Well, I see I missed an anniversary -- the Year-Since-I-Last-Posted anniversary, that is. When I last graced these electrons, it was the middle of a bear of a winter here in Baja Great White North, and the work load at work was mind numbing. Things haven't changed all that much in the last 16 (!) months. Well, now it's miserably hot as opposed to miserably cold, but other than than, the beat goes on.
Work is still work. Criminals are still unhappy with their just deserts, a certain subset of appellate defenders still doesn't understand that zealous advocacy does not mean trying the mislead the courts about what happened at trial, either by omission or flagrant out of context quotation, the gray matter still seems to be sucked out of judges' brains when they climb into that black robe, and CSI is still science fiction.
That last is something I may write about if I get enough time to put my thoughts into some coherent order. There is at least one study by a trial court judge that seems to indicate that there is no such thing as the CSI effect, or, if there is, it gets lost in the noise of factors like skill of counsel, nature of the crime, characteristics of defendant/victim, and so on. But it didn't strike me as having a particularly rigorous methodology when I read it, admittedly, quite a while ago. And jurors say the darnedest things to the trial attorneys after the verdict.
Anyway, that's it for now.