The boy asks for help because he thinks his older sister may be some kind of vigilante. Belinda, eighteen and way too sexy for her own good, has been missing for five months. The police are convinced that she’s just another runaway. Her bullheaded stepdad agrees.But the younger brother found Belinda’s secret stash of chatroom texts. They suggest she’s on a misguided mission to entrap and kill a sexual predator. If so, she’s in over her head and on a collision course with a first-degree murder indictment.Goodlove promises Belinda’s family that he’ll help her.But first, he has to find her.Missing Evidence may be enjoyed as a standalone book or as part of the Goodlove and Shek series.

    Aggressive prosecutors friendly with the judge. A disgraced president. A nation that had already made up its mind. The Watergate trials were a legal mess—and now, with the discovery of new documents that reveal shocking misconduct by prosecutors and judges alike, former Nixon staffer Geoff Shepard has a convincing case that the wrongdoing of these history-making trials was actually a bigger scandal than the Watergate scandal itself.

    In the tradition of Howard Zinn's classic A People's History of the United States, Peter Irons chronicles the decisions that have influenced virtually every aspect of our society, from the debates over judicial power to controversial rulings in the past regarding slavery, racial segregation, and abortion, as well as more current cases about school prayer, the Bush/Gore election results, and "enemy combatants." To understand key issues facing the supreme court and the current battle for the court's ideological makeup, there is no better guide than Peter Irons. This revised and updated edition includes a foreword by Howard Zinn.

    Supreme Court. During Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, a narrow conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several key elements of the New Deal legislation. In February 1937, Roosevelt retaliated with an audacious plan to expand the Court—to subdue the conservative justices by outnumbering them with liberals. The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the country. Although the Court would remain at nine justices, the confrontation transformed the political and constitutional landscape, saving the New Deal and bringing the nation into the modern world. But it also dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life and split the Democratic party, thus laying the foundation for a future era of Republican dominance. This brilliant work of political and judicial history unfolds like a thriller, with wonderful characters and unexpected twists. It uses new evidence to make clear that understanding the fight is essential to understanding the personality and presidency of FDR—and America at a crossroads in its history. 16 pages of photos.

    A brilliantly engaging writer, Kadri journeys from the silence of ancient Egypt's Hall of the Dead to the clamor of twenty-first-century Hollywood to show how emotion and fear have inspired Western notions of justice-and the extent to which they still riddle its trials today. He explains, for example, how the jury emerged in medieval England from trials by fire and water, in which validations of vengeance were presumed to be divinely supervised, and how delusions identical to those that once sent witches to the stake were revived as accusations of Satanic child abuse during the 1980s. Lifting the lid on a particularly bizarre niche of legal history, Kadri tells how European lawyers once prosecuted animals, objects, and corpses-and argues that the same instinctive urge to punish is still apparent when a child or mentally ill defendant is accused of sufficiently heinous crimes. But Kadri's history is about aspiration as well as ignorance. He shows how principles such as the right to silence and the right to confront witnesses, hallmarks of due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, were derived from the Bible by twelfth-century monks. He tells of show trials from Tudor England to Stalin's Soviet Union, but contends that no-trials, in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, are just as repugnant to Western traditions of justice and fairness. With governments everywhere eroding legal protections in the name of an indefinite war on terror, Kadri'sanalysis could hardly be timelier. At once encyclopedic and entertaining, comprehensive and colorful, The Trial rewards curiosity and an appreciation of the absurd but tackles as well questions that are profound. Who has the right to judge, and why? What did past civilizations hope to achieve through scapegoats and sacrifices-and to what extent are defendants still made to bear the sins of society at large? Kadri addresses such themes through scores of meticulously researched stories, all told with the verve and wit that won him one of Britain's most prestigious travel-writing awards-and in doing so, he has created a masterpiece of popular history.

