Author: TSA Press

The
fight
to
bring
Dan
Markel’s
killers
to
justice
just
got
a
little
bit
longer.
The
Florida
State
Law
professor
was
killed
in
2014,
gunned
down
in
his
driveway
by
a
pair
of
hitman.

Donna
Adelson
is
accused
of
conspiring
with
her
son
to
hire
killers
to
murder
her
ex-son-in-law
Markel.
Her
case,
which
was
just
beginning
jury
selection,
has
been
pushed
back.
Judge
Stephen
Everett
issued
the
continuance
after
Donna
Adelson’s
son,
Charlie,
invoked
his
6th
Amendment
rights
preventing
his
lawyer
from
representing
her.
In
2023,
Charlie
Adelson

was
convicted
in
the
the
murder-for-hire
plot.

The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has
coverage:

[Dan]
Rashbaum
—
in
a
stunning
turn
of
events
—
withdrew
as
Donna
Adelson’s
lawyer
on
Tuesday,
the
first
day
of
jury
selection
in
her
murder
trial.

The
move
prompted
Leon
Circuit
Judge
Stephen
Everett,
who
had
cautioned
Adelson
multiple
times
about
potential
conflicts
involving
using
the
same
lawyer
who
represented
her
son,
Charlie
Adelson,
to
declare
a
continuance.

It
must
have
taken
Judge
Everett
an
inordinate
amount
of
judicial
restraint
to
not
immediately
belt
out
“I
told
you
so!”
to
whoever
was
within
ear
shot.
That
said,
it
is
important
to
give
weight
to
the
whole
balance
of
the
6th
Amendment.
There’s
more
to
it
than
just
speedy
trials;
it
also
protects
the
sanctity
of
attorney-client
privilege.
While
this
will
cause
delays,
ignoring
Charlie’s
revocation
would
be
a
much
larger
problem.

The
development
has
also
been
neatly
explained
by
reporters,
you
can
see
their
coverage

here.

There
is
no
clear
date
on
when
the
trial
will
pick
back
up,
but
Donna
Adelson’s
new
lead
council,
Alex
Morris,
expects
things
to
resume
between
November
and
February.

‘Epic
Disaster’:
Donna
Adelson’s
Trial
Went
Off
The
Rails.
Here’s
What’s
Coming
Next.
[Tallahassee
Democrat]

Earlier:

The
Dan
Markel
Case:
Trial
Delayed,
Yet
Again

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

What
year
did
the
Supreme
Court
begin
its
tradition
of
starting
the
Term
on
the
first
Monday
in
October?

Hint:
Before
that,
the
Court
would
meet
Februarys
and
Augusts.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“‘Epic
disaster’:
Donna
Adelson’s
trial
went
off
the
rails.
Here’s
what’s
coming
next.” Jeff
Burlew
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.

“Meet
the
judge
with
outsize
influence
over
Biden’s
environment
and
energy
agenda;
Republicans
are
suing
EPA,
DOE
and
other
agencies
in
a
federal
court
in
Louisiana
where
a
Trump-appointed
judge
hears
nearly
all
civil
cases”: Sean
Reilly
of
Greenwire
has this
report.

“Foreign
hackers
could
target
election
litigation,
federal
judge
warns;
The
judge,
who
heads
a
committee
on
information
technology
for
the
federal
courts,
urged
his
colleagues
to
be
vigilant”: Josh
Gerstein
of
Politico
has this
report.

“The
Supreme
Court
Wants
to
Keep
You
In
the
Dark;
Occasional
leaks
from
the
Supreme
Court
are
the
only
insights
the
public
gets
into
how
the
least
accountable
branch
of
government
makes
its
choices”: Madiba
K.
Dennie
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.

“Sam
Bankman-Fried
claims
trial
judge
botched
rulings
on
advice-of-counsel
defense”: Alison
Frankel’s
“On
the
Case”
from
Reuters
has this
post.

