LLS | Media | Faculty in the News

Professor Richard Hasen was quoted on the Supreme Court's decision to review TX's congressional districts:

“I certainly hope we get more clarity,” Hasen told the Los Angeles Daily Journal in a December 13th article. “It could be that Justice Kennedy has finally made up his mind on whether and how a case of political gerrymandering can be decided.”

“It could be that a majority is ready to impose new standards, Hasen told the Washington Post for a December 13th article.

In the December 13th Los Angeles Times, in an article on Stanley "Tookie" Williams's clemency plea, Professor Laurie Levenson said: "Tookie wanted to have it both ways-he wanted to maintain his actual innocence claim so that he would have something to argue in the courts, but he still wanted to claim that he had been redeemed. In the end, he lost on both fronts."

Professor Richard L. Hasen's op-ed, “Putting a Chill on the Initiative Process,” was published in the December 12th issue of the Los Angeles Times.

In an article on law enforcement officers rarely facing prosecution, Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on December 9th: “Who's going to want to be a police officer if every action can be second-guessed and land you in jail? These are controversial cases and people are disturbed by use of force, but it doesn't make it criminal.”

Commenting on Attorney General Gonzales's defense of the 2003 decision to approve redistricting in Texas, Professor Richard Hasen told the Washington Post: “I don't think you can point to it as vindication of their decision to pre-clear under Section 5.” The article ran on December 3rd.

Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times on December 3rd: "[Phil Specter] can't have it both ways. He can't argue that his deposition is privileged, but not answer questions by the court as to why those statements should be privileged.”

In a letter to the editor published by The New York Times on November 24th, Associate Dean for Academic Programs Ellen Aprill wrote, “You suggest that churches violate the tax law when they express support for federal judicial nominations. That is not the case. Rightly or wrongly the Internal Revenue Code provisions applicable to churches and other tax-exempt charities prohibit any intervention in a candidate's campaign for elective office at the risk of losing tax exemption, but they permit attempts to influence the legislature to a certain degree.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, on November 6th, quoted Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff in an article on "snitching:" “Sentencing laws have pushed more people to snitch to save themselves from spending years behind bars. Snitching becomes a fact of life. At every barbecue, at every holiday party, someone is under law enforcement pressure to snitch. That in my mind is a destructive public policy.”

In an October 30th San Francisco Chronicle article on the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted: “Talking to Libby is not a problem for the vice president. To the extent that he directed or gave the information with the direction to leak it to persons without a security clearance-that would be a crime. The problem, which Fitzgerald [special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald] pointed out, is because Libby never told the truth, we may never know why he did this and whether he was directed to do this.”

Professor Richard Hasen was quoted in the October 27th Recorder: “The swing vote on the Pennsylvania case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who agreed gerrymandering violates the Constitution but was not prepared to author a test. Kennedy said he wanted to keep the issue open for another day.”

On a video of an arrest with alleged excessive force, Professor Laurie Levenson told the Press Enterprise (Riverside) on October 27th that the video shows “no clear images of wrongdoing-either by Sykes or the officers. It's impossible to see what's going on behind the van, and when the officers re-emerge, their bodies block any view of what [Harold] Sykes is doing. That information is essential because the law allows police to use increasing force to subdue a combative or uncooperative person during an arrest. This is not the most professional take-down I've ever seen. The officers jeopardized their own safety.”

Professor Laurie Levenson 's Op-Ed, “Courts Don't Look Kindly on Abuse of Subpoena Process,” ran in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on October 24th. She wrote, “(T)here is a thin line between pursuing all legal options and abuse of process. Subpoenaing opposing counsel is a tactic that will rarely be successful. As the court is apt to remind counsel, the lawyers are not on trial, even if their clients are.”

Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted in two articles on an investigation of defense attorney Daniel Horowitz.

In the Ventura County Star on October 23rd, after Horowitz's computer was seized, Levenson said: “I'd be surprised if they didn't use a special master, because under state law you would ordinarily take that precaution, and this stuff would have been sealed.”

To the October 20th Los Angeles Daily Journal Levenson said: “Horowitz would have to say he has no special allegiance to the sheriffs because of their work on his wife's case. Polk would have to say that she believed it, and the judge would have to find that to be true and say let's move forward. But there are a lot of ‘ifs' in there.”

In the Los Angeles Times on October 22nd, Professor Richard Hasen commented on Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers: “She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation. She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her.”

“It's just one of those ironies of life that he'd be called as a juror,” Professor Laurie Levenson told the Chicago Tribune on October 21st, referring to Michael Jackson's jury summons.

