Three years ago, the Food and Drug Administration said it would regulate e-cigarettes.

Although it took longer than expected, the FDA kept its promise.

While certain states and cities across the country have already taken steps to ban the increasingly popular battery-powered devices, the FDA proposed restrictions for the first time Thursday.

Similar to the way it currently regulates traditional cigarettes, the FDA is planning to take the following steps against their electronic counterparts:

• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.
• Prohibiting the distribution of free samples.
• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes in vending machines – unless the vending machines are located in places where young people aren’t admitted.
• Requiring e-cigarettes to include warning labels, making it clear they contain the addictive chemical nicotine.
• Requiring e-cigarette companies to publicly disclose their products’ ingredients.

Additionally, the proposal would require FDA approval before any new e-cigarettes can be sold. Current products would have to “provide a justification for remaining on the market.”

Despite the urging of many tobacco critics, the FDA’s regulations fall short of broader restrictions. No action will be taken regarding online sale of e-cigarettes, TV advertisements, and the use of various flavorings and sweeteners – all deemed by critics as a way of attracting young smokers.

Pegged as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, e-cigarettes are marketed as a way to not only draw people away from traditional cigarettes but also as a means of helping smokers kick the habit completely.

While it’s generally accepted that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes, many point to the lack of substantial research into possible health risks as a serious concern.

“Right now, for something like e-cigarettes, there are far more questions than answers,” Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, told NPR.

One of the most pressing questions is how safe are electronic cigarettes really? One FDA study found that e-cigarettes “potentially release carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” Further research is needed to confirm the FDA’s findings, but supporters of e-cigarettes point to the fact that electronic cigarettes, unlike traditional cigarettes, do not emit tar, carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyanide.

Still, the main concern is that the e-cigarette industry has been rapidly evolving without any form of regulation. According to Zeller, the goal of the proposed restrictions is to “create a framework.” “We’re calling this the first step,” he said and continued that “for the first time, there will be a science-based, independent regulatory agency playing a vital gate-keeping function.”

As Zeller puts it, the proposal puts the FDA in “a position to ensure that the products are as safe as they could possibly be.”

Safety, as it turns out, is one area where the FDA and e-cigarette industry have found common ground.

“We are extremely relieved that all e-cigarette companies will be regulated, and forced to achieve and maintain the same high standards that Vapor Corp., and several of our responsible competitors, have been imposing on ourselves for years,” said Jeffrey Holman, president and director of Vapor Corp, in an interview with NPR.

Other players in the industry patted the FDA on the back as well, commending the agency for committing to a science-based regulatory process.

“What they did today was very encouraging. […] We’ve already done many things to prepare ourselves and act responsibly,” Miguel Martin, president of the e-cigarette company Logic Technology Development, told The Washington Post. He went further to say that “at least speaking for my company, this will not be the tobacco wars of the 80s and 90s.”

Despite a largely positive reception, there are those – on both sides of this issue – who are not happy with the FDA’s new proposal.

“This is worse than I expected,” said American Vaping Association board member Greg Conley in an interview with the Post. Conley said he agreed with the age restrictions but had hoped existing products would be grandfathered in. Instead, existing e-cigarette companies will have to file applications for their products to remain on the market. “A lot of these companies, they are supporting several employees, investing any profits back into their business. They can’t afford this, and it’s going to lead to a whole lot of consolidation and increased prices for consumers,” he said.

Some public health advocates, while accepting of the proposed regulations, are upset the FDA was not more aggressive when e-cigarettes first hit the shelves.

Matthew Myer, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says the FDA’s action is long overdue. “It is inexcusable that it has taken the FDA and the administration so long to act,” Myers told NPR, and “this delay has had serious health consequences as these unregulated tobacco products have been marketed using tactics and sweet flavors that appeal to kids.”

As far as immediate change goes, don’t expect anything too soon. Before the new regulations can be made official, there will be a 75 day period where the public will be able to comment on the FDA’s proposal. Once the restrictions are finalized, e-cigarette companies will be required to comply with the age and ID restrictions almost immediately. Although their products will be able to stay on the shelves, companies will have to submit applications for approval of their products within two years.

