal prosecution for state-sanctioned pot sales and use does not necessarily signal a turning point in the effort to legalize (and tax) marijuana. We are probably still a generation or two away from that. But the new White House policy is no small matter, either, for it means that tens of thousands of Americans now are free from federal persecution and prosecution for conduct that is completely legal in their own states.
Federal prosecutors now will get little internal blame for failing to bring criminal charges against people who are lawfully selling or using medical marijuana. Nor will federal lawyers necessarily get kudos within the department if they aggressively pursue medical marijuana cases. Forget all the nonsense about federal funding and national endorsements of drug use. The official government position now reverts simply to something akin to legal neutrality: if you smoke it, we won't come, because we have more important things to do with our time.
October 18, 2009 3:37 PM 
Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden (left) was just trying to make the best of a bad situation this past Thursday afternoon when he was called to the chaotic home of Richard and Mayumi Heene in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Now, a few days and countless hours of television face time later, he's just as earnestly trying to save his face and cover his butt.
If the Front Range's ill-fated "balloon ride" were a screenplay, it would have been a remake of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."
L'Affaire Balloon Boy
(AP Photo/Will Powers)
Now, a few days and countless hours of television face time later, he's just as earnestly trying to save his face and cover his butt.
If the Front Range's ill-fated "balloon ride" were a screenplay, it would have been a remake of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."
September 21, 2009 10:13 AM 
It’s been fascinating over the past week to watch federal agents and lawyers, working with state and local counterparts 1,600 miles away, choreograph the events leading to the arrests late Saturday night of Najibullah Zazi and his father, Wali Mohammed Zazi, on federal "false statement" charges. Is this the "first al-Qaeda terror cell" discovered in the United States since 9/11 or is it something far less sinister? Even the feds don’t really know for sure.
That didn’t stop them, however, from clicking off all of the elements of their perennial song-and-dance number in terror-plot cases; this time from New York to Denver to Washington and back. The prejudicial leaks from law enforcement; the prompt (and promptly repeated) links to al Qaeda; the dramatic headlines, the identification of a "person of interest;" the assurances that no particular target had been specified; the intercession of an overwhelmed defense attorney; the denials, the meetings, the breakdown in talks, and, finally, the arrest (late at night, but with the tipped-off news cameras hovering above and about).
We’ve seen various iterations of the perp-walk parade hundreds of times before, in cases that merited the attention or not, and certainly dozens of times since Sept. 11, 2001. Often, way too often, the government has in the end been able or willing to prove far less than the initial (and often hysterical and hysterically received) allegations — distributed (typically without challenge) via cable television and the Internet — suggested.
Snazzy Zazi Plot But No Terror Charges
(AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)
That didn’t stop them, however, from clicking off all of the elements of their perennial song-and-dance number in terror-plot cases; this time from New York to Denver to Washington and back. The prejudicial leaks from law enforcement; the prompt (and promptly repeated) links to al Qaeda; the dramatic headlines, the identification of a "person of interest;" the assurances that no particular target had been specified; the intercession of an overwhelmed defense attorney; the denials, the meetings, the breakdown in talks, and, finally, the arrest (late at night, but with the tipped-off news cameras hovering above and about).
We’ve seen various iterations of the perp-walk parade hundreds of times before, in cases that merited the attention or not, and certainly dozens of times since Sept. 11, 2001. Often, way too often, the government has in the end been able or willing to prove far less than the initial (and often hysterical and hysterically received) allegations — distributed (typically without challenge) via cable television and the Internet — suggested.
September 11, 2009 3:31 PM 
Editor's Note: CBSNews.com's Andrew Cohen wrote this piece for the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. We feel it is well-worth running again this year.
It was as it should be.
One year later, America endured a day dominated by the poignant, eerie, overwhelmingly sad, long reading from the book of the dead. Nothing the politicians could say, and nothing the television and radio commentators could add, was even remotely as true or as honest as was the simple, windswept recitation at ground zero that took nearly twice as long as it was supposed to.