Clinical Professor Mary Culbert's Op-Ed piece, “It's High Time for State Bar to Regulate Attorney Mediators,” ran in the October 20th Los Angeles Daily Journal. Culbert wrote, “The state Bar has regulated and will continue to regulate behavior of attorneys, including attorney mediators. Currently, failure to comply with the Judicial Council's court ethical standards could be grounds for expulsions from the court panel of mediators. If and when Rule 1-720 becomes binding, an attorney mediator's failure to comply with the court ethical standards outlines in the rule-in every mediation, even if not court-connected-will be grounds for State Bar discipline.”

In an October 20th Los Angeles Daily Journal article on the possibility of attorney Daniel Horowitz's leaving the law after the mistrial of his client's murder case following the murder of his own wife, Professor Laurie Levenson said: “Horowitz would have to say he has no special allegiance to the sheriffs because of their work on his wife's case. (His client) would have to say that she believed it, and the judge would have to find that to be true and say let's move forward.But there's a lot of ‘ifs' in there.”

In a Press Enterprise (Riverside) October 19th article on graffitti threats against a San Bernardino city attorney Professor Laurie Levenson said: “I think people will take seriously the need to provide some protection. I think it's less likely that they're going to do some handwriting [analysis] to find out who wrote on the bathroom wall. If we started prosecuting everyone who wrote something mean or inappropriate on a bathroom wall we would never get to the rest of the crime that's out there.”

On possible campaign-finance violations by the Hon. Dallas S. Holmes, Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted in two stories:

To the Los Angeles Daily Journal on October 19th Levenson said: “It would strike me that people who are looking for elevation should be extra careful in obeying ethics rules, especially those relating to political donations. At this stage, the judge [Hon. Dallas S. Holmes] is doing the right things, but that doesn't mean that what he did can be justified.Now that we know he was looking for an appointment from the governor, it makes this a more serious violation.”

Levenson told the Los Angeles Daily Journal on October 17th: “This is troubling because it looks like the judge is active in the political process. We want our judges to be independent and not make decisions bases on political bias. It looks like [Holmes] was putting politics ahead of his responsibilities as a judge, and the good side is that he recognized it.”

“But since the War on Drugs in the 1980s, law enforcement officials have relied more heavily on informants in their sting operations. Snitching becomes a fact of life. At every barbecue, at every holiday party, someone is under law enforcement pressure to snitch. That in my mind is a destructive public policy," said Associate Professor Alexandra Natapoff in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on October 18th.

In the Press Enterprise (Riverside) on October 18th, Professor Arnold Siegel was quoted: “What more can we want from somebody? He's lived up to the mistake he's [Hon. Dallas S. Holmes] made, he's not trying to make excuses for himself… I think he is being real honorable about this.”

On October 17th Professor Laurie Levenson commented, to the Press Enterprise (Riverside), on a former police officer charged with sexual assault of minors: “(T)here is a stigma attached to a person accused of a child-sex crime, even more so if the accused is a police officer. Legally, an accused person is presumed innocent, but he gains a reputation for being a child molester and it's hard to disabuse people of that notion even if he's acquitted.”

Professor Xyta Maya Murray 's review of Amy Tan's Saving Fish from Drowning was published in the October 14th issue of the Los Angeles Times.

“If Ohio, with its highly controversial election administration system, can't reform through the initiative process, it's hard to see it succeeding anywhere else in the country,” Professor Richard Hasen told the Plain Dealer (Cleveland) on October 10th.

Professor Karl Manheim's letter to the editor appeared in the October 4th issue of The New York Times.

On October 3rd, Professor Richard Hasen told the National Law Journal: “I've been saying that within five years, we're likely to see most campaign finance laws held unconstitutional except for those that involve disclosure.”

On September 29th, Professor Richard Hasen was on the cover of a Los Angeles Daily Journal supplement on the top 100 most influential lawyers in California, along with Warren Christopher and Thomas Mesereau. Hasen was selected because of his prolific body of work in election law and campaign finance reform.

“I have never heard of an attorney appointed to represent a dead man because ordinarily dead people don't need representation,” said Professor Laurie Levenson to the Los Angeles Daily Journal on September 29th, referring to a judge's ruling that the late Felix Polk's psychological records could be used by defense attorneys. This whole case is sort of like bad reality TV. It's going to be a showcase of an extremely dysfunctional family, putting the human drama on trial.”

In the same issue of the Journal, Professor Laurie Levenson commented on Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella attaining defense attorney Brian A. Sun to represent the firm in a federal investigation. “There may be an actual or potential conflict between the firm's interests of the individual lawyer,” Levenson said, pointing out the trend of prosecutors investigating illegal practices to target law firms as well as individual lawyers.

