John Pfaff
@johnpfaff.bsky.social
Professor at Fordham Law. Prisons and criminal justice quant. I'm not contrarian, the data are. Author of Locked In. New stuff at johnfpfaff.com.
About to wrap up my first semester ever (in 20+ yrs at Fordham) without a fall 1L class.
Is ... is this why people like the Christmas season so much?! Decorations and parties and carols and cheer and ... no exams? No feet-thick stacks of 90 - 180 papers to hack thru?
It's ... amazing.
Is ... is this why people like the Christmas season so much?! Decorations and parties and carols and cheer and ... no exams? No feet-thick stacks of 90 - 180 papers to hack thru?
It's ... amazing.
a man in an ugly christmas sweater is holding a wreath in front of a door .
Alt: AI: a man in an ugly christmas sweater is holding a wreath in front of a door .
Holding? Anyway, it's Carlton Banks from Fresh Prince in an ugly sweater DANCING next to a wreath.
media.tenor.com
November 25, 2025 at 6:55 PM
About to wrap up my first semester ever (in 20+ yrs at Fordham) without a fall 1L class.
Is ... is this why people like the Christmas season so much?! Decorations and parties and carols and cheer and ... no exams? No feet-thick stacks of 90 - 180 papers to hack thru?
It's ... amazing.
Is ... is this why people like the Christmas season so much?! Decorations and parties and carols and cheer and ... no exams? No feet-thick stacks of 90 - 180 papers to hack thru?
It's ... amazing.
Reposted by John Pfaff
I have a new piece up at @msnownews.bsky.social, on the recent NJ supreme court case banning shaking baby syndrome evidence, using it to discuss both the generally shoddy nature of all forensic evidence but also the legal profession's on-going refusal to confront our current data-driven world.
Opinion | New Jersey's ban on 'shaken baby syndrome' claims in court points up a larger problem in the legal system
John Pfaff: The state Supreme Court ruling underscores how thin empirical support is for much of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases.
www.ms.now
November 25, 2025 at 2:38 PM
I have a new piece up at @msnownews.bsky.social, on the recent NJ supreme court case banning shaking baby syndrome evidence, using it to discuss both the generally shoddy nature of all forensic evidence but also the legal profession's on-going refusal to confront our current data-driven world.
Reposted by John Pfaff
Amazing to learn that Isaac Chotiner can apparently just come for you in your replies. Like suddenly realizing you're swimming in open ocean
November 25, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Amazing to learn that Isaac Chotiner can apparently just come for you in your replies. Like suddenly realizing you're swimming in open ocean
I have a new piece up at @msnownews.bsky.social, on the recent NJ supreme court case banning shaking baby syndrome evidence, using it to discuss both the generally shoddy nature of all forensic evidence but also the legal profession's on-going refusal to confront our current data-driven world.
Opinion | New Jersey's ban on 'shaken baby syndrome' claims in court points up a larger problem in the legal system
John Pfaff: The state Supreme Court ruling underscores how thin empirical support is for much of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases.
www.ms.now
November 25, 2025 at 2:38 PM
I have a new piece up at @msnownews.bsky.social, on the recent NJ supreme court case banning shaking baby syndrome evidence, using it to discuss both the generally shoddy nature of all forensic evidence but also the legal profession's on-going refusal to confront our current data-driven world.
I feel like if the goal is to discourage journos from having inappropriate relationships w sources, turning Nuzzi into a Basel-Miami memorialized star is … not the best way to go abt it?
“You broke one of journalism’s core values. Here’s a book contract, VF profile, and … a portrait.”
“You broke one of journalism’s core values. Here’s a book contract, VF profile, and … a portrait.”
November 25, 2025 at 2:00 PM
I feel like if the goal is to discourage journos from having inappropriate relationships w sources, turning Nuzzi into a Basel-Miami memorialized star is … not the best way to go abt it?
“You broke one of journalism’s core values. Here’s a book contract, VF profile, and … a portrait.”
“You broke one of journalism’s core values. Here’s a book contract, VF profile, and … a portrait.”
Targeting Kelly is one of those “this is why we’ll win” moments, bc it shows how politically impetuous this admin is.
There’s clearly no adult in the room to say “wait, maybe don’t go after the charismatic war hero turned literal astronaut who ran after his wife was a victim of political violence.”
There’s clearly no adult in the room to say “wait, maybe don’t go after the charismatic war hero turned literal astronaut who ran after his wife was a victim of political violence.”
