“All rise for Marge Simpson, TV’s Latest Judge!” Above, you’ll find the cover of Simpsons Comics #64, published not so long ago in 2001 (which seems a bit late, actually, to parody the TV judge thing). That said, we wouldn’t mind appearing before Judge Simpson, although perhaps not for a dispositive motion hearing. That would be too risky, we think. Oh, well.

Reports The Huffington Post: “A $675,000 verdict against a former Boston University student who illegally downloaded and shared songs on the Internet has been upheld.” Wow.

In Tennessee, the war on bacon-infused liquor has begun in earnest. (Hat tip: Radley Balko).

For a sad story in Buncombe County, North Carolina in 1883, please see here.

If you are a fan of HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” or the books upon which they are based, this flowchart is for you.

A preface: This post is about products, to be sure, but not necessarily products liability.  We, as lawyers, travel very often. With us, we carry many personal electronic devices.  Not so long ago, we’d have to carry cell phones, Blackberries, laptops, and iPods.  Now, for the most part, we can get away with just a smart phone and perhaps a laptop or tablet. All of this, though, still makes air travel more difficult.

But there is hope on the horizon.

Could it be that we, as consumers of air travel, may soon be allowed to listen to our iPods upon take off and landings?

Could it truly be?

The Guardian – which has been in the news itself of late for unrelated reasons – reports that the Federal Aviation Administration is considering new rules on the use of personal electronic devices:

Relief may be on the way for airline passengers who can’t bear to be separated even briefly from their personal electronic devices, as the Federal Aviation Administration moves towards allowing gate-to-gate use of music players, tablets, laptops, smartphones and other gadgets.

Restrictions on cellphone calls and internet use and transmission are not expected to be changed.

Now we wait.

(Hat tip:  Spin).

As you know, we often write about social media and the law, so we simply must direct your attention to last week’s McGaha v. Commonwealth, — S.W.3d —- (Ky. June 20, 2013), in which the appellant, convicted of murder, unsuccessfully argued that he was entitled to a new trial because one of the jurors failed to disclose that she was Facebook friends with the victim’s wife. Wow.

Apparently, the juror – identified in the opinion as “Juror 234” was questioned during voir dire about her relationship with anyone involved in the case.  She admitted during questioning by the trial court that she knew “some of the [the victim’s] family, not close but I do know them.”  She described the relationship as “casual” and noted that she worked with the victim’s nephew.

Sometime after the trial, the Appellant’s lawyers discovered that Juror 234 was one of the victim’s wife’s Facebook friends.  (We wonder if his counsel investigated all of the juror’s social media presence.). After learning of the social media link, the Appellant sought a new trial based upon those grounds, a request which the trial court denied.

Unimpressed with the argument, the Kentucky Supreme Court parsed Juror 234’s answers to the voir dire questions, noting that although they were “succinct” she was never directly asked about any social media relationships.  However, the best part of the opinion comes when the Kentucky Supreme Court addresses the issue of how meaningful a Facebook friendship really is:

It is now common knowledge that merely being friends on Facebook does not, per se, establish a close relationship from which bias or partiality on the part of a juror may reasonably be presumed. This principle is well illustrated in this case. Here, an attachment to the supplemental motion for a new trial that Appellant filed with the trial court discloses that Juror 234 had, at the time of the trial, 629 “friends” on Facebook. She could not possibly have had a disqualifying relationship with each one of them. As we held in Sluss, “ ‘[F]riendships’ on Facebook and other similar social networking websites do not necessarily carry the same weight as true friendships or relationships in the community, which are generally the concern during voir dire.” Therefore, no presumption arises about the nature of the relationship between a juror and another person with an interest in the litigation simply from their status as Facebook friends.

So there you have it.  The appellant could not meet “the heavy burden” for challenging the verdict.  Strangely, no one challenged her for cause on the grounds that she casually knew – and worked with – the victim’s family in the real world. Oh, well.

Above, you’ll find the cover of COPS #1, published way, way back in 1988.  “Fighting Crime in a Future Time,” proclaims the cover, although we suspect that the constitutional case law must have evolved in the future, as the cops appear to be recklessly and indiscriminately shooting up their jurisdiction.  This comic series, of course, was a tie-in with an animated television series of the same name, which was itself essentially a weekly commercial for a Hasbro line of toys produced during the late 1980’s. Those were the days.

There are process servers, and there are process servers.  We often write about the law, and we sometimes write about music. But we’ve never heard of a musician being served with process while on stage performing a concert.  For more on this unusual story (including video of the service in question), please see here. It’s a sight to see.

So, did everyone see Man of Steel this past week? Any thoughts? (We’ve still not yet seen it. Alas.).

Martha Neil of the ABA Journal asks: “Did Superman have a legal duty to save lives?”  Beware, the article contains Man of Steel spoilers.

This is our 936th post, by the way. Can you believe that?

