Browse articles by year: 2016 (12)
Newsletter articles from 2004
A Remembrance of Prentice H. Marshall
It is difficult to do justice in a few sentences to my recollections of Prentice Marshall. We met in the fall of 1954, when I started at the firm now known as Jenner & Block.
Report on the ABA Annual Meeting
The 126th Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association was held August 5-10, 2004, at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
State Court Participation Reaches 200 for CIP
Williamsburg, VA, February 5, 2004 – Janel Foss, Assistant Director for Administration and Outreach for the Courtroom Information Project (CIP), today announced the participation of the two hundredth state court participant, a milestone in the project’s 25 months of operation.
State of the Court Address-April 15, 2004
Good afternoon to you all. I want to thank Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys, the officers and all of the members of the Federal Bar Association for inviting me to speak to you today.
Summer of 2004: Legislation of note
During the month of July 2004, while the Governor and legislators debated the state's budget, several legislative proposals became effective and their enactment into law may be of interest to members of the bench and bar. The
The Supreme Court upholds COLA for judges
Justice Rarick wrote the unanimous opinion issued May 20, 2004, in Jorgensen, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al., that declared the attempt to eliminate the cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to be unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself in Crawford v. Washington
A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could make it more difficult for prosecutors to use out-of-court statements against defendants at trial. In Crawford v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that testimonial out-of-court statements used against defendants at trial violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and are only admissible against a defendant at trial if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness, regardless of the reliability of the statement.