This morning, for example, we learned that “things [were] getting a little out of order” in the jury room last night, and the jurors continue to correspond with the judge seeking clarifications on points of law or, at least, a legal dictionary. (Don’t worry, the judge nixed THAT idea.) What do you think — does this bode well for the prosecution or the defense?

I am, of course, referring to Judge Joseph A. Wapner - aka Judge Wapner of “The People’s Court” - who turned 90 on Sunday (although you couldn’t tell it from the photos). To celebrate, he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and returned to television to preside over one more case in “The People’s Court.”

You can watch Wapner’s cameo here and here. Yes, the music remains the same, and yes, Judge Wapner nails it, as always.

Somewhere, Raymond Babbitt is smiling.

Since I can find a law angle to almost anything, I’ll tell you that there was a funny warning label attached to my fruit. It told me, first off, that the arrangement was made with skewers. No kidding! So that’s what those pointy things sticking out of the fruit were.

Then the label told me to “[c]arefully remove fruit with utensil and dispose of fruit skewers immediately.” As opposed to just chomping away with the skewers still attached? But that eliminates all the extra fiber!

Also, “adult supervision [is] required” when children are around the container the arrangement came in. I can’t think of what horrible, deadly thing kids could do with an empty basket, but maybe that’s a failure of imagination on my part.

Finally, the arrangement can only be safely transported in the trunk of the car. “Never allow a passenger to hold arrangement while vehicle is in motion,” I was cautioned. Of course, that’s exactly what most people are going to do, since if it goes in the trunk it might roll around — and horrors, maybe even dislodge one of those lethal skewers!

I cringe to think of the Edible Arrangements-related injuries that must have prompted these over-the-top legal warnings.

• Gregory Kane weighs in on alleged child-killer Dante Parrish, whom the Maryland Innocence Project helped free last year in an unrelated case. In other Parrish news, Peter Hermann’s a got a letter from the teacher of Parrish’s alleged victim. (HT on the letter: Baltimore Crime.)
• John Allen Muhammad’s stand-by lawyer, Baltimore’s J. Wyndal Gordon will write a book about the case.
• Is the Obama administration taking its time on judicial nominees?
• The Lakota Sioux are suing to get authorities to prosecute the guy whose sweat lodge self-help ceremony allegedly killed three people.
• I don’t know, I sorta like this law firm ad.

In American Original, Biskupic explains how Scalia’s constitutional jurisprudence — his focus on original intent and presidential power — has parallels in his strong Catholic faith and roots in his pre-judicial career as an attorney in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Biskupic, who has reported on the Supreme Court for 20 years, deftly examines how Scalia’s sarcastic and caustic attacks in dissenting opinions have at times alienated his colleagues. In a chapter titled “Showman on the Bench” Biskupic discusses how Scalia’s hyperactive participation in oral arguments has been entertaining but often galling for the attorneys presenting their cases and for his fellow justices trying to ask their own questions.

Throughout the 364 pages, Biskupic, like Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize winning presidential historian, includes revealing personal and professional anecdotes about her subject. These include the time students protested Scalia’s appearance at a college — to attend the graduation of one of his nine children — and his disappointment at being passed over in 1981 for solicitor general under President Reagan (five years later, he landed a more prestigious position, with greater job security).

The book — subtitled The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and released this month — is the second biography by Biskupic, USA Today’s Supreme Court reporter. She also wrote the critically acclaimed Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice, published in 2005.

Yes, our long local nightmare has ended: The Perring Place Express Deli is officially open!

I’ll try to provide a restaurant review soon; in the meantime, anyone who has eaten there already can provide feedback below for your fellow Towson lunchgoers.

Is your job making you miserable? Fabulous!

As Above the Law points out, a new study indicates that having a negative outlook “makes people less gullible, improves their ability to judge others and also boosts memory” — all helpful qualities for the successful lawyer. Cranky-pantses are also better at “stating their case through written arguments.”

I don’t know that I’d go as far as ATL did with its headline, “Depression Makes You a Better Lawyer.” The article on the study doesn’t mention depression, which is a different animal than just being sad and probably makes you a lot worse at your job.

Still, isn’t it good to know that all that unhappiness and dissatisfaction might actually make you a better attorney? And that will increase your workload, which will in turn increase your tsuris, which will make you unhappier, which will make you even more amazing at your job.

Wait, wait: so being sad makes you less gullible, better at sizing up other people, and a more persuasive writer? Hm, I wonder what other type of professionals could benefit from those qualities.

I think I’m going to go watch The Notebook and have a good cry. Pulitzer Committee, watch out.

The Slate story provided links to the Web site of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which posted the final meals requested by offenders until 2004, and continues to post their final statements.  Psalm 23 appeared to be a popular choice judging by a random sample. (Muhammad “ignored a request” to make a final statement, according to news reports.)

The Texas sites are eerie and chilling. Delbert Teague Jr., for example, was executed in 1998 for murdering a Fort Worth man in 1985. He did not request a final meal, but at the “last minute he decided to eat a hamburger at his mother’s request,” according to records. His last statement was as follows:

I have come here today to die, not make speeches. Today is a good day for dying.

Est Sularus Oth Mithas (My Honor Is My Life).

As someone commented on the Slate story, “there is something disgustingly voyeuristic about it all.”

(Yes, I know, it was only yesterday you were a kid watching it, where did the time go, etc. etc.)

Big Bird and friends have taught generations of children how to count, share, play nice with others, and, perhaps most importantly, why you gotta put down the duckie if you wanna play the saxophone.

I tried to see if I could connect Sesame Street with with the law, and I’m not talking about any kind of hidden meaning in Bert and Ernie’s friendship. Turns out the show did it for me, as the following clip clearly demonstrates:

(And, just to save you the trouble of searching, please enjoy “Put Down the Duckie.”)

Happy Monday!

• The cigarette makers don’t have to keep paying tobacco growers in Maryland.
• John Bratt’s technique would save those who confuse Alito and Scalia on the bench.
• The Supreme Court’s opposition to cameras in the courtroom doesn’t carry a lot of weight when the justices are on TV so much, argues Arlen Specter.
• The 250 biggest law firms in the country suffered the worst headcount decline this year since the National Law Journal began tracking those numbers.
• How will the accused Fort Hood gunman be prosecuted?