In a September 28th article in The Washington Post, Professor Richard Hasen commented on historic cases on campaign law.

In the September 28th Roll Call, Professor Richard Hasen said: "We could well be looking at a new majority on the court that will start voting to strike down campaign finance laws as inconsistent with the First Amendment.”

In his September 23rd Op-Ed, “Partisan Move Taints Vote Reform,” published in The York Dispatch (PA), Professor Richard Hasen wrote, “National voter identification is needed to prevent real fraud (especially through absentee voting and double voting across states) and to keep public confidence in the election process. When someone registers to vote, the state should collect a thumbprint that can then go in voter rolls and on every absentee ballot (in such a way to assure secrecy of voting).”

Professor Gerald T. McLaughlin, dean emeritus, co-authored “Commercial Law: Standby Letters of Credit,” in the September 22nd issue of the New York Law Journal. The article stated, “The moral of the story for letter of credit practitioners is simple enough. Always refresh yourself in the fundamentals of letter of credit law before trying to solve complex issues.”

Professor Richard Hasen's Op-Ed, “Carter-Baker Election Reforms Imperiled by Its Partisan Voter ID Mandate” ran in the The Christian Science Monitor on September 22nd. Hasen concluded: “If the Carter-Baker Commission report is dismissed as a failure, and election reform issues are swept under the rug until 2008, it will be too late to fix problems in time to avert a potential election meltdown. Like dealing with hurricanes or earthquakes, advanced planning is the key to avoiding disaster."

Professor Richard Hasen was quoted in the September 21st Christian Science Monitor: “It took the debacle in Florida 2000 and further problems in 2004 to illustrate what the problems are; public confidence has shot way down. The hope was that the Carter-Baker Commission would move beyond politics, and move into consensus recommendations, which are desperately needed. I think they've squandered their political capital. In 2004, my phone was ringing off the hook with reporters asking why things haven't been fixed. It will happen in 2008.”

Professor Laurie Levenson's article, “Looting or Survival?” appeared in the National Law Journal on September 19th. Levenson wrote: "Courts are particularly reluctant to allow the defense as an excuse for civil disobedience…Taking necessities doesn't guarantee a free ride.”

Professor Richard Hasen, commenting on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on the Voting Rights Act, said to the Los Angeles Times on September 16th: "It makes me think he likely still holds these views. The tone of the memos is a tone of indignation."

"The issue about how to hold elections after a catastrophe is one the country is only starting to grapple with,” Professor Richard Hasen told the Los Angeles Times on September 11th. “Although the focus of the relief effort is for now necessarily on preserving life, at some point, we have to think about the democratic processes and making sure the people who live there are adequately represented.”

“It reads much more like a prison-gang type of case, and they do have success with those," Professor Laurie Levenson told the Los Angeles Times in a September 1st story on alleged terror plots.

Professor Peter Tiersma told The San Francisco Chronicle on August 26th, “California Supreme Court rulings and the Penal Code, especially, were not written to be understood by an audience of ordinary people. If the jury doesn't understand the difference between first- and second-degree murder, you might end up in prison for an extra five or 10 years. Worst yet, defendants may have been sentenced to death because penalty-phase jurors didn't understand such legalese as 'weighing aggravating against mitigating circumstances.'”

The San Diego Union-Tribune quoted Professor Peter Tiersma in an August 21st article: "Our job wasn't to change the law. The point was to take the law and state it in relatively ordinary English, as opposed to the legalese found in the old instructions. Sounds easy, but it proved vexing at times.”

In the San Diego Union-Tribune on August 13th article on a redistricting measure on the ballot, Professor Richard Hasen said, "Decisions seem to be leaning in favor of letting close cases go to the voters."

In an August 11th article on an appeal from an attorney facing charges of laundering political contributions, the Los Angeles Times quoted Professor Christopher N. May: “The decision leaves open the possibility that the high court could take the matter up after trial in Superior Court. They are not necessarily speaking to the merits of the case."

Commenting on a ballot initiative that would take away the California State Legislature's power to draw the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts, Professor Richard Hasen told the Los Angeles Times on August 10th, “It is unlikely but possible that the high court would consider the case. Ordinarily, the court doesn't hear arguments during the summer. Both the majority and dissenting opinions of the appeals court were well reasoned.”

In the Legal Times on August 8th, in an article on Shay v. FEC, Professor Richard Hasen said “The ruling doesn't reflect the regulatory views of the circuit as a whole. If the FEC asks for a re-hearing of the case by the full court, the outcome for the members of Congres challenging the rules could be much different.”

In the Los Angeles Times on August 4th, Professor Laurie Levenson said, “This has far-reaching implications,” commenting on the creation of a system to track the benefits provided to jailhouse informants that was never instituted.