From the moment former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani read the name of Gordon M. Aamoth, Jr. until the moment, roughly two-and-a-half hours later, when the name of Igor Zukelman was read, the country was reminded of the elemental toll of last year's terror attacks.
Writing Wednesday in the New York Times, Dan Barry summed it up: "In its essence," Barry wrote, "the World Trade Center calamity is not about geopolitics, or security, or even terrorism. It is about death: a sudden, wholesale death whose aftershocks continue to rumble through the ground of the living, refusing to ease into memory's recesses in conformity with the natural order of things." If the story of Sept. 11, 2001 is essentially a story about death, the story of Sept. 11, 2002 is essentially a story about the dead and how we remember and revere them for the rest of our days and the rest of the life of this nation.
The names of 2,800 or so murdered individuals are an overwhelming concept to contemplate. I remember thinking during the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh that it took a long time to recite in court the names of the 168 victims of that terror attack, but that sad list read aloud in 1997 paled in comparison to the list read Wednesday.
Approximately 17 times more people died on Sept. 11, 2001, than died in Oklahoma City. It's not a competition, I know, but comparing the two tolls is another way of comprehending the enormity of the events last September in relation to anything and everything that had come before in our nation's history. And Wednesday's names resonate because they so clearly prove that the World Trade Center was, indeed, a place where the world met to conduct business. Unlike the names from Oklahoma City, the names from New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania were names representing virtually every corner of the world.
Look To The List
(AP Photo/Peter Foley)
It was as it should be.
One year later, America endured a day dominated by the poignant, eerie, overwhelmingly sad, long reading from the book of the dead. Nothing the politicians could say, and nothing the television and radio commentators could add, was even remotely as true or as honest as was the simple, windswept recitation at ground zero that took nearly twice as long as it was supposed to.
From the moment former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani read the name of Gordon M. Aamoth, Jr. until the moment, roughly two-and-a-half hours later, when the name of Igor Zukelman was read, the country was reminded of the elemental toll of last year's terror attacks.
Writing Wednesday in the New York Times, Dan Barry summed it up: "In its essence," Barry wrote, "the World Trade Center calamity is not about geopolitics, or security, or even terrorism. It is about death: a sudden, wholesale death whose aftershocks continue to rumble through the ground of the living, refusing to ease into memory's recesses in conformity with the natural order of things." If the story of Sept. 11, 2001 is essentially a story about death, the story of Sept. 11, 2002 is essentially a story about the dead and how we remember and revere them for the rest of our days and the rest of the life of this nation.
The names of 2,800 or so murdered individuals are an overwhelming concept to contemplate. I remember thinking during the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh that it took a long time to recite in court the names of the 168 victims of that terror attack, but that sad list read aloud in 1997 paled in comparison to the list read Wednesday.
Approximately 17 times more people died on Sept. 11, 2001, than died in Oklahoma City. It's not a competition, I know, but comparing the two tolls is another way of comprehending the enormity of the events last September in relation to anything and everything that had come before in our nation's history. And Wednesday's names resonate because they so clearly prove that the World Trade Center was, indeed, a place where the world met to conduct business. Unlike the names from Oklahoma City, the names from New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania were names representing virtually every corner of the world.
September 10, 2009 5:07 PM 
We moved one small step closer to parliamentary government Wednesday night when a real, live back-bencher, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), shouted "you lie" to Barack Obama's face during the president's speech on health care reform. (watch the outburst)
For his temerity, the obscure representative is obscure no more; his Twitter following more than doubled; his campaign coffers swelled; and all of Washington is talking about the moment as yet another nadir in our nation's political discourse.
The outcry about the outcry was as predictable as it is hypocritical. Our politicians say (or encourage their tribunes to say) the rudest things about one another in private, on the Internet, on the airwaves, or during speeches to their constituents. "You lie," is actually tame by these standards.
But we are shocked - Shocked! - when some of these same people forget their manners in the House Chamber? Why do we deign to tolerate the former and claim to abhor the latter?
Joe Wilson's War
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
For his temerity, the obscure representative is obscure no more; his Twitter following more than doubled; his campaign coffers swelled; and all of Washington is talking about the moment as yet another nadir in our nation's political discourse.
