district court

The court has held that the root meaning of the Sixth Amendment's right to assistance of counsel is the right of a defendant who can afford to do so to choose their own attorney.

choose who is going to be their advocate in court to choose who's going to be their voice who speaks in court for them in this case the district court took that choice from lori daybell after it had found her incompetent to proceed after it had stayed her case while she was not physically present and after it disallowed the targeted attorney his name was mark means PARTICIPATING MEANINGFULLY IN THAT DECISION.

THAT FLAWED PROCESS LED TO A FLAWED RESULT.

IN ITS DECISION DISQUALIFYING MR.

MEANS, THE DISTRICT COURT EQUATED PRIOR JOINT REPRESENTATION WITH AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY BASIS LINKING THOSE TWO.

IT SIMPLY ASSUMED THE CONCLUSION The Sixth Amendment requires more than that.

It was an abuse of discretion.

But there was indeed a hearing on the attorney's competence.

thank you chief justice brody and may it please the court craig durham appearing on behalf of the appellant laurie daybell The US Supreme Court has held that the root meaning of the Sixth Amendment's right to assistance of counsel, the right of a defendant who can afford to do so to choose their own attorney, to choose who is going to be their advocate in court, to choose who's going to be their voice who speaks in court for them.

In this case, the district court took that choice from Lori Daybell, after it had found her incompetent to proceed, after it had stayed her case while she was not physically present, and after it disallowed the targeted attorney, his name was Mark Means, from participating meaningfully in that decision.

That flawed process led to a flawed result.

In its decision disqualifying Mr.

Means, the district court equated prior joint representation with an actual conflict of interest without an evidentiary basis linking those two.

It simply assumed the conclusion.

The Sixth Amendment requires more than that.

It was an abuse of discretion.

Welcome to the eighth episode of Brownsville Tech Live for 2026.

And in the house, it is my pleasure to have Ms. Erin H. Garcia, who is a candidate for the 107th District Court for Cameron County.

Erin, welcome to the show.

Thank you, Daniel.

Right.

Exactly.

So, um, kind of give us a idea of why you decided to run for the 107th district court.

Um, You know, there's several district courts, obviously, but I'll be honest with you.

Now, you'll know, Paul, that when it comes to a murder charge, as it is in this case, the district court has no powers to discuss bail or decide on bail or whatever.

So Mr. Simeon Toter was remanded in custody and he will appear again tomorrow.

via video link at Clover Hill District Court next Tuesday.

Now, I'll just make the final point on this.

People will know that there is currently a legal aid dispute going on between the criminal defence solicitors and the Department of Justice and the Minister, I suppose.

Tillman Breckenridge for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The district court's opinion and the appellee's brief have a key commonality insofar as they try so hard to analogize the parental control provision to other laws from Supreme Court cases when this law is unique.

And if they just applied legal principles to this law, the ineluctable conclusion would be that it does not violate the First Amendment.

Cases about bans on speech or quote unquote protecting the young from images are plain irrelevant.

And conflating this law with those, this case with those, would be error.

Social media is unique and the district court found, and NetChoice didn't dispute here, that it changes children's brains.

And excessive exposure to social media, quote, at JA3, contributes significantly to high rates of anxiety, depression, and self-harm among minors.

Kids are addicted, and the Surgeon General has declared a public health crisis.

A JUDGE TOLD A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYER THE STATE APPEARS TO HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO HANDLE ITS ELECTIONS ON ITS OWN.

THE RULING FOUND THE APPEALS COURT ITSELF LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE D-O-J'S APPEAL AND SENT THE CASE BACK TO DISTRICT COURT.

A hearing is now set for this afternoon on the DOJ's lawsuit.

Time right now is 5.37 on this Tuesday.

In a bench trial, the judge serves as the sole fact finder from day one.

Under Rule 52A, the district court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.

And if that judge's decision is appealed.

The appellate court reviews those factual findings under a highly deferential, clearly erroneous standard.

Now, why force the judge to do extra work on a motion for a new trial if they just threw the whole case out anyway?

It is entirely designed for appellate efficiency.

Suppose the appellate court later determines that the district court erred in granting the Rule 50B JMOL and the appellate court reverses that judgment.

What happens next?

The students alleged that the NCAA restrictions on compensation functioned as a grievance to restrict compensation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

At the district court level, the NCAA did not contend that its members agreed to compensation limits, that they punished violators, or that its compensation limits affected interstate commerce.

But the case at the district level was narrowly focused on whether NCAA compensation restrictions were an unreasonable restraint of trade, and the court used a rule of reason analysis.

The district court balanced the anti-competitive impacts of the restriction in terms of players' salary and compensation against the pro-competitive benefits of maintaining product differentiation, specifically through defending amateurism, between college and professional athletics.

Ultimately, the District Court found that the limits on athletic scholarships and benefits unrelated to education were reasonable, but the caps on education-related benefits, like paying for graduate school, were unreasonable.

Both parties appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court in full.

The NCAA, still unsatisfied, asked the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision on education-related benefits.

They raised three issues.