Mark Kelly: "My wife, Gabby Giffords, meeting with her constituents, shot in the head. Six people killed around her, a horrific thing. She spent six months in the hospital. We know what political violence is and we know what causes it too, The statements that Donald Trump made incites others."
November 25, 2025 at 3:10 AM
Targeting Kelly is one of those “this is why we’ll win” moments, bc it shows how politically impetuous this admin is.
There’s clearly no adult in the room to say “wait, maybe don’t go after the charismatic war hero turned literal astronaut who ran after his wife was a victim of political violence.”
There’s clearly no adult in the room to say “wait, maybe don’t go after the charismatic war hero turned literal astronaut who ran after his wife was a victim of political violence.”
“We are taking a survey on risk tolerance, and if you had do one of these, which would you pick:
1. Fist-fight with a grizzly bear.
2. Jump from a plane at 30,000 ft with no parachute.
3. Dare Isaac Chotiner to “do his own research” about you when he seems suspicious.”
1. Fist-fight with a grizzly bear.
2. Jump from a plane at 30,000 ft with no parachute.
3. Dare Isaac Chotiner to “do his own research” about you when he seems suspicious.”
my goodness:
Chotiner: who funds this shit
Ben Smith: How dare you ask such a question. Check your facts!
Chotiner: I have now checked my facts. A thread (1/381)
Ben Smith:
Chotiner: who funds this shit
Ben Smith: How dare you ask such a question. Check your facts!
Chotiner: I have now checked my facts. A thread (1/381)
Ben Smith:
a man in a hospital gown with the words i 've made a huge mistake behind him
ALT: a man in a hospital gown with the words i 've made a huge mistake behind him
media.tenor.com
November 25, 2025 at 2:39 AM
“We are taking a survey on risk tolerance, and if you had do one of these, which would you pick:
1. Fist-fight with a grizzly bear.
2. Jump from a plane at 30,000 ft with no parachute.
3. Dare Isaac Chotiner to “do his own research” about you when he seems suspicious.”
1. Fist-fight with a grizzly bear.
2. Jump from a plane at 30,000 ft with no parachute.
3. Dare Isaac Chotiner to “do his own research” about you when he seems suspicious.”
Me, reading this: SNORT!
My very off-line wife: What’s so funny?
Me: … … … nope.
Her: You can tell me!
Me: … … … yeah: nope.
There’s no need to curse her with this knowledge. Sparing the blessedly oblivious is how we atone for being terminally on-line.
My very off-line wife: What’s so funny?
Me: … … … nope.
Her: You can tell me!
Me: … … … yeah: nope.
There’s no need to curse her with this knowledge. Sparing the blessedly oblivious is how we atone for being terminally on-line.
My buddy just called Robert Kennedy Jr. “Dr. Felchi” and I don’t think I’m gonna recover…
November 24, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Me, reading this: SNORT!
My very off-line wife: What’s so funny?
Me: … … … nope.
Her: You can tell me!
Me: … … … yeah: nope.
There’s no need to curse her with this knowledge. Sparing the blessedly oblivious is how we atone for being terminally on-line.
My very off-line wife: What’s so funny?
Me: … … … nope.
Her: You can tell me!
Me: … … … yeah: nope.
There’s no need to curse her with this knowledge. Sparing the blessedly oblivious is how we atone for being terminally on-line.
I know I've posted this before, but:
The core backstory of Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story is that a misguided war in Venezuela in the final failure that completely shatters the US, to the point that it gets sold for parts to the Chinese and Norwegians.
The core backstory of Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story is that a misguided war in Venezuela in the final failure that completely shatters the US, to the point that it gets sold for parts to the Chinese and Norwegians.
Rep. Salazar on Venezuela: "We're about to go in ... we need to go in ... Venezuela for the American oil companies will be a field day"
November 24, 2025 at 9:16 PM
I know I've posted this before, but:
The core backstory of Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story is that a misguided war in Venezuela in the final failure that completely shatters the US, to the point that it gets sold for parts to the Chinese and Norwegians.
The core backstory of Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story is that a misguided war in Venezuela in the final failure that completely shatters the US, to the point that it gets sold for parts to the Chinese and Norwegians.
God DAMN this is a good ranking.
haven’t seen ROS or Solo but this seems like a pretty ball-knowing list from Pritzker, particularly if he volunteered the name “Star Wars” rather than “A New Hope”
November 24, 2025 at 9:11 PM
God DAMN this is a good ranking.
This is not a "got to hand it to them" moment, bc Duffy deserves to have nothing handed to him.
But... I also agree with him here. I wish people dressed up more when they flew.
