Androvett Legal Media and Marketing
2501 Oak Lawn Avenue  |  Suite 650  |  Dallas, Texas 75219
Tel: 214.559.4630  |  Fax: 214.559.0852


Androvett Blog

by Androvett Legal Media & Marketing at 12:00:00 pm

President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. Supreme Court comes at a time of unprecedented turmoil within the Republican party and polarizing political debate. Dallas appellate lawyer Chad Ruback notes that the nomination of a respected jurist like Garland creates special challenges for GOP senators. Writes Ruback:

In nominating Merrick Garland for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has put Republican senators in a no-win situation. As a federal court of appeals judge, Garland has been regarded by Republicans and Democrats alike as being intelligent, hard-working, and fair. Since taking his current bench in 1997, he has left a track record of politically-moderate appellate decisions. Garland’s opinions are no more liberal than those of current Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan.

If Republican senators vote against Garland’s confirmation or refuse to conduct a vote at all, they will be perceived by swing voters as being obstructionist and uncompromising. This could jeopardize reelection bids for senators from all but the most conservative states and could also alienate voters who are undecided between voting Republican or Democrat in this fall’s presidential election. On the other hand, if Republican senators vote to confirm Garland, they will be perceived by the right wing of their party as being too willing to support Obama’s agenda. This could draw strong challenges to them in their next Republican primary. Thus, Republican senators will hurt themselves no matter what they do. No doubt, this was a deciding factor in President Obama’s decision to nominate Garland.

This is a high-stakes game of poker. If the Senate does not confirm Garland, and Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is elected president in November, neither of them will have any incentive to nominate a political moderate to fill this Supreme Court seat. While the Senate could block nominees for the handful of months remaining in Obama’s presidency, the Senate would simply be unable to block all nominees throughout a four-year presidency. So, by scuttling Garland’s nomination, Republican senators could be paving the way for a much more liberal Supreme Court justice taking the bench next year. That’s hardly the legacy that a conservative senator would want to leave.

If Republican senators are holding out for a nominee who is essentially a clone of Justice Scalia, those senators are setting themselves up for a monumental disappointment. Even if Ted Cruz became president in January, he would be unlikely to find a nominee who could match Scalia’s unique ability to meld an extremely conservative philosophy with a rapport engendering political moderate justices to sign-off on his opinions.

by Androvett Legal Media & Marketing at 10:00:00 am

Dallas Appellate Attorney Chad Ruback gives insight on Hulk Hogan’s $100M invasion of privacy lawsuit against media website Gawker, where the key argument is First Amendment protection.  

Generally, First Amendment issues are decided by a judge on summary judgment without a case ever going to trial. This case is unusual in that the trial court’s judgment will turn in large part on the jury’s resolution of the facts of the case.

Courts have almost always been very liberal in applying the First Amendment. As long as a communication does not put someone in immediate physical danger (such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater), courts have treated the First Amendment as a nearly iron-clad defense. In this case, Hogan is arguing for a rarely-applied limitation to the First Amendment’s protections. Specifically, Hogan is arguing that the communication at issue constitutes such a conscious-shocking invasion of privacy that his privacy rights should trump Gawker’s First Amendment rights. While Hogan might be able to persuade the jury – and even the trial court judge  – to limit Gawker’s First Amendment rights on this basis, it is highly unlikely that an appellate court would uphold a judgment in favor of Hogan.

That being said, a judgment in Hogan’s favor could have chilling effects on media coverage of embarrassing aspects of celebrities’ lives. Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker has already been in litigation for several years, and a Hogan win at trial would likely mean several more years of litigation in the appellate courts. Even if Gawker wins on appeal, the legal fees for Gawker’s ultimate vindication will have been astronomical. All but the largest media outlets would have difficultly footing lawyers’ bills of this magnitude.  That, of course, would limit future coverage of celebrities’ personal lives by gossipy media such as Gawker.

On the other hand, a trial court judgment in Gawker’s favor would likely embolden gossip-focused media outlets to go to even more extreme lengths to acquire and distribute highly-sensitive videos and photos of celebrities.

by Androvett Legal Media & Marketing at 12:00:00 pm

Dallas Criminal Defense Attorney John Teakell, a former federal prosecutor, discusses how the potential discovery of important forensic evidence could affect the still-open murder investigation of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman:

Forensic science and DNA enhancement technology have advanced to the point where it’s possible to retrieve minute traces of DNA evidence from blood or saliva from an object like a knife, even one that’s been exposed to the elements for months or years.

It’s ironic that we’re still talking about DNA evidence because OJ’s murder trial was such a turning point for forensic science. The public really learned about DNA evidence from the trial testimony, and shows like CSI can trace their origins straight back to the OJ trial.

If forensic evidence linking OJ Simpson to the murder is discovered, it would create a procedural challenge for prosecutors, but it would not be insurmountable. Since Simpson was found not guilty, double-jeopardy statutes would prevent Simpson from being charged with the same offense. However, prosecutors might be able to charge him with a different offense related to elements of the same crime.

A bigger problem for authorities is the years that passed between when the weapon was discovered and when the officer turned it over to detectives for analysis. That could set the stage for a repeat of the original trial defense tactics, questioning the professionalism and motives of the LAPD and the quality of the chain of evidence presented to jurors. Since the officer recently retired, he’s not likely to face any professional or legal fallout from failing to alert investigators about this potentially important piece of evidence.

Here we go again with more drama.