[NPR] [The Washington Post] [USA Today]

—

Matt DiCenso

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Dorausch via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Regulations: The Future of E-Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

What do income tax, credit card fees, salaries, and cars have in common?

They’re all negotiable, of course.

As a quick Google search will show you, there are lists on top of lists of things that can and should be negotiated – because who doesn’t like to haggle? Whether it’s furniture, jewelry, bulk purchases,  phone, TV, or Internet service, it’s clear that a “nothing is set in stone” mindset is applicable to, well, pretty much anything.

And anything, believe it or not, includes law school scholarships. While it’s no secret that law school is expensive, the fact that scholarships are negotiable doesn’t seem to be on most people’s radar.

Tuition may have been set in stone in years past, but over the last five years, law schools have become more open to haggling over money. That’s not to say students have never tried to negotiate price tags with law schools. Rather, it seems law schools are simply listening to student pleas now more than ever. Why you might ask? After the recession of 2009-2010, law school application rates have fallen, as many would-be law students have decided to opt out of a legal education due to hiring cutbacks.

Many law schools have resorted to new methods in an attempt to attract students and fill seats. Negotiating scholarships, along with tuition adjustments and accepting applications long after the official deadline, is one such tactic.

So, you were accepted into law school and received scholarship money. Congrats. But what’s next?

Scholarship negotiation is relatively simple. While it may be annoying to draft and send out all the emails, the juice is worth the squeeze, as they say. It’s best to wait until you’ve heard back from all the schools you’ve applied to – or at least all the ones you’re seriously considering – before starting the process. Once you’ve secured at least one scholarship, make a list of other schools you’ve been admitted to that are comparable in ranking and region. It’s important to be realistic – leveraging a top-tier school with a scholarship offer from a bottom-tier school probably won’t work. If the schools are in the same league though, you have a much better chance of success.

Now that you have your list of schools you’d like to haggle with, start drafting emails. Don’t rule out schools that haven’t offered you any money. This process can be effective in increasing scholarship offers as well as generating them. Although it’s not essential, it helps to make a phone call to the admissions office before sending out any emails. That way, the office will be at least familiar with who you are and your situation. Typically, the admissions staffer you speak to will not only tell you who to email, but will also provide some guidance regarding what exactly to say.

Once your foot is in the door with the admissions office, send out your emails. There are some good  templates and sample letters available, but the general idea is to be confident and assertive, all while remaining professional and polite. While LawSchoolAdvice will provide you with some very detailed instructions, here are the fundamentals of a solid negotiation email:

Dear Admissions Office (emailing a specific person is preferable),

Tell them you are an admitted student and give some basic information about yourself (Name, year in school, college you currently attend…). Say how thrilled you are to have been accepted and that this school is your first choice, even if that’s not entirely true. Tell them why you are writing – either to be considered for a scholarship or to have an existing scholarship offer increased.

List other scholarship offers you’ve received, if any. Also list the names of comparable schools you’ve been admitted to, even if no money has come your way yet. Some schools will ask that you send them your other scholarship offers as email attachments.

Write a little blurb about why this school is the right fit for you – whether it’s location, prestige, or job opportunities. Be careful here, you don’t want too much fluff – make your point and move on. Finish this section by giving the admissions committee a candid look at your decision making process. With law school as expensive as it is, you cannot simply ignore other offers from peer schools – even if this particular school is your top choice. 

Conclude by making it clear that finances are the only factor preventing you from accepting their offer of admission. Ultimately, you need to choose a school that makes sense not only personally but financially as well. 

Thank the admissions committee for their time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Prospective Law Student

You should hear back in a week or so from someone at the admissions office. Most likely they won’t offer you money right away – they’ll probably tell you that your application is being considered and that the review process is underway. Sure, some schools will flat out shut you down, but most will, at the very least, make a note on your application – and that can be the difference between being passed over and being awarded money.

Once you’ve sent your initial email and started a dialogue with the admissions office, sit back and wait. If you receive any subsequent scholarship offers, it’s worth it to let schools know. If it’s getting close to the day your deposit is due, send one last email – regardless of whether or not you’ve heard back – inquiring if what you’ve been awarded is the school’s final offer.

