Emily Murphy

My considered view is that teaching Evidence, even as a large doctrinal class, is fundamentally a skills class, and a core lawyering skills class at that, even if one never litigates. It may be one of the most important classes in learning skills where lawyers add value.

Free suggestion for SF: “leave a jacket, take a jacket” program at SFO from May - November

If I tagged everyone who contributed a chapter, I’d basically tag my entire following list, so I’ll refrain. But if you grab a copy, be sure not to miss Chapter 81, by yours truly and my partner in neurolaw crime @ProfEmilyMurphy. Or if you prefer PDF: tinyurl.com/RissmanMurphy2…

@FieldsofAthnry @brianlfrye @espinsegall regretting opening this site again, anew

I hope Individuals A, B, and C are having a flop sweat weekend now that their racism and sexism are on full display for all to know.

@brianlfrye @FieldsofAthnry @espinsegall 👀 uhhhh wow

@FieldsofAthnry @ProfEmilyMurphy @espinsegall Someone is scared.

@FieldsofAthnry @espinsegall Yup. If my profile, uh, matched Individual A (white cis het male with PhD in political science) I'd be speaking up pretty loud to condemn this trash.

The cruelty is the point.

Important thread below. (⬇️) As Leah notes, the complaint's cruel personal attacks against amazing professors are particularly reprehensible.

It's always tempting to dismiss commentary like "the Supreme Court said Trump is above the law" as overblown hyperbole. But in this case, that's actually what the Court said--the procedural protections we use for ordinary criminal defendants aren't good enough

The one thing I'll note about the immunity case is that J Alito, joined by CJ Roberts, wrote about the importance and power of limiting instructions just 10 days ago. Today, limiting instructions are good enough for individual defendants but not for protecting the Presidency.

@jadler1969 what is testimony "*probing* the official act"? So we can just say it happened and that's it? all kinds of new weird boundaries

@jadler1969 That makes modestly more sense (and I read that the first time and then missed it on the second read 🤦‍♀️) but still... could Nixon have been prosecuted under even fn 3?

Just as an evidence prof; Part III-C, barring prosecutors' use of evidence of essentially any official presidential conduct - EVEN THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD - from use in prosecution for unofficial conduct is WILD. It's a small part of the op but it's just wrong. ACB explains why

This is a short part of a very long opinion but it's so dramatic in effect as to effectively nullify even completely non-controversial prosecutions of obviously criminal, non-official acts. It's got to be wrong.

Sotomayor correctly calls this "dramatic and unprecedented." The majority uses a *totally unjustified* statement that what's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander in terms of protecting the office of the presidency. Juries aren't to be trusted there to follow rules.

@ScottGreenfield lol this you x.com/ScottGreenfiel…

Is it acceptable for lawyers, legal pundits and legal academics to deliberately misstate or exaggerate court decisions in order to whip up outrage and hysteria against the other side? If not, what should be done?

@brianlfrye @KatAMacfarlane Forgot how much that piece made me cry. So grateful she did it.

@KatAMacfarlane Same. Her work was hugely influential on me.

When I write re: case assignment I often mention the rare instance in which a chief circuit judge followed the rules re: visiting judges. Because that judge is Kozinski, I now also always mention why he isn’t on the court anymore.