Election
nerds
and
high
school
civics
teachers
will
absolutely
delight
in
the
new
PBS
special,

DEADLOCK:
an
election
story.
And,
frankly,
the
interesting
(if
overly
earnest)
documentary
is
worth
a
watch
for
anyone
looking
to
turn
down
the
highly
partisan
election
rhetoric.
The
special,
hosted
by
UC
Davis
School
of
Law
professor

Aaron
Tang,
plays
a
game
of
“what
would
you
do”
with
a
political
all-star
panel^[1]
roleplaying
how
they’d
handle
an
election
dilemma
in
the
fictional
state
of
Middlevania.

As
Tang
notes,
“The
current
climate
of
American
discourse
finds
us
deeply
entrenched
and
overconfident
in
our
own
beliefs.
DEADLOCK
aims
to
illuminate
how,
for
many
of
the
difficult
challenges
facing
our
nation,
the
honest
answers
are
nuanced
and
complex.
Our
goal
is
to
spark
open-mindedness
and
help
people
find
the
middle
ground
instead
of
retreating
to
our
usual
corners.”

Certainly
a
laudable
goal.
In
furtherance
of
that
bipartisan
tone,
the
show
is
introduced
by
Supreme
Court
justices
Sonia
Sotomayor
and
Amy
Coney
Barrett.
The
pair
highlight
the
similarities
and
differences
in
their
backgrounds,
both
telling
anecdotes
from
their
past
highlighting
their
belief
in
community
and
civic-mindedness.
The
justices
explain
that
they
see
the
program
as
a
way
to
rebuild
trust
in
institutions
—
something

the
Supreme
Court
is
acutely
interested
in,
one
imagines.

As
high
minded
as
those
goals
may
be,
the
inclusion
of
the
justices
rings
hollow.
I
was
provided
an
advance
copy
of
the
program
and
watching
Sotomayor
and
Coney
Barrett
trying
to

reclaim
the
veneer
of
neutrality
for
the
Court
just
felt
rich.
Over
the
last
four
years
(and
even
longer
than
that,
if
we’re
being
perfectly
honest)
the
conservative
majority
on
the
Supreme
Court
has
repeatedly
demonstrated
it’s
primarily
interested
in
advancing

partisan
policy
goals.
The
Court
is
stripping
rights
and
hoping
to

re-make
the
nation
to
their
liking
regardless
of
what

established
precedent,

norms,
or
even

public
opinion
says.

Sotomayor
KNOWS
this
—
that’s
why
she
says

she
cries
over
her
colleagues’
decisions
and
issued
a

dire
warning
for
democracy
in
the
dissent
in
the
Trump
immunity
case.
And,
not
for
nothing,
but
Coney
Barrett’s
plea
on
behalf
of
the
common
good
would
be
a
lot
more
meaningful
if
she
didn’t

use
her
role
on
the
High
Court
to

weaken
voting
rights
and
dilute
the
power
of
Black
voters.

But,
overall,
DEADLOCK
provides
an
interesting
look
at
how
people
sort
through
the
ethical
dilemmas
baked
into
an
election.
It
premieres
nationwide
tonight
Sept.
20,
2024,
9
p.m.
ET
(check
local
listings)
and
streams
on


PBS.org, YouTube and
the PBS
app.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

[1]
Panelists:
Dr.
Rachel
Bitecofer,
political
strategist;
Adrian
Fontes,
Arizona
secretary
of
state;
Dr.
Eddie
S.
Glaude,
Jr.,
James
S
McDonnell
professor
of
African
American
studies,
Princeton
University;
Katie
Harbath,
CEO,
Anchor
Change
and
former
Facebook
executive;
Astead
Herndon,
national
politics
reporter,
The
New
York
Times
and
host,
The
Run-Up;
Jeh
C.
Johnson,
former
secretary
of
Homeland
Security
and
former
general
counsel,
Department
of
Defense;
Elise
Jordan,
NBC/MSNBC
political
analyst;
Kris
Kobach,
Kansas
attorney
general;
Mick
Mulvaney,
former
U.S.
representative
for
South
Carolina
and
NewsNation
contributor;
Russell
Moore,
editor
in
chief,
Christianity
Today
and
author;
Scott
Pelley,
CBS
60
Minutes
correspondent;
and
Gabriel
Sterling,
COO,
Office
of
the
Georgia
Secretary
of
State

According
to
a
now-deleted
post
on

Reddit,
a
constitutional
law
course
at
the
West
Virginia
University
College
of
Law
“showed
us
3-4
min
of
hardcore
porn
in
class.”
Presumably
as
part
of
an
unconventional
approach
to
teaching
about
the
Third
Amendment’s
proscription
on
quartering
troops
in
private
homes.