In the end, there’s no guarantee that negotiating scholarships will work for you, even if it has worked for other students in the past. But given the relative ease of the negotiating process, there’s really no downside to trying. After all, who wouldn’t want free money?

—

Matt DiCenso  (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [2bgr8 via Wikimedia]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Art of Negotiating Law School Scholarships appeared first on Law Street.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”

Only in Nevada…

Yes, those are the actual words of Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, addressing a twenty year range war between a Nevada rancher and the federal government.

For two decades, Cliven Bundy, a 67-year-old rancher, has been embroiled in a battle with the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of the Interior that administers public lands.

The longstanding dispute reached its boiling point last week when the BLM seized nearly 400 of Bundy’s cows, alleging the animals were “trespassing” on federal land. Following the BLM roundup, hundreds of Nevadans showed up to protest the actions of the federal agency, claiming the BLM had overstepped its boundaries and infringed upon states’ rights. Looking much more like an armed rebellion, many protesters carried handguns and rifles and all shared Bundy’s sentiment that “this is a lot bigger deal than just my cows.”

The Conflict

While the fight between Bundy and the BLM has become a full-blown debate over states’ rights, it essentially boils down to a dispute over ownership: federal vs. state. Bundy, along with hundreds of fellow Nevadans who demanded the release of his cattle, believe the land in question, a 600,000-acre area near the Utah border known as Gold Butte, belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management, on the other hand, assumed control of the land as part of a conservation effort in 1993 and has sought to maintain order ever since.

Cliven Bundy’s Case

When the BLM took control of Gold Butte and other federal lands back in 1993, it wasn’t to stick it to Cliven Bundy and other ranchers who had used the land for decades. Rather, the BLM claimed the seizure was an attempt to save the desert tortoise, an endangered species that was given the status of “threatened” in 1990. According to the Washington Post, the conservation measures included “the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat.”

Not convinced by the conservation effort, Bundy accused the government of “land grabbing” and was not willing to relinquish his grazing privileges for another wildlife preserve. Fast forward to 2014 and the situation hasn’t changed much. Despite numerous lawsuits, court orders, and even violence between the BLM and ranchers – bombs were “anonymously” sent to land management offices in 1995 and 1996 –Bundy has consistently refused to remove his cows from the land.

A descendent of Mormons who settled in the area more than 140 years ago, Bundy claims he holds an “inherent right” to graze the land. He simply refuses to recognize federal authority on land he believes belongs to the state of Nevada. Although Bundy has agreed to pay any fees he owes, he will only fork over his money to Clark County, Nevada – not the BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management’s Case

Despite the skepticism of Bundy and other’s regarding the federal agency’s motive for seizing the land, the BLM has stuck to its story of conservation. For Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze, the issue is black and white: Bundy has been repeatedly breaking the law.

“This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public-lands ranchers do every year,” Kornze told CBS News. “After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially,” he continued.

After he refused to comply with BLM restrictions, the Bureau revoked Bundy’s permit in 1993 and have fined him countless times for grazing on federally protected land. Despite this, Bundy has never applied for a new permit nor has he paid any fines.

In 1998, a federal judge in Las Vegas ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle from Gold Butte. After attempts to settle outside of court in 2013, the BLM implemented two federal court orders to remove Bundy’s cattle.

Current Status

Citing “serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Kornze called off the roundup of Bundy’s cattle this past Sunday, releasing the 400 cows that were gathered.

While the question of whether Bundy is a law-breaking rancher or a champion of states’ rights remains up for debate, the conflict has paused for the time being.

Still, both sides recognize that they remain very much at odds. Those on Bundy’s side claim the fight has only just begun, and the BLM released a statement saying “the door isn’t closed” and that they would “figure out how to move forward with this.” That being said, the BLM’s decision to back down – and effectively allow Bundy and his followers to win the heated standoff – could prove to set a dangerous precedent for the future.

The situation in Nevada has even captured the attention of members of the U.S. Senate. While Nevada Senator Dean Heller calls the BLM’s  tactics “heavy handed,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that the actions of Bundy and other ranchers will not go unpunished. “It’s not over,” Reid said. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

[Fox News] [CBS News] [Washington Post]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle of the Butte: Rancher Takes on the Federal Gov’t appeared first on Law Street.

