judge sidler, you judged the anna nicole smith trial, one of the most high profile in recent years.there are, it seems to me, you can take your choice with any of these trials. when it's high profile, when it's famous, predicting a verdict is almost impossible, isn't it? >> yes. these jurors were strong. they had integrity. they didn't allow the media to pound them. they stood and they listened to all the facts. quite simply, i challenge the critics. the state did not prove their case. they overcharged the defendant. what does that mean? they charged the defendant with murder one, which means there's 12 jurors. it's much harder to prove to 12 jurors the guilt of a defendant than there is the six. they should have charged the defendant with manslaughter. it would have only been six jurors. it would have lessened the pressure on the jury, on the prosecutor, on the defense, and on the witnesses. thlo teicribt pm se. >> it's like you're swimming upstream. you have to confront the media, all the talking heads every night. it's very difficult to get a verdict like this in this type of the

anna nicole smith. what i find is chief justice roberts starts off the case by referring to one case. i had written an article about this case. the chief had a chance to cite me but sadly he did not. the reason this is really a very poor civil liberties case is even it's a bankruptcy case it has to deal with jurisdiction. pierce sued vicky for defamation. anna nicole smith. anna nicole smith sued in probait court said you interfered because your late father who showered her with gifts in her lifetime was going to give me another gift and he didn't because of your fraud. she then filed for bankruptcy in california. she loses the probait case before the state court before a jury and she filed in the bankruptcy court the probait case still going on and pierce filed a claim in bankruptcy saying that the defamation case should not be dischargeable in your bankruptcy. and that brings in the case on tortious interference. and the supreme court says bankruptcy judges, they have no lifetime tenure. they are not c

he presided over the case of what would happen to the body of anna nicole smith. this morning. i want to get your impact on the increased media attention and what influence it has had on the justice system? >> well, when a case is media driven, it puts a lot more pressure on everyone involved, the lawyers, the witnesses, the jury, and the judge, of course. and what happens is, when the media is watching a case, everything is looked at. they are watched everything. nothing is slipping by. >> sir, some might argue that the cameras influenced your own behavior with one liners he a even crying, all in an attempt to potentially be the next judge judy. did the cameras impact you when you were presiding from the bench? >> well, i think the reporters looked at that issue and they all came back with a resounding no. everything i do in a courtroom was how i did it in the past. i'm just a natural individual that shows emotion and compassion and that's all judge larry. he gives it his all. >> we've just learned recently that there's a florida case filed against an attorney th

marshall or anna nicole smith. it answers a question that was really honored no one's mind and it addressed a form of injustice which would be quite low on the list of particular is the framers may have enumerated when considering the reasons for establishing our own country. but it did serve to illuminate i think some of the continuing stereotypes' the supreme court falls into in the 5-for decision. you have the chief justice striking out showing us his on exceeded glittery knowledge. he also managed to stress the formalistic approach to the legal questions, the meaning of an article iii judged as opposed to an article i judge which a bankruptcy judge is and the concept of the judicial power of the united states that fantastic abstract concession that it may be. you had justice breyer in the dissent speaking for the functionalist view of the court that the purpose of bankruptcy law is to get rid of bankruptcy cases efficiently and the congress can up with a way to do it and why are we interfering with it and what

marshall, 90-years-old who married 50 also known as anna nicole smith. i think it's kind of -- chief justice robert starts of the case by quoting, referring to it, and i'd actually written an article about this case and the chief had a chance to cite but sadly, he did not. this is really a very important civil liberties case is even with a bankruptcy case it has to do with jurisdiction. the pierce sood vicki for defamation and meacham sued in probate court said in your late father who already showered her with gifts during her lifetime was going to give me another gift and he didn't because of your fraud. she then files for bankruptcy in california. she loses the probate case before the state court before the jury and she filed in the bankruptcy court, the probate cases still going on and pierce filed a claim of bankruptcy saying the defamation case should be discharge mullen bankruptcy, and that brings the case on interference and the supreme court says bankruptcy judges are not article for the judges, they have no lifetime tenure, they are not confirme

on june 23, there were six -- six decisions one was anna nicole smith. i wrote the story for one purpose of the, and that was to drive traffic to our web site, and it worked. . i am better than editors took out my phrase local -- "heroically proportioned." [laughter] i am writing for a general audience, a case that cares a great deal about sexist gold diggers marion aged, and in tears, and less about probate. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to be here. it is nice to be with you all. i am tempted to yield my seven minutes to michael to asked to elaborate on his views of justice sonia sotomayor, but that would be wrong. i have been looking at some of the 5-4's, and i have been trying to discern a threat of neutral principle in the decisions adopted by the majority, and those adopted by the four dissenters. it is a tricky business. speaking of arizona, why the same five-four split in one arizona decision upholding the first amendment to override states' rights, and in another doing the opposite, rejecting a first amendment claim to