Professor Richard L. Hasen's Op-Ed, “Roberts' Iffy Support for Voting Rights" ran in the Los Angeles Times on August 3rd. It addressed writings by Roberts when he was with the Reagan Administration. Hasen wrote, “How many fewer minority legislators would be in office in Congress and in state and local legislatures if Roberts's position had prevailed in 1982? It is hard to say. But this is not just about the past; Roberts's view of voting rights may also have an effect on the future.”

In an August 4th New York Times article on the same topic, Hasen said that in the early 1980s, Roberts ''showed a pretty strong disagreement with the efforts to make it easier to prove vote dilution. I certainly think that had the Roberts view prevailed, we would have many fewer minority elected representatives in Congress and in state and local government.'' (This article also ran in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.)

On National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" on July 28th, Professor Laurie Levenson offered commentary on the 22-year sentence given Ahmed Ressam, the convicted terrorist who planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium. Of the judge's decision, Levenson said, “He knew that he wanted to send a message that if you cooperate you're going to get a better deal, but if you don't cooperate fully you're not going to get everything you want.”

On July 13th in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Laurie Levenson commented on a US judge granting a hearing for a convicted man because of new evidence in the case: “Clearly, they have the judge's attention. The judge has a concern about whether an innocent man is sitting in prison for a murder he didn't commit. The ironic thing is that people look to the courts to remedy injustice, but it may actually be the prosecutor, at least in these circumstances, who has more power to remedy the problem. They have to go to the person who has the power—and that's what [LA County District Attorney Steve] Cooley has.”

Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner, in a July 3rd New York Times article on the United States Supreme Court decision allowing local government eminent domain rights, said, “Municipal politics is the basement, or the sewer, of American politics.”

Professor Stan Goldman, commenting on Michael Jackson defense team attorney Brian Oxman - who was removed from the case before the trial's conclusion - said in the July issue of Vanity Fair, “Oxman is a very good preparer, but sometimes he shows massive lack of judgment.”

In PR Week on June 20th, in an article about the trial of former Fleishman-Hillard executives Doug Dowie and John Stodder, Professor Laurie Levenson said, about the potential sentence, "Probably around three years or so would be more realistic.”

In The San Diego Union-Tribune on June 19th, Professor Laurie Levenson commented on strip-club owner Michael Galardi taking the witness stand in a city hall corruption trial: “One witness can frame the entire case. You can have a trial with 100 witnesses, but the jurors will fixate on one, and if that person's the star, the prosecution succeeds. If they flop, so does the production.”

In The Washington Post on May 3, Professor Richard Hasen, who has a blog on election law, was quoted: "The concern is that somebody is blogging at the behest of a campaign and nobody knows it. If, for example, you are a US Senate candidate and you have a blogger who you're paying to write good things about you and bad things about your opponent, it will eventually come out. But that may not come out until after the election. But even if it comes out, there's something to be said for having the information right there, so when you click on the Web site you see it says 'Authorized by Smith for Congress.' Voters rely on those pieces of information as cues in terms of how much stock they should put in what someone is saying."

Professor Laurie Levenson was regularly featured in major media outlets on the investigation and trial of Michael Jackson:

Levenson told the The New York Times, in an August 31st article on the resignation of Court TV reporter Diane Dimond “Ms. Dimond's recent coverage, though, drew fire, both from some members of the public and from other reporters.”

“Not only did she torpedo the Jackson prosecution, she ended up getting charged herself. It's the ultimate irony,” Levenson told the Los Angeles Times in an August 24th article on the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser.

The Sunday Times (Australia ) quoted Levenson on June 19th: “Despite all the publicity and attention, famous people could get a fair trial. Famous defendants get more of a presumption of innocence than other defendants who jurors do not feel they know in the same way.”

Speaking to The New York Times on June 16th about television reporter Diane Dimond, Levenson said, ''[Dimond] definitely engendered a great deal of anger from the public that attended that case and from other reporters. She had very strong views about the case, and many people thought that she already made her mind up.''

Commenting on defense attorney Tom Mesereau in The Australian on June 15th, Levenson said, "He is probably the best cross-examiner I've ever seen in a courtroom. He is tenacious and he knows the evidence regarding the witness he is questioning better than anyone else in the courtroom."

In the June 15th USA Today Levenson said of Mesereau: "He's been launched into the stratosphere. He will be the name du jour, the go-to guy in high-profile cases, for at least the foreseeable future."