Four days.

For most law schools, April 15^th is the assigned date for matriculating law students to fork over their first deposit. Still unsure of where I was going to end up, I hopped on a bus last weekend and visited each of the schools I was considering. For anyone who’s still on the fence about which law school is right, a visit, albeit last minute, is definitely worth the time, money, and hours of discomfort on a discount bus.

Why are law school visits worth the trip?

When I showed up at the admissions office of the first law school on my list, I was greeted by a friendly second year law student. She was overjoyed – over the past few months she had arrived to give tours and today was the first day any prospective students had actually shown up. Not a great sign, I thought. Barely able to contain her excitement, the perky tour guide led us out of the double doors and towards our first stop.

I should preface any advice I give with this: I’ve never been a big fan of tours in general, whether it’s law school or college. While I do think they have their value, I’m probably not going to pick a school based on the look of their classrooms or administrative offices. That being said, here are 7 tips for when you’re strolling through the halls of what could be your future alma mater.

1. Don’t expect to be blown away by a law school’s facilities or campus. That’s not to say law schools are decrepit – most are very nice. But don’t go in with the expectation of a beautiful sprawling campus with a quad and a football field. Compared to the majority of college campuses, law schools are tiny. More often than not, the entire school will be made up of about 4-5 buildings. If you’re like me and aren’t very fond of tours, fear not. Due to the small size of both the schools themselves and the actual tour groups, tours usually don’t last more than a half hour. Most likely, you’re not going to step foot on a law school’s campus and get that “this is the place I need to be” feeling.

2. Plan your visit during an “Accepted Students Day.” Not so much for the speeches by faculty and staff, but for the opportunity to talk with current students. Also, during most ASDs, schools will offer admitted students the opportunity to sit in on a live class. While class sit-ins tend to be pretty standard across the board, this experience will at the very least give you a feel for a real law school class.

3. Go for a stroll. Approach some law students around campus – you’ll be able to recognize them by the 4-inch thick red and black books they’re buried in. Sure, it’s awkward. But talking to actual students outside of an official school function can give you a genuine sense of law school life. And although some will act like you don’t exist, most are at least willing to talk to you for a few minutes.

4. Make an appointment to speak to someone in the admissions office and financial aid office. Some schools consolidate these departments into one office, others don’t. If appointments aren’t available, at least stop in and introduce yourself. From my own personal experience, the people working in these offices are very friendly. They recognize that law school is an investment – a big one – and more often than not they’re willing to speak with you. When you do introduce yourself, be charming. After all, these are the people who have a say in the allocation of funds, whether it be merit money or financial aid. First impressions are always important, and a face-to-face conversation with someone can, at the very least, give a face – hopefully a smiling one – to your application.

5. If you received a scholarship to law school, congrats – it’s not an easy thing to do. Be proud of your scholarship, but don’t simply accept a school’s initial offer. You probably just raised your eyebrows, and that’s understandable. When I first learned about negotiating scholarships, I was apprehensive too. But after sending out some emails, I’m convinced that it really does work. If a school has awarded you a scholarship, it’s clear they’re under the impression that you’d be a valuable addition to their institution. And they’re right – believing that you’re in demand is the first step. The second step is grabbing your laptop and launching your email.

6. Next, ask for more money – respectfully, of course. If you’re unsure of how to do this, do a quick Google search. You’ll find information, and even some sample letters, that can guide you through the process. If you’ve received scholarships from other schools besides the one you’re writing to, mention that. Law schools take offers from other schools, especially peer schools, very seriously. After all, if you choose School A over School B, School B is losing out on some serious cash. It’s best, if possible, to send out these emails before you visit schools in person. That way, the admissions office will already be familiar with your situation. Additionally, following up an email with an in-person visit shows the school you’re serious about attending. In the end, my best advice would be to leave your pride at the door when dealing with admissions or financial aid. Don’t be afraid to grovel. I’m not saying you have to get down on your knees and beg for more money, but I’ve learned firsthand that being politely persistent can go a long way.