We
reached
out
to
WVU
for
comment
and
they
did
not
respond
one
way
or
the
other,
though
multiple
posters
in
the
ensuing
thread
either
claimed
to
be
in
the
class
and
confirmed
the
story
or
purported
to
be
past
students
and
confirmed
that
this
comports
with
their
experience
in
class.

On
behalf
of
professors
everywhere,
I
am
once
again
encouraging
you
to
read
the
syllabus.
Where
it
says
“Debbie
Does
Blackacre,”
that’s
your
queue
to
gear
up
for
a
wild
ride.

Delivering
a
cold
pizza
might
trigger
the
implied
warranty
of
merchantability
and
that
kid
is
NOT
missing
those
points.

In
fact,
this
is
one
of
the
power
moves
that

forced
a
federal
judge
to
resign.

But
as
the
response
above
notes,
it
does
seem
as
though
whatever
pedagogical
value
exists
in
regaling
the
class
with
visual
aides
would
be
equally
if
not
better
served
by
showing

Last
Tango
in
Paris
or
something.
Deciding
not
to
show
the
stuff
falling
on
that
side
of
the
border
in
favor
of
someone
riding
a
sybian
(which
one
post
claimed
to
have
been
part
of
the
materials)
is
a
choice
to
be
provocative
for
the
sake
of
provocative
without
adding
much
educationally.

Though,
and
hear
me
out
here,
you
also
don’t
have
to

show
anything.

This
routinely
comes
up
whenever
some
white
libertarian
bro
professor
decides
to

drop
the
n-word
in
class
to
talk
about
free
speech.
It’s
always
defended
one
of
two
ways
(sometimes
both
at
once).

First,
the
classroom
performance
art
is
described
as
“necessary”
for
students
to
understand
the
underlying
controversy
as
though
every
law
student
in
America
is
breathtakingly
stupid.
As
we
wrote
before:

This
is
the
recurring
theme
of
every
one
of
these
incidents
—
there’s
never
a
scenario
where
just
saying
“racial
epithets
were
used”
doesn’t
accomplish
every
conceivable
pedagogical
goal
unless
you’re
teaching Intro
To
Correctly
Pronouncing
Slurs.
And
yet
we
keep
having
these
incidents
where
white
professors
seem
convinced
that
without
their
elegant
recitation
of
these
terms,
law
students
will
be
left
befuddled
as
to
what
could
have
possibly
been
said.
There
is
a
grand
paradox
in
how
these
professors
routinely
manage
to
cast
aspersions
on
the
maturity
of
students
for
needing
events
“sugar-coated”
even
though
it’s
precisely
because
these
are
highly
educated
and
sophisticated
students
that
they
don’t
need
to
a
full
dramatic
reproduction
to
be
able
to
fill
in
these
gaps.

This
goes
for
porn
too.
Every
other
law
school
manages
to
teach
students
how
to
navigate

Jacobellis
v.
Ohio
sufficiently
well
enough
to
pass
a
test
without
having
to
watch

The
Fertile
Octogenarian
(the
most
terrifying

legally
themed
porn
title).

Second,
they’ll
dial
up
the
toxic
bravado
and
explain
that
lawyers
need
to
be
tough
and
if
any
law
student
who
can’t
take
a
few
slurs
—
or
in
this
case
a
few…
other
things
—
they
aren’t
cut
out
for
the
profession.
Which
is
bullshit.
Some
aspiring
ERISA
attorney
isn’t
disqualified
from
the
profession
because
they
don’t
want
to
be
forced
to
experience
the
fact
pattern
of
every
case
they
read
in
law
school.

Seriously,
do
not
make
people
watch
porn.
This
shouldn’t
be
so
difficult.

Earlier:

Stanford
Joins
List
Of
Law
Schools
With
White
Professors
Using
The
N-Word
In
Class

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.