Also on June 15th, Levenson was quoted by The Irish Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Commercial Appeal (Memphis) on Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon's fundamental miscalculation: "The prosecutor went for every strategic advantage. He thought he could broaden the case with the conspiracy charge. By doing that he made the mother the focus of the case, and it backfired on him. The mother was the weakest link in the case. She was walking, talking reasonable doubt.”

On June 14th, Levenson said in The Washington Post : "I do think Tom Sneddon was overconfident. I think it looked a lot better on paper than it did when the witnesses testified."

In a Press Enterprise June 14 th article on failed celebrity trials, Levenson shared her opinion about prosecutors: "You have to have all your ducks in a row. You can never be overconfident. They say if you go after the king, you'd better kill him."

Levenson commented about the Jackson case in the The Toronto Star on June 14th : "The prosecutor went for every strategic advantage. He thought he could broaden the case with the conspiracy charge," By doing that, he made the mother the focus of the case, and it backfired on him."

In The Los Angeles Times on June 13th,” Levenson stated, "You have the media lawyers, the motions lawyers, the courtroom lawyers. But then after a while, you have to have the New Dream Team, because celebrities tend not to be easy clients.In other realms, though, the case has dished up plenty of the usual conventions, and these cases do have things in common."

In The New York Times on June 12th, Levenson said: “The instructions, 98 pages of legalese, require the jurors to engage in unnatural mental gymnastics.”

In a Los Angeles Times article published on June 7th about the difficult task facing Jackson jurors, Levenson said, "It is mind-boggling to me how you can expect a jury to watch a videotape of the boy being interviewed by the police and revealing molestation and have the jury not consider whether the words he is using are true."

Levenson was quoted by The New York Times on May 5th: ''I think the driving force is Tom Sneddon's personal belief that Jackson got away with child molestation in the early 1990's. This is what happens when a prosecutor has a defendant in the crosshairs and has years to stew over it. To put it simply, he wanted Michael Jackson and he wanted him bad.''

In the Washington Post on May 3, Levenson said, "I've never seen a case like this. Nearly every witness has a major credibility issue."

On May 14th, Levenson told The New York Times, “As a consequence, the people who know the most will not be testifying. These guys are wild cards. 'The prosecutors are afraid they will rally around Michael Jackson. Jackson is afraid that they will save their own skins and point the finger at him.''

In the March 21st issue of People, Levenson observed of Thomas Mesereau, Jackson's attorney: "He's a real details man. He is fearless."

Levenson was quoted in the March 15th edition of the Daily News (NY), noting the difference between the alleged victim's responses when questioned by District Attorney Sneddon: "Suddenly he was very polished, very certain, very articulate."

On CNN's "American Morning" on March 14th, Levenson said about the environment in the courtroom: "It was very personal in there. It was personal on the boy's side talking about how much he felt hurt by Michael Jackson." (The same segment ran on CNN's "Live Today," also on March 14th.)

In Newsday (NY) on March 11th, Levenson was quoted on Jackson's late appearance at the courthouse, saying, "If this was my client, I'd be pulling my hair out."

Levenson was quoted in the Washington Post on March 11th, also on Jackson's late arrival: "It could have been this trial's O.J. moment. I'd be pulling my hair out. He needs to grow up real fast."

In an appearance on CTV (Canada), Levenson noted: "Frankly, I thought it was ironic and not a great thing that Michael Jackson is sitting there in his pyjamas while there's the testimony regarding the molestation."

On March 10th, in a segment on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Levenson shared her observations on the alleged victim's testimony: "It was very personal in there. It was personal on the boy's side, talking about how much he felt hurt by Michael Jackson. And you could see on the other side, Michael Jackson's feeling pretty hurt by the accusations against him."

The March 7th issue of Newsweek ran a quote from Levenson on how the jury might view the accuser and his family: "It's hard to put yourself in the shoes of people who are having a medical crisis, a financial crisis and an emotional crisis. We don't particularly identify with those people."

On February 28th, Levenson said to the Los Angeles Times: "Prosecutors are out ahead at this point. But they should be. They got a crippling indictment against Jackson."

Levenson said, in an article about testimony beginning in the trial that ran in the February 28th Chicago Tribune, "Monday will be a big lurid day. It will be the first time the charges are spelled out in court. ... Frankly, everyone has been waiting, and we've been getting only leaks and bits and pieces. And it's certainly going to be sensational."

The Herald (Glasgow) quoted Levenson in an article run in the February 28th issue: "The more relaxed he looks, the less scared he looks. If he looks scared, it looks like he has something to be scared about. He's a great communicator, that's part of what makes him a superstar. But if the jurors see it as insincere, he'll be in trouble."

In an article in the Daily News (N.Y.) on February 22nd, Levenson was asked how Jackson's illness might have affected the jury: "Jurors don't like delays. He's really expending a lot of good will very early on."