Some of you readers may know Breon Walker, a partner in our Columbia office.  We are pleased to announce to announce she has been chosen to receive the prestigious Nation’s Best Advocates: 40 Lawyers Under 40 award presented by the National Bar Association (NBA) and IMPACT.  The Nation’s Best Advocates: 40 Lawyers Under 40 award recognizes distinguished attorneys within the African American legal community who have earned the highest level of respect and distinction in their legal practice through unrelenting dedication to their profession and community. Award recipients are selected based on achievement, community involvement, innovation, vision, and leadership. As one of this year’s recipients, she is also eligible for five awards that will be given to this year’s Class: Nation’s Best Advocate of the Year, Excellence in Leadership, Excellence in Service, Excellence in Activism, and Excellence in Innovation.  The recipient of each award is selected by a popular vote. Please visit her profile on the Nation’s Best Advocates website to cast your vote for her! Voting has already started,  and it ends on July 15th. You can vote once a day, so please show her your support.

As you know, this is a products liability blog, and we very often writing about product warnings. In so doing, we’ve previously blogged about the annual Wacky Warning Contest sponsored by Bob Dorigo Jones and the Center for America.  Well, the five finalists of the 16th Annual Wacky Warning Contest have been announced, and so of course, we  had to bring that to your attention.

Our favorite of the final five:

“Not for contact lenses or direct use in eyes.”  A warning on a small bottle of spray-on anti-fog cleaner submitted by Melanie Champagne of Raeford, North Carolina.

Not for human consumption.”  A warning on a package of rubber worms made for fishing submitted by Lars Eckberg of Knoxville, Tennessee.

Sometimes, these warnings are prompted by actual events, and we shudder to think who ate the rubber fishing worms.  Yuck.

You can find the full list and accompanying announcement on the website of Bob Dorigo Jones here.

Don’t forget! Way back in July of 2011, we interviewed Bob Dorigo Jones, and you can read the transcript here.

(Hat tip: Overlawyered).

Above, you’ll find the cover of Man of Steel #1, the famed Superman reboot by John Byrne published way, way back in 1986.  (If you can believe it, at least of our Abnormal Use writers here bought that issue the very day it was released, although we bet you can’t guess which one of us it was.). Although the cover is not legally themed, we’re bringing this to your attention today because Man of Steel, the 2013 movie reboot of the Superman franchise, opens today. We trust you’ll see it. Friend of the blog Ryan Steans of The Signal Watch caught the midnight showing last night.  He’s the world’s foremost Superman fan, and his preliminary, presumably spoiler-laden thoughts can be found here. We can’t bring ourselves to read his review until after we’ve seen the movie ourselves. But we’ll keep you posted.

The law nerd in you will need to read this amusing Amazon.com review of the latest edition of The Blue Book. (Hat tip: Stephen Dillard).

How long has it been since you’ve read the Abnormal Use mission statement, published in January of 2010?

Well, as we said recently in our “Seven Court Opinions That Cite The Great Gatsby” piece, we’re not turning into Buzzfeed, but we can’t resist these types of posts.
So, here are five courts which reference H.G. Wells’ “The War of the Worlds” (and/or the infamous Orson Welles radio play based on same).

1. In re B.C. Rogers Poultry, Inc., 455 B.R. 524, 548 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Miss. 2011).

“Before addressing the merits, the Court has two preliminary observations. First, the post-trial briefs, when combined, are 369 pages long with 1,272 footnotes. To put the length of the post-trial briefs in perspective, H.G. Wells’s WAR OF THE WORLDS is just over 300 pages without footnotes.”

2. Helcher v. Dearborn County,  595 F.3d 710, 724 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

“Many of the nearby homeowners also wrote letters to the Board protesting the impact of such a structure on the scenery and on their property values. Bell and the Helchers provided photos taken largely from public roads but the Codys and other nearby residents presented views of the tower and the balloon test from farms and residences nearby. In the Codys’ altered photos, the tower rises up like a nineteen-story Martian machine from H.G. Wells’ ‘War of the Worlds,’ marring a landscape of forests and farms. The tower is not in any way disguised to resemble a more palatable structure, but stands out alone as an industrial blemish on an otherwise bucolic landscape. It is remarkably out of scale to any surrounding structures.”

3. United States v. Brahm, 520 F.Supp.2d 619, 626 (D.N.J. 2007) (citations omitted).

“The counterexample brought forth by Defendant that appears to have the greatest weight is the fictitious news broadcast with great inherent verisimilitude, such as Orson Welles’s ‘War of the Worlds’ broadcast. While the example of Martians with ray guns may not qualify as something within the reasonable belief required by the statute, it would represent the kind of intentionally false information anticipated by § 1038. A closer case, such as a fictitious broadcast of a terrorist attack on a major city with the goal of making a kind of political or artistic statement, causes greater concern, as there may be some expressive, protected speech of that type might be affected by § 1038.”

4. State v. Weary, 931 So.2d 297, 333 and n.3 (La. 2006) (Weimer, J., concurring)

“Patricia Cowart is another juror that the defendant challenged for cause based on her fixed opinions about the case. Cowart testified that she formed her opinions based on her exposure to pre-trial publicity and did not think that she could put them aside and make a decision based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Based upon Cowart’s response, the trial judge attempted to rehabilitate Cowart by making a reference to Orson Welles’ War on the Worlds FN3 and asked her if she could base her opinion on the facts and the evidence presented at trial.

