By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For many years, the word among intellectual property defendants has been “Don’t Mess With (the Eastern District of) Texas.” And statistics have borne that out. According to a recent analysis in the Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (Pistorino & Crane, 2012), cases in the district have come down in favor […]
Climb Down the “Ladder of Abstraction” in Patent Cases (And All Cases) Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The case of The United States versus John Edwards has everything: politics, sex, life, and death. The former vice-presidential and presidential candidate acquired a mistress and fathered a child during the campaign, behind the back of his cancer-stricken wife, then called upon a couple of key supporters to pay vast sums of
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: For once, a social science concept that comes with an easy to understand label! “Low effort thinking” refers to a mental approach or habit that serves as a short-cut in lieu of a more systematic or careful analysis. In the spirit of full disclosure, though, the concept is sometimes dressed up
Complex Case? Beware of “Low Effort Thinkers” Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: While researching for a previous post, I was reading Professor Dru Stevenson’s (2012) article in the George Mason Law Review, and I came across a jarring sentence asserting that “modern approaches to jury selection” focus on biases relating to factors “such as race and gender.” The author then followed up
Don’t Select Your Jury Based on Demographics: A Skeptical Look at JuryQuest Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: (Used by the kind permission of Art Lien, courtartist.com) Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been fixated on the historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court focusing on the healthcare law. As I’ve reviewed the transcripts and audio recordings of the unprecedented six hours of oral argument, I’ve been struck
Practice the “Three P’s” of Oral Argument: The Example of Paul Clement Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: All eyes are on Justice Kennedy at the conclusion of last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. As a closely analyzed swing vote, the Justice’s words are scrutinized like the tea leaves of the upcoming verdict expected in June. In a well-researched piece
Aim Your Oral Argument at Your Judge’s Motivating Principle Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: A lot can happen in fifty-two seconds. In last week’s historic oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of the President’s healthcare reform, the Justices allowed an unprecedented six hours of oral arguments. While still not appearing on television, the Court allowed the next best thing: same day
Oral Arguments: Cut In To Your Case Before You’re Cut Off By Your Judge Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Justice Scalia strongly believes that you should not be forced to buy broccoli. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing the legality of the Affordable Care Act, with Tuesday’s oral arguments focusing on whether an individual mandate to buy health insurance is consistent with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Defending the
Don’t Let Your Judge Reduce You to Absurdity Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Q: What is a jury? A: A group of citizens who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty and aren’t interesting enough to attract the attention of either side. Okay, so that is an unfair joke, but it hints at a reality of the jury selection process:
Don’t Build Your Jury Out of Leftovers Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Last Friday, Dharun Ravi was found guilty on all fifteen charges of invading privacy and committing a hate crime against his Rutgers University roommate, Tyler Clementi. Ravi had used his webcam to spy on Clementi having an intimate encounter with another man, and then advertising the event in Twitter promising
Try the Consequences, Not Just the Claims Read More »