For criminal purposes, the "no contest" plea is equivalent to a guilty plea. The likely sentence in this case: fine, restitution, community service, "anger management counseling."
"[Shane Hamilton] was jumped by several people and had to go to hospital with a concussion, scrapes and bruises, and a bite wound on his wrist. [Hamilton's] cousin, 20-year-old Jake Birrell, had a shirt bearing the Star of David ripped away and was punched several times, as was Samantha."
Can "post[ing] a false advertisement on the Internet that causes unwitting third parties to contact the targeted individual" be made a crime? Is it already a crime under Massachusetts law? I have a rough draft of an amicus brief on this subject, and I'd love reader feedback on it.
I noticed something slightly odd about the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley — the way in which it characterized two of its prior precedents. First, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In that case the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that banned material support to designated terrorist groups, reasoning that the statute appropriately […]
No, says Massachusetts' highest court: such photographs don't involve "lewd exhibition" of the children's bodies, and are thus not child pornography (even if there is reason to think the defendant kept the photographs with sexual intentions).
The Trademarks Trial and Appeal Board weighs in.
Can a speech restriction distinguishing (1) signs “support[ing] candidates” or relating to “any other matter on the ballot,” (2) “sign[s] communicating a message or ideas,” and (3) signs related to noncommercial “event[s],” be called "content-neutral"? The Ninth Circuit said it was indeed content-neutral -- but that can't be right.