2012

Jealousy is an ugly beast.

You wake up in the morning wanting to make the world a better place, and you’re greeted with jealousy  in the eyes of the Starbucks barista, in the eyes of your classmates and of your professors.

They know you’re Randy, the Randy McDowell of internet fame, but they pretend not to know. It’s embarrassing how they pretend not to know, pretend not to visit your site. They live in a house of pretend.

You’re Randy McDowell. You get your first semester grades back tomorrow. But how can they judge you? How can you be seen as an anonymous number when you’re not Anoymous?

You’re not Anonymous.

You’re Randy McDowell.

#3: Current Events- Should Conrad Murray Testify at the Michael Jackson Trial?

Hi Randy,


I know you're busy, so I don't know if you've been following the Death of Michael Jackson trial, but as of today, things look bad for Dr. Conrad Murray: 33 prosecution witnesses have basically destroyed the man's reputation, leading many people to think he'll be found guilty for involuntary manslaughter in the death of [his patient]Michael Jackson. Now it's the defense's turn to call witnesses. Do you think they should call Dr. Murray to the stand?  If so, why?  


- Lenny, L.A. 


Lenny,

I have indeed been following the trial, for I am as big of a fan of the King of Pop as I am of the American courtroom. Before going any further, I think it'd be helpful to review for my readers what "involuntary manslaughter" (which is what Dr. Murray is charged with) means:

Under California law, "involuntary manslaughter" is an unlawful killing that takes place 1) during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), OR 2)during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection."

Stick with me, readers. We'll get to Murray in a minute, but first, let's break an element of this  law down in a way that's not only quick and painless, but fun.

"Involuntary manslaughtrer" is an unlawful killing. What this means is that Dr. Murray would be exempt from the charges under this statute if he committed a lawful killing.

What is a lawful killing?

Lawful, as you may guess, means "related to the law." Therefore, if you commit a killing inside a courtroom, or an attorney's office, a law school, or a Model United Nations summit at a local community center, that means you would have committed a lawful killing, and thus could not be held under the law for voluntary manslaughter.

We know from the facts that Michael Jackson was not killed in a location affiliated with the law; thus, we cannot say that Dr. Murray conmmited a lawful killing.

As for the other elements of the involuntary manslaughter statute, they have been, and will be, continually broken down in the courtroom. Let's get to your question: should Dr. Murray take the stand?

Let's face the facts: the jury knows Michael Jackson. The jury has heard "Beat It" and "Thriller" and "Black and White," songs that are transcendent beads of magic weaving audio necklaces around their listeners. No past accusation, however well-buttressed, of child molestation will damage Michael Jackson in the eyes of this jury.  No present accusation about Michael Jackson self-medicating on drugs will damage him in the eyes of this jury. Conrad Murray's testimony about his accomplishments as a doctor won't damage Jackson.

Murray cannot hope to get the jury to turn on Michael Jackson. What Murray can do, though, is make the jury embrace Conrad Murray. And the way to do that is simple:

Murray Must Become Michael Jackson. 


Wear his black hat and sparkling glove to court. Flash peace signs to the press. And finally, take the stand, and talk to the judge and the attorneys, and most importantly, the jury, in a soft, gentle, sensitive, Michael Jackson-is-back voice.

The effect will be dramatic. Will there be skeptics of this strategy? Of course. But what those skeptics don't understand is the concept of transference: by listening to Conrad channel Jackson, the jurors will become confused, too confused to throw the man in jail, for if Murray can effectively remind the jurors of the pop maestro they so dearly miss, the jury will feel it'd be insulting to Jackson's memory to put such a sweet evocation of him in prison.

Chances are my suggestion will fall on deaf ears. Critics will think I'm joking, or that I'm crazy.

The only thing that's crazy is the truth.

- Randy.

Caveat: This is my interpretation of the law. It is not yet accepted by many jurisdictions. Remember Randy McDowell's Legal Advice- Not Your Ordinary 1L is only to be used as an inspirational, not a binding, tool.

Picking Up The Pieces

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus."

On Thursday, those words sizzled in my heart.

Why? Because I receieved the grade to my Criminal Law midterm. It was a nasty grade. It was an undeserved grade. I wanted to visit Professor Clark's office, to shout, to scream, to tell him he's wrong, that his preoccupation with fancy terms like mens rea and actus reus belongs in dusty, old books, and not in the real world that Randy McDowell knows, and from which his professor only teaches.

But then I realized something.

I realized that Professor Clark has a checklist that he uses when he grades papers. The best students get the most checks in the most boxes.

Professor Clark, I have news for you.

My name is Randy McDowell, and I don't do boxes.


Clark is a searcher for consensus. Like Dr. King, I am a molder of consensus, and yes, my view of what criminal law means might not be the authoritative view.

Not yet, anyway.

As for what my view on criminal law entails, and as for this website, rest assured: Rome was not built in a day, and neither will Randy McDowell's Legal Advice- Not Your Ordinary 1L.

I'll show the doubters.  I'll show Professor Clark. I'll show the world that it's not about Black's Law Dictionary or statutes or Restatements. The future of the law will indeed be written.

And I am reaching for my pen.

- Randy

#2: Third-year law student wonders if it's a bad idea to give legal advice on the net

Randy, I'm a third year law student with no degree and without a bar certification. I would like to start giving out legal advice over the internet. Can you think of any reasons why this would be a bad idea?

