@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Teri_Kanefield

@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social

Former appellate defender and UC Berkeley Law graduate. My practice was limited to representing indigents on appeal.

I’ve written more than a dozen books and published more than 50 short pieces in The Washington Post, Cnn.com, and others. My book prizes include the Jane Addams Book Award.

Tfr

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Okay, I wrote the blog post I said I'd write: A more thoughtful explanation of why I refused to answer a few questions this week.

It's here: https://terikanefield.com/beware-the-lawyers/

This blog post could have been called “Why you don’t need a lawyer to answer your questions about legal issues in the news.”

Mostly it’s about former TV pundit Peter Arenella’s piece that I posted earlier.

If you get the error message, this is why:
https://news.itsfoss.com/mastodon-link-problem/

Just wait a minute and try again.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@kkeller A few weeks ago I read and analyzed the opening statements (the transcripts are posted on the court website) and I came to the same conclusion. At least in the opening statements, there was no clear statement of a theory of the case.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I am getting questions across a few soical media sites about the ongoing trials.

I gave some quick answers about the problems with this.

Maybe, for my next blog post, I should offer a more thoughtful and thorough answer about what a lawyer can actually say that is valuable as a trial progresses.

It will probably appeal to my geekiest readers and annoy everyone else.

Maybe I should call it: "Beware the Lawyers." (Like "beware the Ides of March" but worse.)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@rdnielsen

The point I will make is that much of the running commentary adds nothing at all of value. One former pundit I admire thinks some of it may be unethical.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@rdnielsen

I see, yes. You're talking about the appealable issue of allowing in irrelevant and highly predjucial materials.

There are limits on what a lawyer can imply or insinuate actually. More specifically, this can create an appealable issue. Whether the issue will win on appeal is a different matter because the standards of review are stacked against the appellant.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@EllenJS @rdnielsen

HAHA I posted a paper he wrote in 1998 I think about a week ago. He said I can call him a friend :)

mastodonmigration, to random
@mastodonmigration@mastodon.online avatar

For those losing their heads over today's actions by Judge Cannon, take a deep breath. This was always going to happen. The writing has been on the wall since Judge Cannon was drawn for the case. Getting all worked up about it is only going to make you crazy and desperate. The way we will rid ourselves of this menace is at the polls in November.

For a sober discussion on this topic this exchange today between @Teri_Kanefield and @JonChevreau is highly recommended:

https://mstdn.ca/@JonChevreau/112401937598899929

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@eurobubba @mastodonmigration @JonChevreau

Hi, Michael: I don't think you understand the connection between elections and the judicial system.

In the federal system, judges are appointed by elected officials.

States do things differently, and often elect prosecutors and judges directly.

If you are snide again, I will block you.

I assume that most people understand the basics of how the American government works, and if they don't, I expect them to ask nicely.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@eurobubba

This is snide and ugly:

If only voting matters, has @Teri_Kanefield completely written off the US justice system? Only in the Trump cases, or altogether?

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@eurobubba @mastodonmigration

I have a blog. You can go to my blog, and search for Criminal Law FAQ page.

That might be the best place to start reading.

"Hi, Teri, I haven't read much of your stuff. I'd like to know where you are coming from. What would you recommend" would be a nice way to ask.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@eurobubba @mastodonmigration

I will even offer the link: https://terikanefield.com/criminallawfaqs/

My blog has a search function, but I just use google, which gets me there faster.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@eurobubba @mastodonmigration

At the same time, if you think I was saying, "Don't worry, the courts are just broken" it is unlikely you will get much out of my blog.

I was about to be snide myself so I edited.

In other words, you may not be one of my readers. My work may never mean much to you. That's fine. That's why we have unfollow and mute buttons.

I personally would not take anyone seriously who said "don't worry our court are just broken."

cdlhamma, to random
@cdlhamma@hachyderm.io avatar

@Teri_Kanefield I'm sad that you won't chat about this stuff anymore, it’s one of the main reasons I followed you years ago because I appreciated your reasoned approach on these subjects. But it seems the angry commentators and people riled up about stuff have broken the ability for us to have civil discussion 🙁

I've never once been the enraged person messaging you, but those people have broken civil discourse in so many ways. I appreciate your work, I won't ask questions any longer.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@cdlhamma

Yup.

I had to shut down my comments and people still emailed me.