7. Book a hotel room near the law school you’re visiting. If you’re like me and are doing visits last minute, this might not be possible. But if the option is there, stay in a hotel and experience the nightlife of the surrounding town or city, wherever it may be. After all, everyone needs a break from the library at some point.

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Tips for a Successful Law School Visit appeared first on Law Street.

As the old adage goes, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” But for Robert H. Richards IV, heir to the fortune of a chemical company called Du Pont, this age-old rule doesn’t seem to apply.

Back in 2009, Roberts was charged with fourth-degree rape after violating his 3-year-old daughter. He now faces a subsequent lawsuit filed by his wife, who claims he sexually abused his son as well.

Brought to light by this new trial, the details of Richard’s first trial are, to say the very least, troublesome.

Although Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, which carry a mandatory 10-year jail sentence per count, he was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth degree rape charges – and no mandatory jail time.

Instead of placing him behind bars, Judge Jan Jurden ordered Richards to attend a sex offender’s rehabilitation center, claiming he would “not fare well” in prison.

When I first came across this story, I had to read over that quote twice. Was I missing something? What does that even mean? Last time I checked, prison isn’t typically a place where any person “fares well” – that’s kind of the point. It’s a place where people go to be punished.

In an interview with The News Journal, Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill said what we are all thinking:  it’s “extremely rare” for an individual to fare well in prison. “Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn’t proven to be true in most circumstances,” he said.

According to O’Neill, while lawyers will often argue that a defendant is too ill or frail for prison, he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”

Even if Judge Jurden’s rationale was based on this ill and frail scale, her ruling would still be flawed. At 47 years of age and roughly 250 pounds, Richards certainly isn’t frail. Although it’s clear that anyone who would violate their own child is sick, court records make no mention of physical illnesses.

So why did Richards get away with such a light sentence? Myself, O’Neill, and many other criminal justice authorities in Delaware believe the answer is simple – he, or rather his family, has money.

While one side of Richard’s family built a chemical empire, the other side co-founded the law firm Richards, Layton and Finger, one of the most prominent corporate law firms in Delaware. Needless to say, Richard’s family clearly has influence in the area.

And as for Judge Jurden, she isn’t exactly known as a softy. According to The News Journal, “the fact that Jurden expressed concern that prison wasn’t right for Richards came as a surprise to defense lawyers and prosecutors who consider her a tough sentencing judge.” Jurden’s decision on treatment rather than prison raises even more questions. The “treatment instead of prison” rationale is characteristically used in the sentencing of drug addicts, not child rapists. Additionally, if Jurden was worried about Richard’s safety once in prison – those who abuse children are sometimes targeted by other inmates – protective custody could have easily been arranged.

Looking at the all facts, it’s difficult to see a reason, besides money and family influence, why Richards isn’t behind bars. After all, this wouldn’t be the first time money has appeared to influence a judge’s ruling. In February 2014, Ethan Couch, a boy who drove drunk and killed four people, was sent to rehab rather than prison. The case made headlines after a witness claimed Couch was a victim to “affluenza,” or as CNN puts it: “the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.” Although the presiding judge claimed the affluenza defense did not influence her decision, many suspected that had the boy’s financial situation been different, there would have been a very different outcome.

When it comes down to it, it appears as though this is yet another example of the longstanding notion that money and a good lawyer can manipulate the justice system. If Richards hadn’t been a trust fund baby and wasn’t so well-connected, I have a very hard time believing he would have been able to score the deal he did – or pay his $60,000 bail. Amid all these questions, we’re left with just one. If the law doesn’t apply to those with money and a top-notch lawyer, is the system broken? My answer: unequivocally, yes.

[Detroit Free Press] [Huffington Post] [CNN] [Detroit Free Press]

—

Matt DiCenso

Feature Image Courtesy of [Victor via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post News Flash: No One Fares Well in Prison appeared first on Law Street.

For anyone going to law school in the fall, that April 15 matriculation date is quickly approaching. As a senior in my last month of college, my workload is starting to thin. Instead of worrying about papers and exams, most of my time is spent trying to figure out where I want to study law for the next three years.

