Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal

Cameras in the court: Why most Trump trials won’t be televised

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Supreme, Federal Judicial Center, Donald, University, Crime, Quinnipiac University, Empirical research, Technology, Professional, Policy, Fear, Trump, Judicial Conference of the United States, Intelligence, Lawyer, History, Social media, Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, Judgement, Government, Thought, Behavior, Congress, American Bar Association, Middle East Research and Information Project, Sixth, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Amendment, Reading, Supreme court, Law of the United Kingdom, Radio, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Court TV, News, Conference, Constitution, Television, Legislation, Pharmaceutical industry, Practice of law

Americans will have few opportunities to binge-watch the Donald J. Trump trials.

Key Points: 
  • Americans will have few opportunities to binge-watch the Donald J. Trump trials.
  • Even members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed legislation requiring cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • In this age of Court TV and Judge Judy, why would trials not be televised?
  • There are many reasons why all trials aren’t televised, spanning the history of case law, congressional legislation, empirical research, high-profile “circus” trials and, in some cases, fear.

From public to pensive

    • The right to a public trial is enshrined in English common law and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    • Almost everyone is guaranteed public access to, and thus oversight of, their case, which allows the public to hold the system accountable.
    • But the courts have struggled to define how “public” to make a public trial.
    • Generally, in most state courts, an individual judge can make the ultimate decision about allowing cameras in their courtroom.

Grandstanding or transparency?

    • A lawyer representing Trump in the federal 2020 election case said in July that he would prefer cameras in the courtroom.
    • Judges say cameras invite grandstanding by lawyers, intimidate jurors and witnesses, or cause select sound bites to reflect poorly on the court.
    • Introduce the possibility of using artificial intelligence to create deepfake videos about courtroom proceedings, and judges may get even more skittish.
    • One study indicates that recording trials can actually help train better lawyers by viewing, not just reading about, previous cases.
    • A 1994 Federal Judicial Center study found that judges and lawyers noted little-to-no detrimental effect of cameras on federal proceedings.

A business can decline service based on its beliefs, Supreme Court rules – but what will this look like in practice?

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, July 1, 2023
LGBT, Circuit court, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch, Marital status, Religion, Virgin Islands, Speech, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Constitutional right, Marriage, Smith, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, SCOTUS, Judgement, Government, Movement, First, Supreme, Student, Restaurant, Supreme court, Color, Education, Conscience, Birth control, Management, Nightclub

At issue in one of this year’s most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases, 303 Creative v. Elenis, was what happens when someone’s free speech or beliefs conflict with others’ rights.

Key Points: 
  • At issue in one of this year’s most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases, 303 Creative v. Elenis, was what happens when someone’s free speech or beliefs conflict with others’ rights.
  • Specifically, 303 Creative addressed whether a Colorado anti-discrimination law can require a designer who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

Compelled speech?

    • The underlying dispute involves graphic artist Lorie Smith, the founder and owner of a studio called 303 Creative.
    • According to court documents, Smith will work with clients of any sexual orientation.
    • The federal trial court in Colorado rejected Smith’s attempt to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law in 2019.
    • Protecting diverse viewpoints, in the court’s opinion, was a “good in and of itself,” but combating discrimination “is, like individual autonomy, ‘essential’ to our democratic ideals.” In a lengthy dissent, the chief judge of the 10th Circuit focused on compelled speech.

SCOTUS speaks

    • The Supreme Court agreed to hear Smith’s case but limited the issue to free speech, sidestepping the dispute over the free exercise of religion.
    • In 1943’s West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, for example, the court declared that public officials could not compel students who were Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag, because doing so violated their religious beliefs.
    • Sotomayor went on to decry the ruling for symbolically “mark(ing) gays and lesbians for second-class status.” Denying services to same-sex couples “reminds LGBT people of a painful feeling that they know all too well,” she wrote.
    • “There are some public places where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot.”