In the Los Angeles Times on February 22nd, Levenson noted that 72% of the potential jurors had ties to the military: "That's problematic. Michael Jackson doesn't fit in with the military image of how people should behave."

Levenson said, in an article in The New York Times about the star-studded defense witness list: "They should sell tickets. You have to remember this is not just a trial, it's a public relations campaign. This list is a nice way of reminding jurors that Michael Jackson has a lot of important friends in high places who believe in him." The article ran on February 15th.

In the Los Angeles Times on February 15th, Levenson commented on how character witnesses could backfire on the defense: "The problem with character witnesses is that ... on cross-examination the prosecution can ask them anything. As a prosecutor, I used to salivate when the defense called character witnesses because I could put that witness' whole life on trial."

On February 8th, Levenson was a guest on CNN's "American Morning," saying: "It doesn't surprise me that Michael Jackson is on a short leash from his lawyer right now, that he's behaving himself, because he has to." (This segment also ran on CNN's "Sunday Night" on February 7th.)

Levenson commented, to People magazine in its February 14th issue, that the prosecution might deal with defense arguments that the alleged victim's mother simply wants a financial settlement by arguing that "she isn't on trial."

In the Los Angeles Times on February 3rd, Levenson noted the relative brevity of the questionnaire used to seat a jury: "I was surprised that it wasn't more detailed and didn't really press jurors for their attitudes. It's not unusual in high-profile cases to see questionnaires that run 50 or 75 pages."

To The Guardian (London) on February 1st, on the potential difficulty of picking an impartial jury, Levenson said: "Our concept of fair is not 'Have the jurors heard of the case?' but 'Can they set aside any pre-existing views or opinions?' It is possible to find jurors who will do a good job."

On January 31st, Levenson appeared on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, saying: "Michael Jackson is not entitled to a jury of other pop stars. That's not what jury of your peers means. It simply means a fair jury from the community that will keep an open mind and decide the case on the evidence."

Levenson was quoted on the secrecy surrounding the trial in a Morning Edition story on January 31st: "Where you haven't released the entire indictment, where you've sealed almost every pleading, where you've even tried to take out the language of the Supreme Court decisions, black it out on the pleadings so that the public won't see the words pornography or obscenity. I mean, it's really almost gotten to the absurd stage."

In the January 30th Los Angeles Times, Levenson remarked on Judge Rodney Melville's approach to the case: "The amount of secrecy in this case is unbelievable. Melville wants everything done the Melville way; if it happened in O.J., he doesn't want it happening in his court."

In the Washington Post on January 30th, Levenson said, "The jury has to believe the kid. Here, though, we have the extra complication that the jury also has to believe the mother."

On January 30th, New York Newsday ran an article that included Levenson's thoughts on problems in the prosecution's case: "You have contradictory statements from the victim and his family, you have a mother who has a history, you have a big target on Michael Jackson's back."

Levenson commented on prosecutor Thomas Sneddon in the January 30thToronto Star: "I think that initial press conference was inappropriate. He got the law wrong; he made light of charges that there's nothing funny about; he certainly made it sound personal. During the investigation he went out to the search locations, he spoke directly to witnesses ... that's the sort of extra zealousness that makes people think he's not completely objective."

On CBS News' 48 Hours on January 29th, Levenson said, "Frankly, the defense has filed many pretrial motions to try to keep out evidence, but they haven't been winning them. I think the prosecutors are loading for bear. Mr. Sneddon has left no stone unturned. And in that way, he's gone after everything."

The Irish Independent, on January 25th, quoted Levenson: "He's a little odd, to put it mildly. He's also unpredictable. But, having said that, the man is an amazing entertainer who draws fans from all over the world." (This story also ran in the Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), the Canberra Times (Australia), the Independent (London) and the Belfast Telegraph (Ireland).

To the Ventura County Star on January 22nd, Levenson commented on the Judge's decision to omit certain words and phrases from a motion released to the public: "I thought we had seen it all in this case. But this is absurd. We have now begun censoring Supreme Court decisions. It is absolutely unprecedented."

Levenson commented on the likelihood of the judge permitting testimony about uncharged previous allegations against Jackson in a New York Daily News article run on January 9th, saying: "I think the judge is inclined to let it in."

In a December 15th Los Angeles Times story on a prosecution motion to introduce evidence from other molestation cases, Levenson said: "If it's granted, it would definitely be a blow-but not a knockout blow-to the defense."