I'm sure this is snobby or classist or something bad.
But whatevs. Shlumpiness is a type of negative externality.
But... I also agree with him here. I wish people dressed up more when they flew.
I'm sure this is snobby or classist or something bad.
But whatevs. Shlumpiness is a type of negative externality.
Duffy on his demand that air travelers not wear slippers or pajamas: "It honors our country ... don't take your shoes off and put your feet on the chair ahead of you"
November 24, 2025 at 9:07 PM
This is not a "got to hand it to them" moment, bc Duffy deserves to have nothing handed to him.
But... I also agree with him here. I wish people dressed up more when they flew.
I'm sure this is snobby or classist or something bad.
But whatevs. Shlumpiness is a type of negative externality.
But... I also agree with him here. I wish people dressed up more when they flew.
I'm sure this is snobby or classist or something bad.
But whatevs. Shlumpiness is a type of negative externality.
I am quite confident that to the sadistic sadists who are our current senior federal officials, this is a hoped-for feature, the exact opposite of a bug.
ADX is inhuman and inhumane. As the article notes, even former wardens call it “worse than death.”
ADX is inhuman and inhumane. As the article notes, even former wardens call it “worse than death.”
November 24, 2025 at 8:06 PM
I am quite confident that to the sadistic sadists who are our current senior federal officials, this is a hoped-for feature, the exact opposite of a bug.
ADX is inhuman and inhumane. As the article notes, even former wardens call it “worse than death.”
ADX is inhuman and inhumane. As the article notes, even former wardens call it “worse than death.”
Just stopped by the Fordham Lincoln Center bookstore for the first time in a while, and it’s been wholly remodeled—to have zero books, just gear.
Clearly a casualty of Amazon.
But. Man.
I LOVED to wander the bookstore as an undergrad, see all the cool stuff OTHER courses were reading.
Clearly a casualty of Amazon.
But. Man.
I LOVED to wander the bookstore as an undergrad, see all the cool stuff OTHER courses were reading.
November 24, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Just stopped by the Fordham Lincoln Center bookstore for the first time in a while, and it’s been wholly remodeled—to have zero books, just gear.
Clearly a casualty of Amazon.
But. Man.
I LOVED to wander the bookstore as an undergrad, see all the cool stuff OTHER courses were reading.
Clearly a casualty of Amazon.
But. Man.
I LOVED to wander the bookstore as an undergrad, see all the cool stuff OTHER courses were reading.
Can I be honest? I can never keep straight whether tolling a clock starts or stops it.
I feel like it should mean it STARTS, bc it sounds like it means the bell is ringing to mark the start of something.
But also, I refuse to keep it straight bc “PAUSE” is right there. Use modern words, law.
I feel like it should mean it STARTS, bc it sounds like it means the bell is ringing to mark the start of something.
But also, I refuse to keep it straight bc “PAUSE” is right there. Use modern words, law.
November 24, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Can I be honest? I can never keep straight whether tolling a clock starts or stops it.
I feel like it should mean it STARTS, bc it sounds like it means the bell is ringing to mark the start of something.
But also, I refuse to keep it straight bc “PAUSE” is right there. Use modern words, law.
I feel like it should mean it STARTS, bc it sounds like it means the bell is ringing to mark the start of something.
But also, I refuse to keep it straight bc “PAUSE” is right there. Use modern words, law.
Therefore send not to know
For whom the statute of limitations tolls
It tolls for Comey.
Or maybe not. Who knows. It’s up to the 4th Circuit, whose existence is hard to shoehorn into a Donne poem.
For whom the statute of limitations tolls
It tolls for Comey.
Or maybe not. Who knows. It’s up to the 4th Circuit, whose existence is hard to shoehorn into a Donne poem.
Will the govt be able to bring a new indictment against Comey despite the statute of limitations having run?
Ordinarily yes, but Judge Currie argues no in this case, since Halligan's indictment was void from the start. This question will no doubt be litigated!
Ordinarily yes, but Judge Currie argues no in this case, since Halligan's indictment was void from the start. This question will no doubt be litigated!
![Footnote 21 in Judge Currie's opinion:
Generally, "It]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment." United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). "An invalid indictment," however, "cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed." United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. III. 1987) ("[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier dictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result." (emphasis in original)).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreidesxqgkrz3vqe22lwpu2e7ruic3ukgahanbo7bbwmq33gqdyb7fe@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Therefore send not to know
For whom the statute of limitations tolls
It tolls for Comey.
