Steve Morris, along with the ACLU, is suing every single prosecutor and sheriff in the state of Indiana because he believes a new law that takes effect in July aimed at “protecting children” should be thrown out. The law that he finds unconstitutional is one that would allow law enforcement to search his computer at any time. You see, Steve Morris is a sex offender. He was convicted of child molestation more then a decade ago. The law would also require that Morris, and all sex offenders, install a device on their computer which would permit law enforcement to monitor their usage. The device must be paid for by the sex offender. Morris and his attorney think it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Kosilek first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, saying its refusal to allow her to have sex-change surgery violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. She said her body is becoming more masculine. In response to the law suit, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in 2002 that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder - including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy -- but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery.

My very strong feelings on this issue were revealed recently on a CNN appearance. Please click here to view the video

What is most significant to me is that Padilla was facing 30 years to life under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Cooke had the courage, in today’s conservative climate, to exercise her discretion and to punish Padilla as she deemed appropriate. A rare act in today’s justice system.

Let me know you're thoughts.

The problem is that the laws in this area are vague and subject to interpretation. One prosecutor can look at a set of facts and conclude that a crime was committed while another may believe that the actions were good parenting.

Please view the interview on CBS4 with Elliot Rodriguez and let me know your thoughts on the case.

I’ve represented a number of defendants who, unlike Craig, could successfully prove that they didn’t freely, voluntarily and knowingly give up their rights when pleading guilty. The facts of those cases differ greatly with those that Craig has to work with. Bottom line, get used to the outcome Craig. It’s yours to keep.

On her break, Bull actually ate one of the burgers from the salty batch. She stated to the media, “It didn’t make me sick.” Bull further stated to the media, “If it was too salty, why did (Adams, the cop) not take one bite and throw it away?”

Here’s the part that makes me go, “Are you kidding me?” Police sent samples of the burger to the state crime lab for tests. I’m glad that I’m not a taxpayer in Georgia.

When recently commenting on this story on CNN, I called upon the prosecutors to immediately step up and right a wrong. They need to run to the courthouse and drop this criminal charge against Bull. This was not a willful and wanton disregard of human life. She ate the same salty meat that “Officer Friendly” ate. The cop/”victim” abused his position solely because he had a “beef” with this woman because he didn’t get a “happy meal.” The only thing that could be more bizarre about this case would be if the officer had charged her with “assault.” (“a-salt”) Seriously, these types of cases shouldn’t happen. They undermine our Criminal Justice System.

No doubt, it will be O.J.’s initial comments to the media that will be highlighted in his pending case. There’s a reason why I instruct my clients to keep their mouths shut. O.J., apparently thinks he knows better. Now he’s locked into whatever he spewed to reporters prior to his arrest.

Will he finally be convicted? Right now, it’s too close to call. We’re going to need to hear more about what specific evidence they have. For example, O.J. allegedly left a voicemail message for one of the co-conspirator’s instructing him to tell police that there were no guns used. That statement alone could be enough to corroborate the victim’s testimony and undermine O.J.’s credibility in this case. This one will certainly be interesting!

The boys, both thirteen, are charged with ten misdemeanor charges of sexual abuse and harassment, subjecting them to possibly having to register as sexual offenders if convicted. They also face up to one year in jail for each count. One of kids told the media in a telephone interview that hitting the girls on their butts was a common way that they said hello to the other kids at school, like a secret handshake. The parents of the boys concede that their son’s behavior was inappropriate, however, not criminal.

Without question, I believe that the boy’s conduct was inappropriate. However, what the prosecutors are doing to these boys is equally as inappropriate. Even the threat of being forced to register as sex offenders is devastating for the kids. More then ever, to be a registered sex offender is to be designated as the most despised in our community. The boys would be irreparably harmed.

I’m seeing an increased trend towards criminalizing adolescent behavior. Statistics show that juvenile arrests for this type of activity are going up drastically. Enough is enough. The folks making these decisions need to take a step back and seriously consider the ramifications of their actions on the child defendants.

Ellis, in order to get out of jury duty, claimed he was a habitual liar, a racist and a homophobe. Here’s what the transcript of the exchange revealed:

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.

"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn't want to serve on a jury.

"I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service," Nickerson said.

"That's true," Ellis answered.

The lesson here is obvious. Just like when you’re going through customs, be careful what flows from your lips. Stupidity and/or bad humor may get you locked up. Had Mr. Ellis simply stated, “Your honor, based on my life experiences, I don’t believe that I can be a fair and impartial juror,” he would have been released without spending time in the pokey.

In the decision, the court upheld a conviction for a driver, who had taken cocaine prior to driving, but was no longer active in his system. The court still found that the cocaine was the “proximate cause of his impaired behavior.” One of the judges wrote: "While the defendant was not 'high,' he was physically impaired. As a result of ingesting cocaine, defendant's condition was such that his normal physical coordination was impaired so as to render him a danger to others on the highway." The bottom line is that drivers who are hung over from cocaine (or alcohol or any other substance) may be considered impaired or DUI even when the drug is no longer in their systems.

Soon, you won’t just worry about the dry mouth, upset stomach, vicious headaches and body aches that accompany a hangover. You’ll also need to worry about loosing your liberty.