    As a result, we have lost touch with much of what makes our country so special: the distinctly American belief in the dignity of every human soul.Our nation was born in an act of rebellion against an all-powerful government. In Our Lost Declaration, Senator Mike Lee tells the dramatic, little-known stories of the offenses committed by the British crown against its own subjects. From London's attempts to shut down colonial legislatures to hauling John Hancock before a court without a jury, the abuses of a strong central government were felt far and wide. They spurred our Founders to risk their lives in defense of their rights, and their efforts established a vision of political freedom that would change the course of history.Lee shares new insights into the personalities who shaped that vision, such as: * Thomas Paine, a populist radical who nearly died making his voyage from Great Britain to the colonies before writing his revolutionary pamphlet, Common Sense.* Edmund Randolph, who defied his Loyalist family and served in the Virginia convention that voted for independence* Thomas Jefferson, who persevered through a debilitating health crisis to pen the document that would officially begin the American experiment.Senator Lee makes vividly clear how many abuses of federal power today are rooted in neglect of the Declaration, including federal overreach that corrupts state legislatures, the judicial system, and even international trade. By rediscovering the Declaration, we can remind our leaders in Washington D.C. that they serve us--not the other way around.

    This is an excellent book for people who like to start sentences with ‘Did you know that…’” —The New York Times A hilarious, entertaining, and illuminating compendium of the most bizarre ways you might become a federal criminal in America—from mailing a mongoose to selling Swiss cheese without enough holes—written and illustrated by the creator of the wildly popular @CrimeADay Twitter account. Have you ever clogged a toilet in a national forest? That could get you six months in federal prison. Written a letter to a pirate? You might be looking at three years in the slammer. Leaving the country with too many nickels, drinking a beer on a bicycle in a national park, or importing a pregnant polar bear are all very real crimes, and this riotously funny, ridiculously entertaining, and fully illustrated book shows how just about anyone can become—or may already be—a federal criminal. Whether you’re a criminal defense lawyer or just a self-taught expert in outrageous offenses, How to Become a Federal Criminal is your wonderfully weird window into a criminally overlooked sector of American government.

    Brandeis (“Remarkable”—Anthony Lewis, The New York Review of Books; “Monumental”—Alan M. Dershowitz, The New York Times Book Review), Division and Discord, and Supreme Decisions—Melvin Urofsky’s major new book looks at the role of dissent in the Supreme Court and the meaning of the Constitution through the greatest and longest lasting public-policy debate in the country’s history, among members of the Supreme Court, between the Court and the other branches of government, and between the Court and the people of the United States.   Urofsky writes of the necessity of constitutional dialogue as one of the ways in which we as a people reinvent and reinvigorate our democratic society. In Dissent and the Supreme Court, he explores the great dissents throughout the Court’s 225-year history. He discusses in detail the role the Supreme Court has played in helping to define what the Constitution means, how the Court’s majority opinions have not always been right, and how the dissenters, by positing alternative interpretations, have initiated a critical dialogue about what a particular decision should mean. This dialogue is sometimes resolved quickly; other times it may take decades before the Court adjusts its position. Louis Brandeis’s dissenting opinion about wiretapping became the position of the Court four decades after it was written. The Court took six decades to adopt the dissenting opinion of the first Justice John Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)—that segregation on the basis of race violated the Constitution—in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).   Urofsky shows that the practice of dissent grew slowly but steadily and that in the nineteenth century dissents became more frequent. In the (in)famous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion upheld slavery, declaring that blacks could never be citizens. The justice received intense condemnations from several of his colleagues, but it took a civil war and three constitutional amendments before the dissenting view prevailed and Dred Scott was overturned.   Urofsky looks as well at the many aspects of American constitutional life that were affected by the Earl Warren Court—free speech, race, judicial appointment, and rights of the accused—and shows how few of these decisions were unanimous, and how the dissents in the earlier cases molded the results of later decisions; how with Roe v. Wade—the Dred Scott of the modern era—dissent fashioned subsequent decisions, and how, in the Court, a dialogue that began with the dissents in Roe has shaped every decision since.   Urofsky writes of the rise of conservatism and discusses how the resulting appointments of more conservative jurists to the bench put the last of the Warren liberals—William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall—in increasingly beleaguered positions, and in the minority. He discusses the present age of incivility, in which reasoned dialogue seems less and less possible. Yet within the Marble Palace, the members of the Supreme Court continue to hear arguments, vote, and draft majority opinions, while the minority continues to “respectfully dissent.” The Framers understood that if a constitution doesn’t grow and adapt, it atrophies and dies, and if it does, so does the democratic society it has supported. Dissent—on the Court and off, Urofsky argues—has been a crucial ingredient in keeping the Constitution alive and must continue to be so.(With black-and-white illustrations throughout.)