Or maybe not. Who knows. It’s up to the 4th Circuit, whose existence is hard to shoehorn into a Donne poem.
For whom the statute of limitations tolls
It tolls for Comey.
Or maybe not. Who knows. It’s up to the 4th Circuit, whose existence is hard to shoehorn into a Donne poem.
The oath is to follow the commander in chief, ACCORDING TO REGS AND THE UCMJ.
It's pretty terrifying how many GOPers are really leaning all-in on "follow the illegal orders!"
As this .mil Marines page says, the thrust of these oaths is to ensure NO ONE PERSON HAS TOO MUCH POWER.
It's pretty terrifying how many GOPers are really leaning all-in on "follow the illegal orders!"
As this .mil Marines page says, the thrust of these oaths is to ensure NO ONE PERSON HAS TOO MUCH POWER.
![Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vpkw7cvu6eu742hvjk5wsxf2/bafkreifktrr3bbyvgc7ipo3nzvmtpsj3rqi5pgxuio7nxm53juy6gysazu@jpeg)
![Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.
Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.”
Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.
Despite disobeying orders and even threatening to open fire on American troops, Thompson’s actions prevented further war crimes and defended the lives of noncombatants in Vietnam. This is the purpose behind the Oath of Office allowing for the disobedience to unlawful orders.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vpkw7cvu6eu742hvjk5wsxf2/bafkreid57hehwo7fmlm7adxi7wcnd62lcigbt6wymuhg6bfmuwnnky7rkm@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 6:25 PM
The oath is to follow the commander in chief, ACCORDING TO REGS AND THE UCMJ.
It's pretty terrifying how many GOPers are really leaning all-in on "follow the illegal orders!"
As this .mil Marines page says, the thrust of these oaths is to ensure NO ONE PERSON HAS TOO MUCH POWER.
It's pretty terrifying how many GOPers are really leaning all-in on "follow the illegal orders!"
As this .mil Marines page says, the thrust of these oaths is to ensure NO ONE PERSON HAS TOO MUCH POWER.
Sadly, not with prejudice, so the circus is going to keep on keeping on with this case, I fear.
Which is clearly not good for Comey. Harder to say for Trump.
Which is clearly not good for Comey. Harder to say for Trump.
A federal judge has dismissed the charges against former FBI director James Comey, ruling that the former Trump attorney who brought the charges was not legally serving as the U.S. attorney.
November 24, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Sadly, not with prejudice, so the circus is going to keep on keeping on with this case, I fear.
Which is clearly not good for Comey. Harder to say for Trump.
Which is clearly not good for Comey. Harder to say for Trump.
Tactically smart, sadly.
If Trump indicts Obama, if and when Trump gets indicted a media that cannot distinguish black from white or night from day will frame it as “Dems strike back in tit-for-tat move,” bc to distinguish pretty-squeaky-clean Obama from sewer-rat Trump wouldn’t be “objective.”
If Trump indicts Obama, if and when Trump gets indicted a media that cannot distinguish black from white or night from day will frame it as “Dems strike back in tit-for-tat move,” bc to distinguish pretty-squeaky-clean Obama from sewer-rat Trump wouldn’t be “objective.”
November 24, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Tactically smart, sadly.
If Trump indicts Obama, if and when Trump gets indicted a media that cannot distinguish black from white or night from day will frame it as “Dems strike back in tit-for-tat move,” bc to distinguish pretty-squeaky-clean Obama from sewer-rat Trump wouldn’t be “objective.”
If Trump indicts Obama, if and when Trump gets indicted a media that cannot distinguish black from white or night from day will frame it as “Dems strike back in tit-for-tat move,” bc to distinguish pretty-squeaky-clean Obama from sewer-rat Trump wouldn’t be “objective.”
Reposted by John Pfaff
Seeing how much of the right-wing on Twitter is just bot farms, kinda lays bare how much hate and hatred is a project that needs to be constantly maintained, a fire that needs to be fed all the time lest it go out for a moment, so much time, effort, and resources to keep people angry and hateful.
November 24, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Seeing how much of the right-wing on Twitter is just bot farms, kinda lays bare how much hate and hatred is a project that needs to be constantly maintained, a fire that needs to be fed all the time lest it go out for a moment, so much time, effort, and resources to keep people angry and hateful.
Is there publicly available data breaking down 1Ls by college major? I looked and could only find school-specific answers.
And to narrow things down, all I care abt is the percent of 1Ls with STEM majors.
Thanks for any suggestions!
And to narrow things down, all I care abt is the percent of 1Ls with STEM majors.
Thanks for any suggestions!