On December 6th, the Los Angeles Times ran a story on a new search of Jackson's Neverland ranch. Levenson was quoted: "It's sort of suspicious timing right before the discovery deadline. The defense has not been particularly forthcoming in their reciprocal discovery duties. Maybe this is the prosecution saying, 'If you don't give us what we want, we'll come and get it."

Also on December 6th, the New York Daily News quoted Levenson on the timing of the search, "It does seem late in the game. It would seem to be one of the first basic steps prosecutors would take, unless evidence is just coming to light."

In the Los Angeles Times on December 4th, Levenson commented that the search had "a good possibility of delaying the trial."

Also on December 4th, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer cited Levenson that the new search "may mean that the witnesses (the prosecutors) are preparing for trial now are remembering things at the ranch that they did not mention before," and adding, "At this stage, if they found anything, if I were Jackson's folks I'd say it was planted."

Levenson appeared on CNN's "Live Sunday" on December 5th to comment on the search, "Why are they just getting the DNA samples now? This is a child molestation case. You would have expected that right off the bat. The prosecutors and police would have gone in for the DNA samples." In the Los Angeles Times on December 4th, Levenson commented that the search had "a good possibility of delaying the trial."

Professor Stan Goldman said in the Los Angeles Times on May 28th, "If you're making this up because your mother has coached you, then why would you say, 'No, I don't want you to tell her about it'? Either it's a remarkably cool, calculated decision, or it's a boy who's just discussed something he hasn't told his mother before."

In The Courier Mail (Australia) on April 23rd, Goldman commented that placing Jackson on the stand could be a major negative for the defense case. "The only way the jury would need more convincing was if Michael Jackson committed hara-kiri on the witness stand."

Also on the Jackson trial, in an article in the February 26th Washington Post, Goldman analyzed the defense strategy, wondering if his attorney was trying to "put the fear of God" into the accuser's mother before she took the stand.

Adjunct Professor Jay Knight frequently publishes articles in Managing 401K Plans. In the March issue, Knight's article wrote on " IRS Issues: Final 401(k) and 401(m) Regulations. In the February issue, Knight published" How to Handle Redemption Fees/Trading Restrictions. In the January issue, his article was "How to Handle Trading Fees and Trading Restrictions." His article in the December issue was titled "Labor Department Releases Final Rule on Safe Harbor Rollovers, " and his November piece was called "6 Steps to Help You Avoid Fiduciary Liability."

Professor Laurie Levenson commented in three stories on the trial of actor Robert Blake:

On March 2nd, Levenson appeared on NBC's "Today" in a segment on dwindling media interest in the Robert Blake trial, saying "Robert Blake was once an actor, but nobody really cares now and nobody cares about his case because now there's Michael Jackson. And that case has the sex and the stardom and the international attention, and it has just taken off."

In the Los Angeles Times on February 24th, Levenson said: "For a celebrity case, it was tried like a pretty standard criminal case. For Blake, there are a lot of ways to lose. At his age, it could be very close to a life sentence."

In an article in the February 14th Los Angeles Times, on the prosecution calling three witnesses with similar stories, she said: "(The prosecution) really can't rest everything on any one of these witnesses because each one has his own problems. The hope is that they will corroborate each other and the more the jurors hear it, the more they believe they can't all be making it up."

Clinical Professor Cyn Yamashiro's Op-Ed on sentences imposed on juveniles found guilty of animal cruelty ran in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on February 24th. Yamashiro directs Loyola's Center for Juvenile Law & Policy.

Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on February 22nd in an article on property rights cases in front of the Supreme Court. He said after a 1954 ruling that greatly expanded the government's ability to seize private land for redevelopment "all hell broke loose."

Professor Richard Hasen was featured in an article in the February 21st Los Angeles Times on Governor Schwarzenegger's fundraising for ballot committees, saying, "You have unprecedented fundraising for these ballot committees, so the possibility of circumventing the law is stronger than ever. In earlier cases, the courts said referenda and ballot initiatives are about issues, not candidates. That premise is no longer true in California. The two are intertwined."

Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted in the Ventura County Star on February 20th in an article on the trial of a man accused of a 1998 murder. On the jury's ability to hand down a death sentence, she said, "It's a huge physical and emotional toll."

In the February 15th New York Times, Professor Karl Manheim's vacation home in Vancouver was featured. About the house, Manheim said: "The condo is in a high-rise with a great view of the city and False Creek to the south and a view of the mountains to the north. When I'm here, I still do a lot of things tourists would do. I walk around Yaletown, go to Chinatown or stroll along the seawall at Stanley Park. Oh, and eat. The restaurants here are great."

Professor John Nockleby, in an article in the February 15th Glendale News-Press, was quoted on Metrolink's legal strategy after a fatal trainwreck: "They might be trying to get as much information collected under the auspices of the first civil lawsuit. That way, they don't have to share anything from the other lawsuit unless specifically requested."