    It was one of the deadliest floods in U.S. history. 125 people were killed instantly, more than 1,000 were injured, and over 4,000 were suddenly homeless. Instead of accepting the small settlements offered by the coal company's insurance offices, a few hundred of the survivors banded together to sue. This is the story of their triumph over incredible odds and corporate irresponsibility, as told by Gerald M. Stern, who as a young lawyer and took on the case and won. "From the Trade Paperback edition."

    To give your students a full understanding of challenging concepts, require or recommend CONTRACTS: Examples and Explanations, Third Edition for your next course.

    Simpson civil trial, he was one of the few people in America who had paid little attention to the Simpson criminal trial. His first inclination was to turn down the case. But as friends and clients urged him to accept, as he got to know not only the Goldmans but the facts of the case and the human tragedy lurking behind it, Petrocelli realized this was something he had to tackle head on.Never having tried a murder case, putting his firm's considerable reputation at risk, confronting a media swarm for which he was totally unprepared, and facing an overwhelming financial disadvantage, Petrocelli nonetheless went on a personal and increasingly passionate mission to bring about justice. Triumph of Justice is a chronicle of that mission.  Petrocelli's insights, observations, and inside information not only show us how he convinced a jury to find O.J. Simpson liable for $33.5 million in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman--proving to the American people that their legal system does indeed work--he also makes the story a compelling and exciting legal read.Among the revelations detailed in these pages:Petrocelli's ten-day, no-holds-barred deposition of O.J. SimpsonWhat Petrocelli learned from the incendiary depositions and interviews of Kato Kaelin, Faye Resnick, Marcus Allen, A.C. Cowlings, and othersThe surprising realizations that emerged from a mock jury trial, which Petrocelli lostHis dramatic face-to-face courtroom confrontation with O.J. Simpson on the witness standWhat happened that night in BrentwoodPetrocelli also offers insight into the larger issues--of race, wealth, celebrity, and police competence--surrounding the case. He places the trial in its proper context and, in so doing, examines legal questions and issues about our justice system that affect and reflect upon every one of us.Triumph of Justice proves, conclusively, that O.J. Simpson told lie after lie and that he did indeed kill his ex-wife and an innocent man. It is the story you haven't heard about the trial you didn't see and is the closest, most in-depth look at an important murder case since Helter Skelter.

    Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz provide an authoritative guide to impeachment's past and a bold argument about its proper role today. In an era of expansive presidential power and intense partisanship, we must rethink impeachment for the twenty-first century.Of impeachments, one Constitutional Convention delegate declared, "A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one will be kept in fear of them." To End a Presidency is an essential book for all Americans seeking to understand how this crucial but fearsome power should be exercised.

    "Storming the Court" takes readers inside this modern-day atrocity to tell the tale of Yvonne Pascal -- a young, charismatic activist -- and other Haitian refugees who had fled their violent homeland only to end up prisoners at Guantanamo. They had no lawyers, no contact with the outside world, and no hope...except for a band of students at Yale Law School fifteen hundred miles away.Led by Harold Koh, a gifted but untested law professor, these remarkable twentysomethings waged a legal war against two U.S. presidents to defend the Constitution and the principles symbolized by the Statue of Liberty. It was an education in law unlike any other. With the refugees' lives at stake, the students threw aside classes and career plans to fight an army of government attorneys in a case so politically volatile that the White House itself intervened in the legal strategy.Featuring a real-life cast that includes Kenneth Starr and other top Justice Department officials, U.S. marines, radical human-rights lawyers, and Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, "Storming the Court" follows the students from the classrooms at Yale to the prison camp at Guantanamo to the federal courts in NewYork and Washington as they struggle to save Yvonne Pascal and her fellow Haitian refugees.At a time when the treatment of post-9/11 Guantanamo detainees has been challenged in the public arena and the courts, this book traces the origins of the legal battle over America's use of the naval base as a prison and illuminates the troubling ways that politics can influence legal decisions. Above all, though, "Storming the Court" is the David-and-Goliath story of a group of passionate law students who took on their government in the name of the greatest of American values: freedom.

    Simpson trial and shares the author's observations on legal strategy, racial issues, and the principal lawyers, officials, and witnesses involved in the case.

    The case exemplifies how the death penalty in America is a direct descendant of lynching — a system that treats the rich and guilty better than the poor and innocent.