November 24, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Is there publicly available data breaking down 1Ls by college major? I looked and could only find school-specific answers.
And to narrow things down, all I care abt is the percent of 1Ls with STEM majors.
Thanks for any suggestions!
And to narrow things down, all I care abt is the percent of 1Ls with STEM majors.
Thanks for any suggestions!
Reposted by John Pfaff
If you’re a journalist who’s still on Twitter, from now on in your writing you have to replace “the American people want” with “troll bots in Eastern Europe demand”
Being there makes your judgment suspect. I don’t care how savvy you think you are, you’re marinating in a disinformation campaign.
Being there makes your judgment suspect. I don’t care how savvy you think you are, you’re marinating in a disinformation campaign.
November 23, 2025 at 4:27 PM
If you’re a journalist who’s still on Twitter, from now on in your writing you have to replace “the American people want” with “troll bots in Eastern Europe demand”
Being there makes your judgment suspect. I don’t care how savvy you think you are, you’re marinating in a disinformation campaign.
Being there makes your judgment suspect. I don’t care how savvy you think you are, you’re marinating in a disinformation campaign.
OMFG.
Musk is a such a disaster he’s forcing me to favorably cite Foucault.
Spectacular punishments like hanging often go alongside really low arrest rates. (Foucault argues one offsets the other: spectacle to hide incompetence.)
So on its own horrific preposterous terms, the arg fails.
Musk is a such a disaster he’s forcing me to favorably cite Foucault.
Spectacular punishments like hanging often go alongside really low arrest rates. (Foucault argues one offsets the other: spectacle to hide incompetence.)
So on its own horrific preposterous terms, the arg fails.
November 24, 2025 at 5:59 AM
OMFG.
Musk is a such a disaster he’s forcing me to favorably cite Foucault.
Spectacular punishments like hanging often go alongside really low arrest rates. (Foucault argues one offsets the other: spectacle to hide incompetence.)
So on its own horrific preposterous terms, the arg fails.
Musk is a such a disaster he’s forcing me to favorably cite Foucault.
Spectacular punishments like hanging often go alongside really low arrest rates. (Foucault argues one offsets the other: spectacle to hide incompetence.)
So on its own horrific preposterous terms, the arg fails.
I have been rereading the 2009 NRC report on forensics tonight, which notes that handwriting analysis is generally pretty much bunk.
But that "pretty much" matters. Because this seems like a pretty easy case to make here.
But that "pretty much" matters. Because this seems like a pretty easy case to make here.
Wanna know how bad the Arizona legislator's petition forgeries were? Here's the examples from the Austin Smith indictment.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
November 24, 2025 at 5:04 AM
I have been rereading the 2009 NRC report on forensics tonight, which notes that handwriting analysis is generally pretty much bunk.
But that "pretty much" matters. Because this seems like a pretty easy case to make here.
But that "pretty much" matters. Because this seems like a pretty easy case to make here.
Reposted by John Pfaff
Also, this seems ... completely NON-ironic, right?
Wouldn't a bench that tends to favor the DA in crim cases also favor the defense in civil cases, esp those involving complex scientific evidence?
In both cases, the judges are supporting the more powerful over the less.
Wouldn't a bench that tends to favor the DA in crim cases also favor the defense in civil cases, esp those involving complex scientific evidence?
In both cases, the judges are supporting the more powerful over the less.
November 24, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Also, this seems ... completely NON-ironic, right?
Wouldn't a bench that tends to favor the DA in crim cases also favor the defense in civil cases, esp those involving complex scientific evidence?
In both cases, the judges are supporting the more powerful over the less.
Wouldn't a bench that tends to favor the DA in crim cases also favor the defense in civil cases, esp those involving complex scientific evidence?
In both cases, the judges are supporting the more powerful over the less.
Reposted by John Pfaff
Also, I'm no fan of Daubert (I'm glad Rehnquist trusts judges to filter scientific wheat from chaff, but ... I am less sanguine), but I also think I dislike Frye far far FAR more.
Such a clear moral hazard problem: no sci community will admit their stuff is bunk!
Such a clear moral hazard problem: no sci community will admit their stuff is bunk!
November 24, 2025 at 4:14 AM
Also, I'm no fan of Daubert (I'm glad Rehnquist trusts judges to filter scientific wheat from chaff, but ... I am less sanguine), but I also think I dislike Frye far far FAR more.
Such a clear moral hazard problem: no sci community will admit their stuff is bunk!
Such a clear moral hazard problem: no sci community will admit their stuff is bunk!