The outcry about the outcry was as predictable as it is hypocritical. Our politicians say (or encourage their tribunes to say) the rudest things about one another in private, on the Internet, on the airwaves, or during speeches to their constituents. "You lie," is actually tame by these standards.
But we are shocked - Shocked! - when some of these same people forget their manners in the House Chamber? Why do we deign to tolerate the former and claim to abhor the latter?
August 9, 2009 4:24 PM
White House Sliding Back on Signing Statements
The Obama Administration offers plausible (if still unsatisfactory) answers when asked to explain why most of the terror law problems left by its predecessor have not yet been fixed. For example, most reasonable people would agree that officials and lawyers at the White House and Justice Department are making progress in finally emptying the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba of its terror suspects.
July 31, 2009 9:59 AM 
All you need to know about the current state of the ever-so-slowly-churning U.S. Attorney investigation can be summed up in the headlines offered Thursday afternoon by two of the best and most dogged newspapers of American history. Both the Washington Post and The New York Times were trying to make meaning of the conclusion of the still-private testimony of Karl Rove, the famous former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, before the House Judiciary Committee.
Both papers, evidently, were granted "exclusive," conditional interviews with Rove, the condition being that the contents of those interviews could not be published until after the completion of Rove's testimony. In those interviews, naturally enough, Rove downplayed his role in the scandal, telling the papers that he was merely a "conduit" passing along from lawmakers to the Justice Department grievances (often silly, unwarranted ones, by the way) about the federal prosecutors (who ultimately were fired).
This is how things work in Washington. Team Rove obviously was hoping to steer post-deposition spin his way, to minimize the damage from Committee leaks that are sure to follow. And if you only read the Times on Thursday, or today, you would certainly agree that the plan worked. The Times ran a piece by David Johnston titled: "Rove Says His Role In Prosecutor Filings Was Small," a story that took Rove's comments, looked at a few of his old emails, and concluded that there were no smoking guns.
Rove Goes One-for-Two in Game of Spin
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Both papers, evidently, were granted "exclusive," conditional interviews with Rove, the condition being that the contents of those interviews could not be published until after the completion of Rove's testimony. In those interviews, naturally enough, Rove downplayed his role in the scandal, telling the papers that he was merely a "conduit" passing along from lawmakers to the Justice Department grievances (often silly, unwarranted ones, by the way) about the federal prosecutors (who ultimately were fired).
This is how things work in Washington. Team Rove obviously was hoping to steer post-deposition spin his way, to minimize the damage from Committee leaks that are sure to follow. And if you only read the Times on Thursday, or today, you would certainly agree that the plan worked. The Times ran a piece by David Johnston titled: "Rove Says His Role In Prosecutor Filings Was Small," a story that took Rove's comments, looked at a few of his old emails, and concluded that there were no smoking guns.
July 27, 2009 10:10 AM
The Return of the Answerman
It's been ages since CourtWatch offered up one of its early staples; the in-your-face question-and-answer session. Why now? Because it's the middle of summer, dog-days-time, and the law's annual hibernation period is starting to set in all across the country.
Lawyers and judges, plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses and bailiffs, all are heading out, or already have, for their summer breaks. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court have scattered from Washington to the four corners of the world - speaking and teaching about what they do and why. But I am still here. And there are still a few decent legal stories swirling around that merit at least a little attention. So let's begin.
What's going to happen if there is a manslaughter charge against one or more of the doctors who were caring for Michael Jackson at the time of his death?
The most likely charge, based upon what little we now know, would be "involuntary manslaughter," a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. The key element of "involuntarily manslaughter" is a notoriously low bar; anyone who acts "without due caution and circumspection" in the commission of a "lawful act which might produce death" may be convicted. Would the mere administration of drugs do the trick? Stay tuned.
What's the deal with the Obama Administration delaying its report on how to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
In my family, we call what Team Obama did on this issue back in January "big eyes." As in, the White House and Justice Department had "big eyes" (unrealistic expectations) about how quickly they could transfers all of the terror detainees to other venues for trial or release or what have you. The fact is, the Bush Administration was trying to do the same for years without success. And "success"—the closing down of the miserable place—will only come when our leaders recognize the need for a new court system specifically designed for these men.
