Proving Foreign Law in Federal Court and Commercial Arbitrations
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
This article discusses the legal requirements and practical aspects of proving the law of a foreign country in federal court and commercial arbitrations.
A Guide to Rule 7.1(g) Motions for Reconsideration
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) permits a party to move for reconsideration of any judicial ruling within 14 days after entry of judgment, order, or decree. This includes criminal cases. The grounds for a motion for reconsideration are found in case law.
Advice on Being Interviewed by Federal Agents
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Not long ago members of the business community were seldom interviewed by a federal criminal investigator, except when the business person or his company was the victim of a crime, or the person was a witness to some event under investigation unrelated to the business.
Magistrate Judges as Candidates for the District Court
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
In Chicago, the Northern District of Illinois, five former magistrate judges have been promoted to seats on the district court. In New Jersey, eight former magistrate judges have been appointed to the federal district court, including one who is now on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, there has been none.
The Eastern District's Procedures for Post-Trial Contact With Jurors
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
There are two different reasons for counsel to seek to interview jurors after a trial: to expose improper outside influence on the jurors or to obtain the jury's evaluation of the attorney's performance. Each has its own procedure, which must be carefully followed.
Juror Note-Taking: Courts Weigh Benefits and Concerns
The Legal Intelligencer
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Note-taking by jurors, similar to permitting jurors to ask questions, once was generally discouraged but it is now becoming widely accepted. The arguments against note-taking are that the best note-takers, or perhaps the only note-taker, may dominate jury deliberations. Some critics assert that jurors will attach too much significance to their notes, merely because there is a writing, and attach too little significance to their independent memory. The opponents argue that the jurors who generally are not experienced in note-taking may accentuate irrelevances in their notes and ignore substantial issues or evidence. Also, note-taking jurors may not pay sufficient attention to the witnesses' on-the-stand demeanor and behavior, which is very important in assessing credibility.