Questions ahead

    • I believe 303 Creative presents a challenge for society to come to grips with the tension between two fundamental interests.
    • Ensuring both freedom of speech and civil rights requires good-faith efforts at respect – and respect is a two-way street.
    • However, exactly what this looks like will likely be the cause of more litigation to come.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT REJECTS J&J TEXAS TWO-STEP MANEUVER IN HUGE VICTORY FOR PLAINTIFFS HARMED BY J&J BABY POWDER

Retrieved on: 
Monday, January 30, 2023
Carbon, Emphasis, Language, Hon, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Justice, LLP, Court, RET, Johnson & Johnson, Bankruptcy, Circuit court, J&J, Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, LTL, SGL Carbon, JNJ, Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, Cryptocurrency

In strong language, the federal appeals court found that the JNJ/LTL petition "has no valid bankruptcy purpose" and dismissed the bankruptcy in its entirety, reversing a ruling by a lower bankruptcy court.

Key Points: 
  • In strong language, the federal appeals court found that the JNJ/LTL petition "has no valid bankruptcy purpose" and dismissed the bankruptcy in its entirety, reversing a ruling by a lower bankruptcy court.
  • Brian A. Glasser, founding partner of the national law firm Bailey & Glasser, LLP, was co-lead counsel to the trial team vindicated by the appeals court.
  • Mr. Glasser states today: "J&J has no special right to put talc victims in a bankruptcy box.
  • ), David Selby, D. Todd Mathews, Maggie Burrus, John Turner, Robert Bell, and Katherine Charonko, as well as associates Elliott McGraw and Nicole Ballante.

Lanier Law Firm's Appellate Practice Honored by National Law Journal

Retrieved on: 
Friday, October 22, 2021
Woman, Judgement, The National Law Journal, Law of the United Kingdom, Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, Justice, Missouri Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Texas, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., Texas Lottery, Supreme Court of Missouri, GTECH, Ovarian cancer, J&J, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, United States federal judge, District, Johnson & Johnson, Supreme, Missouri, Supreme court, Man, Solution, Pharmaceutical industry, Online gambling

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --The Lanier Law Firm was among 24 national firms honored for excellence in appellate work during the past year at the National Law Journal's Legal Awards event in Washington, D.C.

Key Points: 
  • WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --The Lanier Law Firm was among 24 national firms honored for excellence in appellate work during the past year at the National Law Journal's Legal Awards event in Washington, D.C.
  • Key members of this team include:
    Kevin P. Parker , head of The Lanier Law Firm's appellate section, who has personally handled more than 20 cases at the appellate court level.
  • In addition, in 2020 the Lanier Law Firm appellate team secured a $2.11 billion judgment from a Missouri Court of Appeals against Johnson & Johnson.
  • Named an Elite Trial Law Firm by The National Law Journal, The Lanier Law Firm has offices in Houston,New Yorkand Los Angeles.

FDA Rescinds Previously Disclosed Marketing Denial Order for Turning Point Brands’ Vapor Products

Retrieved on: 
Monday, October 11, 2021
Alternative Medicine, Retail, FDA, Health, Other Retail, Tobacco, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Company, Forward-looking statement, Public health, Risk, Adult, Intention, Motion, Food, Time, Marketing, ENDS, SEC, Terminology, FDA, Smoker, News, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Review, Nature, Regulation of tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal, MDO, Security (finance), CEO, NYSE, New Generation Pictures, Circuit court, TPB

All of TPBs proprietary vapor products, including its Solace branded e-liquids, will continue to be marketed while they remain under review.

Key Points: 
  • All of TPBs proprietary vapor products, including its Solace branded e-liquids, will continue to be marketed while they remain under review.
  • In its rescission letter to TPB, the FDA stated, Upon further review of the administrative record, FDA found relevant information that was not adequately assessed.
  • The letter further clarified that at present, in light of the unusual circumstances, FDA has no intention of initiating an enforcement action against the products.
  • Turning Point Brands (NYSE: TPB) is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of branded consumer products, including alternative smoking accessories and consumables with active ingredients, through its iconic core brands Zig-Zag and Stokers and its emerging brands within the NewGen segment.