Professor Richard Hasen's Op-Ed, "Taking the Politics Out of Elections" was published by the Los Angeles Times on February 8th. In it he argued for the appointment of non-partisan election officials.

An interview with Professor Yxta Maya Murray on her latest novel, The Queen Jade, appeared in the February issue of Latina. On the novel, Murray said: "Hurricane Mitch ripped up a layer of trees in Guatemala, uncovering a mine of pure blue jade. Over the centuries, objects made of blue jade had been discovered but no one could figure out where the jade came from. So I went down there and was able to come up with my own myth--that of the Queen Jade."

Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner was quoted in the February issue of the A.B.A. Journal in an article about eminent domain, saying "Kelo could be a blockbuster."

Professor John Nockleby commented on Metrolink's lawsuit against a man accused of causing a fatal train wreck, saying: "My suspicion is that this is a carefully thought-out and thoroughly strategic move on the Metrolink lawyers to get a jump on all the anticipated civil litigation coming in their direction." The story ran in the Glendale News-Press on February 5th.

In an article in the February 4th Los Angeles Times on the Los Angeles District Attorney's decision against pressing charges in an alleged police brutality case, Professor Laurie Levenson said: "It's hard to get convictions in these cases. Think back to Rodney King. They had serious injuries, they had a cover-up and they still couldn't get a conviction the first time out. And they didn't get a conviction in the Inglewood case. We give a lot of discretion to police officers. We ask them to do a difficult job, and people, especially jurors, are reluctant to second-guess them. It's only the worst of the worst cases that ever get criminally filed."

Professor Laurie Levenson was quoted in a January 31st article in the Los Angeles Times on the case against Robert Blake and the potential significance of two prosecution witnesses: "If they are believed, they're the best evidence you have, since prosecutors] don't have any direct evidence linking [Blake] to the shooting."

The Los Angeles Times Book Review published Professor Yxta Maya Murray's review of Without Apology: Girls, Women and the Desire to Fight by Leah Hager Cohen on January 30th.

In a January 20th Los Angeles Times story on a $1.6m jury award for wrongful termination of an Inglewood policeman, Professor Laurie Levenson commented: "It could have a cautionary effect on how departments approach the issue of discipline. It's an odd case, but departments can't bet that the next one won't be odd as well."

Professor Richard Hasen, in a Cleveland Plain Dealer story on partisan figures running elections in the United States, said, "Especially since Bush v. Gore, when parties are more likely to go to court to challenge election rules, we need to have the people who run elections be seen as fair and neutral. When people are worrying about the integrity of the electoral process, our very democracy is in danger." The story ran on January 20th.

Professor Laurie Levenson commented, to the Los Angeles Times on January 15th, on the indictment of a former Fleishman-Hillard executive for eleven counts of wire fraud. Levenson said, " What would be typical is for the prosecution to put pressure on the individual to cooperate against others. Sometimes the only silver lining is to be the first one charged."

In a January 13th article on the Supreme Court's ruling on federal sentencing guidelines in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Laurie Levenson observed: "We have a generation of judges who have been raised on the guidelines. Even though they are no longer required to follow them, the guidelines are what they know, and they are likely to impact sentences."

Professor Richard Hasen published an op-ed piece in Roll Call on January 10th, arguing that the lack of faith that Americans have in the election system can be addressed by replacing politicians with non-partisan election officials.

Professor Stan Goldman was featured in The New York Times on January 8th on how the jury may have been influenced by television in Andrea Yates' murder trial: "On Perry Mason, the lawyers were always working to save defendants who were wrongly accused. On Law & Order, everybody's guilty once they take them to trial.''

In the January 7th edition of the New York Daily News, Professor Stan Goldman was quoted on revelations of what a search warrant of Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch produced: "This would hurt him more if people didn't already know him as well. They already think he's a freak. But being seen as a freak is never a helpful thing, though."

Professor Laurie Levenson commented on the effect of the dismissal of an espionage case against Katrina Leung had on the U.S. Department of Justice. In an article in Whittier Daily New s on January 7th, Levenson said, "It doesn't get worse than that. It wasn't simply that the government made a mistake. It was that they weren't honest about it with the court."

In an op-ed piece run in the Los Angeles Times on January 4th, Professor Richard Hasen argued for fair and reasonable regulation of contributions to candidate-controlled ballot measure committees.

The Center for Conflict Resolution and the Western Law Center for Disability Rights were both featured in a January 2nd Los Angeles Times article on conflict mediation. Both Centers are located on the Loyola Law campus.