light on why the District Attorney’s Office initially took the controversial decision to argue in favor of lenient treatment of Epstein.? As Justice Burger wrote, “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibi

the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise

ater you will be expected to pay for it. There are lots of variations on this standard restaurant script, however. It doesn’t work quite like that at Burger King. The script is different but there is a script there too and we learn it if we frequent Burger King. The restaurant script has many varia- tions

e conviction and order a new trial with a proper instruction on flight and guilt.'*® Judge Fahey did agree, while writing a short concurrence. Judge Burger wrote a scathing dissent—arguing that our proposed instruction “may be appropriate to a philosophical interchange between judges, lawyers and experts

depositions "were not open to the public at common law"); Gannett Co. v. DePasguale, 443 U.S. 368, 396, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2914, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (Burger, C.J., concurring) ("[I]t has never occurred to anyone, so far as I am aware, that a pretrial deposition or pretrial interrogatories were other than

aps more than anything, the public's confidence in the judiciary depends on openness of court records and proceedings. On this point, Chief Justice Burger's words in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia are particularly apt: People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, bu