Thank you in advance, 
Patrick D. 


Patrick, do you remember the Romanian gymnast Dominique Moceanu of the gold-winning USA squad in the 1996 Summer Olympics?


 Moceanu was a member of the "Magnificent Seven"; she was one of the greatest gymnasts in the world. And you know what? She was fourteen years old at the time.


Dominique Moceanu was fourteen years old. 


There were thousands, maybe millions of gymnasts during those glorious weeks of the summer of 1996 who had more experience than Moceanu. They had spent more hours in the gym, more hours studying every nook and cranny of the balance beam. But for all their experience and all their studying, they could only watch as someone far younger and with far less experience wowed them and taught them about excellence. 


What I'm striving to do with my site, "Randy McDowell's Legal Advice- Not Your Ordinary 1L," is to be the Dominique Moceanu of legal advice. I'm not some crusty, been-there, done-that attorney who thinks he knows everything because he passed the bar in 1972. My eyes are on the bar now, just as Moceanu's eyes were on the balance beam. 


Why can't you too be the Dominique Moceanu of legal advice? Before I proceed, please take the following in the spirit in which it was intended. 


As a a third-year student, you're like the teammate of Moceanu's in 1996 who just missed the cut for the Olympics because you had a few too many miles on your body. About to enter the workforce, you think your professors and your summer jobs have given you the knowledge to dispense legal advice. 


To you, I say wait. We cannot all be virtuosoes. And that's not a bad thing. Life is richer when everyone knows the role he or she has to play. 


Best of luck in your legal career, Patrick.


Caveat: My answers very often will indicate the law as I feel it should be perhaps more than what the law is today. I am not responsible for any actions you take upon the advice I deliver you. 

#1: Randy Responds to a Father's Custody Issue

Dear Randy,


This is a shot in the dark, and I'm skeptical, but what the hell. 


My ex-wife and I are going back and forth about my visitation rights with our five-year old boy. The courts give me every second Saturday of the month, but she's making more excuses lately, saying Milo can't make it, or that he just plain doesn't wanna come. I know I'm in the right here, but I'm sick and tired of dealing with the courts. Any suggestions on how to deal with my wife's recent excuse-making without bringing the courts into this?


Thanks,
Andrew M.


Thanks for writing in, Andrew.

Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me
I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed
She was looking kind of dumb with her finger and her thumb
In the shape of an "L" on her forehead


- Smash Mouth, "All Star" 





You won't find the lyrics to Smash Mouth's "All Star" in the Constitution.

You won't find them in the Model Penal Code, or whatever Code your specific jurisdiction uses to codify the law.

But you know what, Andrew? Most of the answers to the law's predicaments are right under our noses, or more accurately, right out of our boomboxes.

Through this custody war, your wife is telling you that the world is going to roll over you because she doesn't find you to be the sharpest tool in the shed. You may think she's looking kind of dumb, do you? With her finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead?

Well, shake those feelings off, Andrew, and take responsibility.

Well the years start coming and they don't stop coming
Back to the rule and I hit the ground running
Didn't make sense not to live for fun
Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb


-Smash Mouth, "All Star"




Don't let your head get dumb, Andrew. Let me tell you about the law of torts.

The law of torts is about damages, be they physical or emotional. What your wife is doing, Andrew, is a tort against you. What kind of tort is immaterial. Let's not belabor the minutiae. You want answers, and I want to give you those answers.

There's this book called the Restatement of Torts, and I recommend you call your wife right now, and read to her the following passage:

"Section 46 of the Restatement states that one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress."

Then, take a pause, Andrew. Your wife will likely ask you what you're implying. Tell her you don't want any problems, and that Milo should be at your doorstep next Saturday. Period.

Your lawyer may advise you that such a strategy is ill-advised and poorly thought-out. Well, I ask you this: why are you in this bad situation in the first place? What brought you here? Was it me, or was it your lawyer?

Don't cut the cheese if you don't want to smell the roses, Andrew.

Good luck,
Randy McDowell

Caveat: My answers very often will indicate the law as I feel it should be perhaps more than what the law is today. I am not responsible for any actions you take upon the advice I deliver you. 

Introducing...

Call me a pipe-dreamer. 

Do it.

My name is Randy McDowell. I'm a first-year law student attending a Top Tier school, and I'm ready to change the world. 

If you call me a pipe-dreamer, rest assured that the pipes of which I dream are pipes of justice, freedom, and not the American way as it stands today, but the American way as it should be. 

My professors are brilliant, but they don't understand where the law is going in the future. 

They understand books. 

They understand the past. 

They get the system. 

But what they need, what everyone needs, what everyone is waiting for, is fresh blood and fresh ideas from a young man who has yet to have his edges sanded off by centuries of what scholars and attortneys think is the truth. 

That's why I'm here. That's why I'm Randy McDowell. 

My friends and colleagues thought I was joking when I told them I was planning to create a website offering legal advice from the perspective of a first-year law student. 

They said I wasn't qualified to dispense any advice. 

To them I say this, very simply: give me a shot. Send me a question. You won't regret it, and you may even learn something.

Caveat: My answers very often will indicate the law as I feel it should be perhaps more than what the law is today. I am not responsible for any actions you take upon the advice I deliver you. 

Let's hear it at 1legaladvice@gmail.com,

Randy McDowell