FN3. The trial judge noted that Welles performed a radio show about a purported Martian invasion of Earth and that many people believed it to be true until a few days after the performance. However, they soon realized that it was a hoax based upon facts that they learned or experienced after the radio broadcast.”

5. Yovino v. Fish, 539 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Mass Ct. App. 1989)

“It was not exactly ‘The War of the Worlds,’ but some listeners were taken in. On July 16, 1982, a ‘talkmaster,’ Jerry Williams, broadcasting over radio station WRKO-AM, interviewed a comic who impersonated then mayor of Boston, Kevin H. White. ‘His Honor,’ the honorific which Williams lavished upon his guest, took calls from the radio audience. He pretended to be the mayor, although greatly exaggerating the mannerisms of the persona of the real mayor. Broad as the caricature may have been, the impersonator induced a flurry of phone calls to City Hall in which the callers made unflattering observations about what the ‘mayor’ was saying on the air. While the show was still in progress, the true mayor’s press secretary was moved to lodge a protest by telephone with the management of the radio station. Williams did not identify his guest as an impersonator until well into the program, an alarmed station management having ordered that be done.”

BONUS: Welles v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 308 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1962) in which Orson Welles himself litigates “The War of The Worlds.”

Something tells us that the confinement depicted above on the cover of Ghosts #76 may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We’re just saying. (Note: This issue was published way, way back in 1979).

From The Hollywood Reporter: “10 Celebrity Courtroom Hairdos (and Don’ts).” How many of them can you guess before you actually click on the link to confirm? Yes, yes, everyone will get Phil Spector, so don’t feel too special for identifying that one.

Can it be true? A 1990’s nostalgia cable channel is in the works? We cannot tell you how long we’ve waited for such a development. Well, since the 1990’s.

Celebrities no longer immune to litigation or the threat thereof: Pee Wee Herman and Stone Temple Pilots. Is nothing sacred?

Whoa! Our story on the South Carolina witch house case got picked up by The Volokh Conspiracy.

Tiger Lawyer #3 is on the way, apparently. As you might recall, we’ve mentioned the Tiger Lawyer character before here, here, here, and here.

Congratulations to our own Breon Walker, who has been chosen to receive the prestigious Nation’s Best Advocates: 40 Lawyers Under 40 award presented by the National Bar Association (NBA) and IMPACT.  This award recognizes distinguished attorneys within the African American legal community who have earned the highest level of respect and distinction in their legal practice through unrelenting dedication to their profession and community. Walker joined GWB as an associate in 2011 and became a partner in 2013.

In this piece from The New York Times entitled “Why the Fuss Over the D.S.M.-5?,” Dr. Sally L. Satel offers these thoughts about the practical application of the somewhat controversial revised psychiatric manual:

LATER this month, the American Psychiatric Association will unveil the fifth edition of its handbook of diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourteen years in the making, the D.S.M.-5 has been the subject of seemingly endless discussion.

The charges are familiar: the manual medicalizes garden-variety distress, leads doctors to prescribe unnecessary medications, serves as a cash cow for the association, and so forth.

But many critics overlook a surprising fact about the new D.S.M.: how little attention practicing psychiatrists will give to it.

There are dozens of revisions in the D.S.M. — among them, the elimination of a “bereavement exclusion” from major depressive disorder and the creation of binge eating disorder — but they won’t alter clinical practice much, if at all.

This is because psychiatrists tend to treat according to symptoms.

…

The media will trumpet the release of the new D.S.M., but practicing psychiatrists will largely regard it as a nonevent. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for other institutions — insurance companies, state and government agencies, and even the courts — which will continue to imbue the D.S.M. with a precision and an authority it does not have.

As you know, we’ve previously written about the DSM and the assistance it can provide in taking depositions of psychological treaters and/or retained testifying experts.  In so doing, we’ve noted that such witnesses typically do not employ a formal multi-axial diagnosis under the auspices of the DSM, meaning that if they concede that the DSM is the standard of the industry and that they did not fully consider the factors set forth therein then there are some potential points to be made at the deposition or during cross examination.  In June of 2012, we wrote:

. . . [M]any of these experts and plaintiff friendly treaters do not actually employ the formal DSM criteria when making these diagnoses in the first place.  Whatever you say about the merits or lack thereof of the DSM-IV, many plaintiffs’ experts and treaters shoot from the hip when making these mental diagnoses.  When they see a patient claiming psychological symptoms following a traumatic incident, they immediately leap to a PTSD diagnosis without employing the specific multi-axial diagnosis process.  Further, when called upon to analyze the factors set forth in Axis IV, which requires an analysis of  – or at the every least, knowledge and consideration of – other environmental or psychosocial factors contributing to the patient’s condition, these providers almost never conduct any independent evaluation.

We see no reason that this analysis will change with the release of the D.S.M.-V.

(Hat tip: Steven Pinker).