One was a lawyer demanding that I change my mind after reading an opinion piece by a former prosecutor.

It wasn't this bad 5 years ago.

It is also not possible to read a factual statement like you offered and say whether it is "normal."

The fact that we have so many people in prison is not normal.

So what is normal?

I literally could not answer your question.

cdlhamma, to random
@cdlhamma@hachyderm.io avatar

@Teri_Kanefield as someone who’s spent zero time in courtrooms other than almost being a juror I’m curious, is it normal to violate a judges order ten times and not end up in jail by noon? And I realize there’s gray area here. Just curious because it seems extreme 😳

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@cdlhamma I am trying to find the original question you asked me. I'm writing a blog post right now about legal commentary and the problems with it.

You asked, "is this normal" and pointed to the criminal contempt for the 10th time, right?"

I have a question back to you. Did you think I'd be able to say "yes" or "no" easily?

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@cdlhamma

In that case, the answer would be,

'In my private appellate practice I do not recall anyone being jailed for violating a court order, but that could be because of the nature of cases I handled.

I did, however, observe situations when people violated orders, but that was generally in family matters with restraining orders.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@cdlhamma

And that would be of no help, right?

I assumed that what you wanted was for me to make a comment on whether Trump should have been jailed.

Put another way, you wanted to understand whether the court's ruling was good, bad, normal, or abnormal?

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@cdlhamma I did a better job in the blog post I'm about to finish responding to you.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I know the joke for May 4th is May the Fourth Be With You.

I prefer Metaphors Be With You.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@sirc

Decades ago (where does time go?) when I taught college and university level English, I used to write it on the board.

I am pretty sure I got it from a bumper sticker but I couldn't remember.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Hi, Fedipeeps: I have my weekend blog post ready:

https://terikanefield.com/the-ninth-amendment-and-law-and-politics-of-reproductive-rights/

This time it's fun with Constitutional Law.

As a few people pointed out, this is the reason some of you get error messages:
https://news.itsfoss.com/mastodon-link-problem/

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Of course the problem has gotten worse since 1998.

This explains how news junkies who consume lots of legal opinions like this: "this is a strong case!" or "the special counsel is screwing up!" end up less informed and more unhinged from facts and reality.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=uclf

2/

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@MoiraEve

It depends on what news junkies consider "news."

If they confine themselves to actual news, you are correct.

If they are watching cable TV and listening to legal pundits offering evaluation about how well the prosecution is performing its investigative functions, it is not "news."

It is entertainment.

Such people are less informed because they become more unhinged from facts.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@MoiraEve They become less informed because they are seeing all events through a partisan lens.

IOW, they are being presented with a distortion of the world.

Let's do a scale of 1 - 10.

10: Consumes lots of actual factual news.

5: Consumes no news.

1: Consumes something that is called news but offers a distortion of the world.

Who is worse off? The person at point 5 or the person at point 1?

I suggest that person 5 can be easily educated with a few facts.

1 is a lost cause.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@earthlingusa There is nothing to say at this point other than try to guess what the Court will do.

Right?

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I am currently re-reading Peter Arenella's "The Perils of TV Legal Punditry" published by the University of Chicago Legal Forum.

He wrote this in 1998, when the problem was just getting started.

(I'm taking notes as I read because, you know, decades of habit.)

It's here:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=uclf

He predicted what the scholars I quoted in my pinned series say about the "cottage industry" of TV lawyering.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Okay, I finished this week's blog post.

This took me a long time.

About 3 hours ago, I was sure it made sense. Then I kept working. I hope it still makes sense LOL.

https://terikanefield.com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/

I discuss the criminal liability for behaving like a gold-plated bucket of slime and offer a few mind-bending legal puzzles.

It's super fun, sort of.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@iainmerrick

In what feels like another lifetime (10 years before I went to law school) I earned a master's in fiction writing at UCDavis.

A classmate wanted to write for the National Enquirer. He thought creative writing was a prequistite and he thought inventing stories about aliens would be a hoot.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • ngwrru68w68
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • Youngstown
  • tacticalgear
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • kavyap
  • osvaldo12
  • thenastyranch
  • DreamBathrooms
  • PowerRangers
  • tester
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Durango
  • normalnudes
  • ethstaker
  • mdbf
  • everett
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • vwfavf
  • provamag3
  • All magazines
    •