Lawyers and judges, plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses and bailiffs, all are heading out, or already have, for their summer breaks. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court have scattered from Washington to the four corners of the world - speaking and teaching about what they do and why. But I am still here. And there are still a few decent legal stories swirling around that merit at least a little attention. So let's begin.
(AP Photo/Rusty Kennedy)
The most likely charge, based upon what little we now know, would be "involuntary manslaughter," a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. The key element of "involuntarily manslaughter" is a notoriously low bar; anyone who acts "without due caution and circumspection" in the commission of a "lawful act which might produce death" may be convicted. Would the mere administration of drugs do the trick? Stay tuned.
What's the deal with the Obama Administration delaying its report on how to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
In my family, we call what Team Obama did on this issue back in January "big eyes." As in, the White House and Justice Department had "big eyes" (unrealistic expectations) about how quickly they could transfers all of the terror detainees to other venues for trial or release or what have you. The fact is, the Bush Administration was trying to do the same for years without success. And "success"—the closing down of the miserable place—will only come when our leaders recognize the need for a new court system specifically designed for these men.
June 29, 2009 12:57 PM 
I think the 150-year sentence handed down to Bernard Madoff today is legally suspect and grossly unfair when compared to the other sentences handed out to other major corporate fraud figures recently. I think it was the judicial equivalent of a cheap shot, offered by a gutless, intellectually lazy judge who had the luxury of having an angry mob on his side and the knowledge that Madoff already had conceded the case and the notion that he would die in prison.
As a practical matter, whether Madoff got 150 years or 100 years or 50 years or 25 years is of no moment—he’ll die in prison. But as a legal matter, there is a great deal of difference between an unsustainable sentence like this one and a reasoned one, like the 50 years that probation officials had suggested. If the sentence is appealed, I suspect a great many appeals court judges would reject it and order a lesser sentence.
None of this condones what Madoff did or the harm he caused to victims all over the world. Madoff is an all-time white-collar crook who really does deserve never again to breathe free air.
But our justice system is not built upon revenge or a thirst for disproportionate punishment. Some murderers get a fraction of the sentence Madoff received today. Worldcom’s Bernie Ebbers got 25 years. Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling got 24 years. Sam Israel got 20 years. Refco’s Philip Bennet got 16 years. Frank Quattrone got 18 months in prison.
Our sentencing laws are not based upon emotion, or upon what the victims might have done with the money they lost, or upon how famous and powerful they are. I could care less about what happens to Madoff. But we all lose when our judges lose sight of bedrock sentencing principles and instead make easy and popular choices.
More from Cohen: 150-Year Madoff Sentence Is "Symbolic"
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter.
Madoff Sentence "Legally Suspect And Grossly Unfair"
(AP Photo/Christine Cornell)
As a practical matter, whether Madoff got 150 years or 100 years or 50 years or 25 years is of no moment—he’ll die in prison. But as a legal matter, there is a great deal of difference between an unsustainable sentence like this one and a reasoned one, like the 50 years that probation officials had suggested. If the sentence is appealed, I suspect a great many appeals court judges would reject it and order a lesser sentence.
None of this condones what Madoff did or the harm he caused to victims all over the world. Madoff is an all-time white-collar crook who really does deserve never again to breathe free air.
But our justice system is not built upon revenge or a thirst for disproportionate punishment. Some murderers get a fraction of the sentence Madoff received today. Worldcom’s Bernie Ebbers got 25 years. Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling got 24 years. Sam Israel got 20 years. Refco’s Philip Bennet got 16 years. Frank Quattrone got 18 months in prison.
Our sentencing laws are not based upon emotion, or upon what the victims might have done with the money they lost, or upon how famous and powerful they are. I could care less about what happens to Madoff. But we all lose when our judges lose sight of bedrock sentencing principles and instead make easy and popular choices.
More from Cohen: 150-Year Madoff Sentence Is "Symbolic"
(CBS)
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
