This article at CNN.com details the temporary outage of www.perezhilton.com after its host dropped it due to alleged copyright infringement.  More interestingly, the article indicates that a judge refused to issue an injunction against the site, even though a lawsuit is pending.  The website’s author claims he, as a journalist, has a right to use the pictures taken by the paparazzi.  It’s shocking to me that more hasn’t been done to stop his website from infringing.  He does often alter the images, perhaps leading to the analysis that it’s not infringement because he is creating a spoof or compilation, etc.  However, I think the message being sent is that judges are relecutant to side with the paparazzi, even if they don’t like what Perez Hilton is doing.

A Florida Judge has given the rights to O.J. Simpson’s book If I Did It to the family of Ron Goldman according to this article. It gets interesting when we find out that the idea for the book came from his daughter and that rights to the book belonged to her company. The argument is that the company is really a sham and is simply a surrogate for O.J.

This seems like a very dangerous ruling. Imagine other cases where a parent claims bankruptcy. Granted, O.J. is apparently still searching for the “real killer” on golf courses as he lives a life of luxury in Miami. But imagine other cases. It now appears that creditors will have an easier time going after assets, even if in a child’s name or owned by a child’s company.

I had to have my cat euthanized today due to a blood clot in his leg.  It was an extremely sad occasion.  But the whole situation really made me think about our assisted suicide laws.  If you are human and you have an inoperable condition, then you just have to live with it or kill yourself.  Under such conditions it is difficult to die with any type of dignity and peace.  People like Kevorkian took the idea of “assisted suicide” too far by offering assistance to people who might not have been terminally ill, but does that mean that we should not allow assisted suicide because of the potential for abuse?  The closest doctrine we have in our law is to allow patients to reject extraordinary measures to save their lives through “living wills”.  But even that body of law does not allow patients to quickly end their suffering.  Although I am now heartbroken by the loss of my pet, I firmly believe it was the right thing to do to have him euthanized. 

Before the Kentucky Supreme Court is the issue of whether a criminal defendant may waive trial and sentencing recommendations by a jury and be sentenced to death after a guilty plea.  Although many defendants have chosen to waive appeals after being found guilty by a jury, this case is different because in this case, the defendant, Marco Allen Chapman, entered a guilty plea and requested to be sentenced to death by lethal injection.  In December 2004, a Kentucky judge granted the defendant’s request.

Chapman’s attorneys have argued that the defendant suffered from depression during the sentencing hearing, and have asked for a new sentencing hearing after Chapman has been treated for depression.  However, Chapman has been evaluated for competency and has been found competent to proceed by several doctors.  Some criminal law scholars suggest that allowing defendants to make these types of decisions would eliminate many of the safeguards that ensure competent, guilty people are punished.

I’m not so sure that we have to worry about the errosion of legal safeguards if defendants are allowed to waive trials and request a death sentence.  The suggestion by some law professors seems to be operating on the assumption that most competent people would not waive trial and choose death.  If experts in the field of forensic psychology find a defendant competent, then why should the legal system save a defendant from himself? 

One suggestion in the article is that we should only allow a defendant to choose death if the desire to be sentenced to death is motivated by accepting responsibility for one’s crimes.  But what if a defendant is competent and guilty, but wishes to simply end his life?  To some extent, most people who waive appeals after a death sentence must wish to expedite their sentences.  We allow defendants to waive appeals.  And how do we determine a person’s motivation?  Many commentors on the article, as well as many former jurors believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a worse punishment than death.  It’s the “I want you to sit in your room and think about what you’ve done” routine.  People who espouse this belief assume that the defendant is remorseful and will suffer the rest of his life as he regrets the wrong he’s done.  I think that view overlooks the fact that many people who commit such horrible crimes do not regret their actions or show remorse.

As a criminal defense attorney, I must daily resist the urge to attempt to save my clients from themselves.  They accept pleas to probation, but from experience I know many will violate soon after.  They have a good case for trial, yet they decide to accept the state’s plea offer.  I have many clients who want to demand a speedy trial unprepared or go to trial on a dead loser of a case.  I do my best to advise my clients, and even to urge them to make what I believe to be the right choice, but I do not prevent their cases from proceeding as they wish because they have to live out the consequences of their choices.  The only exception is if the client is or if I have suspicions that the client is incompetent.  The criminal justice system as a whole, although it should provide safeguards to ensure only competent people are punished, should not attempt to save competent defendants from their own decisions.

I am not a Scott Stapp or Creed fan simply because I think the religiosity rings false.  It is a clever marketing ploy to claim that you are not a “Christian band” yet sing over-dramatic and ambiguous songs containing religious allusions.  You attract those who are fans of Christian music, and you attract fans of pop music while not alienating anyone who might like his music and religion separate.  No one can be perfect and we all sin, which brings me to Scott Stapp’s sex tape and issues of invasion of privacy.

 The part of this E! News article that interests me is that a judge in Miami refused to let the groupie involved proceed anonymously and dismissed her claim when she refused to disclose her name.  Essentially, the judge would require a further invasion of privacy before letting this woman proceed.  Of course a few people who know the woman involved probably saw the video on YouTube or TMZ, and realized it was her, leading to damage to her reputation, humiliation, etc.  However, most viewers probably didn’t recognize her and probably didn’t think much more about her. 

The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog and Concurring Opinions have written interesting pieces on judges’ refusal to allow plaintiffs with invasion of privacy claims to proceed anonymously.  It shocks me that judges have ruled that for the most part, invasion of privacy claimants must either disclose their names or the suit should be dismissed.  This policy would have a potentially chilling effect on valid invasion of privacy claims.  Plaintifs file invasion of privacy claims to limit the damage and to receive compensation for damage already done.  However, refusing to allow such plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms would no doubt lead to greater damage than already done and would likely discourage many from filing lawsuits.  I can’t really say that the public’s right to know outweighs privacy concerns, but then again, I’m not a judge.