The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

D.C. Circuit Examines Computer Use Restraints in Child Exploitation Case

For 15 years, a man named Robert Legg will be limited to a single, personal Internet-capable device and must be prepared for random government monitoring of his computer use. Legg can only have a computer if the U.S. Probation Office first gives him approval.

The technological restraints imposed against Legg, convicted in an online child exploitation sting, are at the center of a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Legg is serving a 30-month prison. His lawyer today urged the appeals court to find that the restrictions go too far.

Legg's attorney, Steven Kiersh, argued that the restrictions in this case have no connection to the crime. Kiersh said his client's criminal conduct—arranging to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity—occurred over a telephone, not a computer. Legg, he said, only used a computer to first initiate contact with a man—an undercover officer—online in a chat room.

"All of the criminal conduct occurred on the telephone," Kiersh said. "That's where the criminality occurs."

Four Decades After Break-In, Watergate Investigator Talks About his Role

It's been a little more than 40 years since the Watergate break-in that led to the toppling of the presidency of Richard Nixon. For one Washington attorney, it also marked the beginning of a long career that continues today.

Bingham McCutchen partner James Hamilton started his practice at Covington & Burling after law school and did a lot of work for longtime partner Charles Horsky, who also served in the Kennedy and Johnson White House. It was Horsky who recommended Hamilton to Samuel Dash, the co-chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee alongside Fred Thompson.

"I had been doing complex litigation, and Sam thought this was going to be a document-heavy case and that I had some useful background," Hamilton said in a sit-down interview about his role in the Watergate probe. "We didn't know when we started off what we would find."

Hamilton's main assignment was the investigation of the Watergate break-in and cover-up, but he also handled all the committee's major litigation.

Marcia Coyle on Monday’s PBS NewsHour

The National Law Journal's chief Washington correspondent discussed the Supreme Court's new term on the October 1 edition of the NewsHour on PBS.

 

Judge Tosses Lawsuit Over National Geographic Channel Reality Show

Rock stabilization company Janod Inc.'s lawsuit over its portrayal on a reality television show came crumbling down yesterday, with a ruling from a Washington federal judge dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Janod was featured on the National Geographic Channel show "Rock Stars," which chronicled its work trying to stop rock slides. In November, Janod sued National Geographic and the production company behind the show, Echo Entertainment, Inc., claiming they were denied the right to remove "negative" content from the show as agreed to in the contract.

The company settled with National Geographic a few weeks after filing the lawsuit, but pursued claims against Echo. In an opinion (PDF) yesterday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan found that Janod failed to show that the case had enough ties to Washington to keep the case in a local court.

No Health Care, Immigration Rulings From Supreme Court Until Next Week

The Supreme Court continued to clear out the underbrush of its remaining rulings for the term, while saving the marquee decisions on health care reform and immigration for next week.

In spite of a fresh round of rumors that the Court would issue the health care rulings this morning, the justices announced four less-anticipated opinions: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, deciding narrowly that television networks were given inadequate notice about the Federal Communications Commission's broadcast indecency standards; Dorsey v. United States, applying new lower mandatory minimum sentences  on cocaine crimes to a broader range of offenders; Southern Union v. United States, which extends Apprendi v. New Jersey standards to criminal fines as well as prison sentences; and Knox v. SEIU, ruling against labor unions on the notice that non-members must be given when unions levy a special assessment. The union case prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to read from his dissent -- the third time this term a justice has dissented from the bench.

Senators Urge Supreme Court to Allow Live Broadcast of Health Care Decisions

The top lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined the chorus of organizations requesting that the Supreme Court allow live broadcast coverage of the upcoming announcement of its historic health care decisions.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts today, which states that the broadcast would bolster public confidence in the judicial system and in the court's decisions.

"Modem technology makes televising the proceedings simple and unobtrusive," the senators wrote. "A minimal number of cameras in the courtroom, which could be placed to be barely noticeable to all participants, would provide live coverage of what may be one of the most historic rulings of our time."

Media Groups Ask Supreme Court to Allow Live Broadcast Coverage of Health Care Ruling

A coalition of news organizations is asking the Supreme Court to permit live broadcast coverage of the upcoming announcement of its historic health care decisions.

In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dated today, the group wrote, "There is a strong interest nationwide in the Court’s opinion and any comments by a member of the Court that may accompany its announcement. Such access would allow the public to be informed of the Court’s ruling in a timely manner."

The letter points out that the concerns expressed by some justices about broadcasting oral arguments -- such as changing the dynamics between lawyers and justices -- would not be at issue in broadcasting the mere announcement by justices of a summary of their own opinions.

D.C. Appeals Court Hears Fee Dispute in TV Writers' Discrimination Case

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard arguments this morning in a fee dispute between attorneys who worked on the same side of a decade-long class action on behalf of older television writers.

Local solo practitioners Daniel Wolf and Maia Caplan contend that an arbitrator hired to divide up more than $23 million in fees awarded to class counsel based his decision on issues that were outside his authority. The class counsel had agreed that the fee petition submitted to the court wouldn't be binding on arbitration, they argued, but the arbitrator nonetheless rejected the idea that the parties could object to the petition and claim different fees in arbitration.

Wolf and Caplan's former co-counsel have argued that the arbitrator had legal authority to base his decision on a his reading of the original co-counsel agreement. Contract provisions gave him the right to base his decision on the fee petition submitted to the court, even if the parties disagreed.

Richard Wiley Given Lifetime Achievement Award in Communications Law

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law honored communications law guru Richard Wiley on Tuesday for a lifetime of achievement, including a run at the Federal Communications Commission that spanned three presidential terms.

Wiley, 77, is only the third person to receive the Milestone Award from the university’s Institute for Communications Law Studies, which recognized his longtime support for the institute and his professional success in communications law.

“He’s just one of the great people in that field,” said retired Columbus Law School professor Harvey Zuckman. “He has mentored a number of our students, that, along with that he is probably the premier communications lawyer in the United States.”

9th Circuit: Public Radio, TV Stations Can Run Political Advertising

A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional the ban on political and public issue advertisements on noncommercial radio and television stations, rejecting the government's concern about the dilution of educational programming.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 against the Federal Communications Commission, siding instead with a small California nonprofit called the Minority Television Project, which focuses on niche, non-English programming.

Represented by Washington attorney Walter Diercks, the television station sued the FCC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the ban on commercial and political advertising. The station lost in the trial court.