– How prosecutors might proceed — if at all — in the JPMorgan case.

– Why you should marry after the initial public offering.

– What a Los Angeles County district attorney candidate is saying about giving conflicting testimony.

– Where defense attorneys for a fugitive vice president quit in protest.

Spray-paint artist Mark Chase will be performing and donating his works to the fundraiser, “Fiesta de los Abogados y Artistes” in the courtyard at Baltimore’s Union Mill. (“Abogados” is Spanish for “lawyer.”)

Chase, the man behind Stellar Paintings, successfully challenged Ocean City’s regulations for street performers, which will be in effect if you’re walking on the Boardwalk this summer. (That’s his painting, “Jupiter Rising,” at left.)

In February, Chase was acquitted on charges of peddling without a permit in Baltimore when a federal judge ruled officers never saw him selling anything.

Chase also has plans to challenge Baltimore’s peddling restrictions much like he did Ocean City’s.

– New York will require 50 hours of pro bono service in order to join the state bar.

– Maryland’s special session has mile-high company.

– Will lawyers invest in an online service designed to cut into their business?

– Don’t forget Rover when drafting your will.

– It’s time for lawyers to be “true professionals.”

– These ravens are huge fans of L.A. (and federal) law.

– Lawyers who sued Nutella enjoy sweet victory.

– This field-hockey player might have a strong Title IX case.

(Image courtesy flickr.com/geishabot/)

Avi and Eliyahu Werdesheim, Orthodox Jewish and white, are accused of beating a black teen in an Baltimore neighborhood while Eliyahu was patrolling for an Orthodox Jewish watch group.

WBAL reporter Lowell Melser tweeted that Avi jumped out of his seat to administer aid when Bishop passed out. Bishop was OK when she was led out of the Mitchell Courthouse by emergency workers, according to Melser.

The trial has been going on since last week and has been drawing national attention due to its similarities to the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, where a black teen was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch patrolman.

– Filmmaking lawyer uses power of deduction to defeat the Internal Revenue Service.

– A lawyer with Magic will be the Los Angeles Dodgers new principal owner.

– Whom would you represent in the case of R2-D2 v. C-3PO?

– Can a non-Jew be the victim of anti-Semitism?

– English litigator in phone-hacking case had working-class upbringing.

– Byrd the bailiff has been Judge Judy’s loyal sidekick since the beginning.

– Texas Supreme Court’s “shifting sands” decision draws criticism.

– Media outlets urge Florida judge to unseal court documents in George Zimmerman case.

Photo courtesy of The Los Angeles Times

Legal experts have said that prosecutor Angela Corey will have a tough battle ahead getting a second-degree murder conviction.

Manslaughter, which covers reckless and unintentional killings, would seemingly be the charge more likely to stick based on the accounts of what happened.

Not knowing what evidence the prosecution has or what they are basing their charges on, I won’t speculate on what their specific strategy behind going for those charges might be, but this got me thinking purely hypothetically.

Would it be beyond the prosecution in this case to go for the maximum charge with the hope of NOT getting a conviction?

Sounds crazy, I’m sure – to think a prosecutor would aim to fail.

However, considering the political implications as well as public perception and immense pressure to bring Zimmerman to trial, did the special prosecutor really have the choice not to prosecute Zimmerman?

I understand that it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge high and settle low. However, let’s just say that a prosecutor believed a killing was truly an accident or an act of self-defense and did not want to press charges at all, yet felt pressured to bring the perpetrator to trial simply because of all of the public scrutiny surrounding the case.

Faced with that much pressure, couldn’t they throw up a paper tiger of a charge so they could look tough and prosecutorial? So they could go through the motions of a trial that they never wanted to have and leave the defendant with the same ‘not guilty’ status he would have had if there were no trial?

If a ‘not guilty’ verdict was returned, they could say “we tried, the evidence just wasn’t there for murder.”

In Zimmerman’s case, those who wanted him brought to justice might not be happy with such an outcome, but they could at least have the peace of mind of knowing that he was tried. The prosecution comes off looking like they did all they could and the blame would then likely shift to the jury, much like we saw happen in the Casey Anthony trial.

In a way, they would almost be using what the prosecutors in the Anthony trial got wrong (failing to get a guilty verdict by shooting too high with their charges), in an intentional, and strategic way with the opposite desired effect.

IF this were all true, the prosecution could in an odd way be acting in defense; both of George Zimmerman and their own careers.

– Divorcing couples must find fault in England.

– Russia drops charge in prison death of whistle-blowing attorney.

– Finding an impartial jury will be difficult in Chicago murder trial featuring Jennifer Hudson.

– Pennsylvania judge limits what Sandusky prosecutors, defense attorneys can say to reporters.

Eric B. Cote represented Rory Holland from 2008 to 2009 in a real estate partition action. After Cote and Holland went their separate ways, Holland was convicted of killing brothers Derek and Gage Greene later in 2009.

Afterwards, Cote extensively investigated Holland and dug up old missing persons records trying to connect them to Holland. He is even convinced that one person has been wrongly convicted of a crime Holland committed.

For those of you who have seen “The Lincoln Lawyer” (anyone?) starring the one and only Matthew McConaughey — possibly the most unconvincing lawyer of all time — you know that Cote’s story is almost a scene straight out of the movie.

Just like Cote, McConaughey is representing a client who turns out to be a serial killer and is actually responsible for the murder one of McConaughey’s former clients went to prison for. (Although most of the movie is lots of action and chases and shooting and McConaughey making confused faces as his lawyer character unravels the truth.)

A few weeks ago, a judge said Cote had become “obsessed with the background and history of Mr. Holland.” Cote was then reprimanded by the court for using confidential information he had gained from Holland while representing him in later actions against Holland. (Cote had represented the Greene brothers’ mother, Tammy Cole, in an unlawful death action against Holland.)

While that doesn’t have the same glossy, adrenaline-pumped Hollywood ending, at least Cote seems to have a blemish-free record, with no disciplinary action against him in his 35 years of practicing law.

The same can maybe not be said for McConaughey’s acting track record.