Before I even applied to law school back in January, one of the first things I did, like most people, was check the rankings. Earlier this month, U.S. News and World Report released their 2015 Best Law Schools rankings. At first glance, the new rankings maintain the status quo. The top 20 schools remain largely unchanged, with giants Yale, Harvard, and Stanford leading the pack. As you scroll down the list of prestigious schools, you’ll notice several ties. Columbia University and University of Chicago share the number four spot, while both UCLA and Vanderbilt occupy slot 16.

Anyone can view the schools’ rankings, tuition, and enrollment numbers; however, if you want to see any of the really useful data (LSAT scores; GPAs by percentile; acceptance and bar passage rates; percentage of students employed immediately and nine months after graduation; and peer and professional assessment scores) you’ll have to spring for the $30 annual membership.

Granted, these overall rankings certainly provide some valuable information. But you’d be crazy to base your decision solely on numbers. Here are five important factors, besides just rankings, to consider when choosing which law school is right for you.

1. Reputation both regionally and nationally

Rankings are only a piece of the puzzle, albeit a substantial one, when it comes to a school’s reputation. Another factor to consider is a school’s reputation on both a regional and national level. If you attend a law school in Boston, for example, odds are employers along the East Coast will  not only be familiar with your alma mater but more importantly will respect it. Conversely, a law degree from a Boston area school might not have the same clout in, say, California. While this isn’t as big a deal for those who plan to attend a top-20 law school, it’s definitely something to consider.

2. What type of law you want to practice

Talking to both peers and parents about where to go to law school, this is probably the most common question I have been asked. For someone like me, who’s not quite sure what type of law he’ll pursue, this question can be frustrating. Similar to when relatives ask you what you plan to do with your life after only one semester at college, this inquisition can leave you feeling lost, confused, and annoyed. While it’s impossible to know exactly how your career will unfold, it’s not unreasonable to have a game plan, or at least a tentative one. If you love the environment and want to change the way it’s treated, consider schools that boast strong environmental law programs. One reason not to rely solely on overall rankings is because they provide just what their name suggests – an overall rank. Take the time to do the research – a school may be ranked 80^th overall but might have the third best environmental law program in the country. For those of you, like me, with little to no idea where your law degree will take you, don’t fret. In your first year of law school there’s little room, if any, for electives. Your first year will focus more on the fundamentals – the meat and potatoes, as they say.

3. Where you want to practice

This is the second most common question I’ve been asked. While I may not know exactly what I want to do, I do have a general idea of where I see myself living and working. I mean this in both a geographical and organizational sense – both the location of where you want to work and the type of company or firm you want to work for. If you want to live and practice in New York City, go to school in the big apple. If you want to live and practice in New York and work in “Biglaw,” then a New York school is an even better fit. If you see yourself working for a smaller firm in a less competitive market, a top-tier school might not be the right place for you. To reiterate my first point, always consider reputation – both regionally and nationally.

4. Where you want to live for three years

Law school is tough, no one is denying that. During your three years as a law student, you’ll undoubtedly spend a large portion of your time in the library. But eventually you’ll leave the library and, hopefully, have some semblance of a social life. If nightlife is important to you, a school in Boston, Chicago, or New York might be a good fit. If you absolutely abhor the cold, a school in Florida or California may be the best match. I realize that yes, you are first and foremost a dedicated law student. But after an exam or a marathon library session, you’re going to need to blow off some steam. Whether your idea of a break is a bar or a beach, go to a school where you will be able to enjoy yourself outside of class.

5. How you’re going to pay for your education

Scanning tuition prices, paying for law school can seem daunting – and that’s because it is. Like your undergraduate education, law school is a big investment. But unlike colleges and universities, law schools are sometimes stingy with merit money or financial aid. Without a full ride, a sizable scholarship, or a hefty financial aid package, paying for a $45,000-a-year education can look pretty bleak. Many law students inevitably graduate up to the their necks in debt, but the hope is that you’ll have worked hard enough to secure a job with a salary that will make paying off loans bearable. In an ideal world, money shouldn’t deter students from attending their dream schools. In reality though, educational debt can’t be ignored. Most law schools have similar price tags, but here are some things to consider:

• Schools located in major cities will cost more, with regard to both tuition and living expenses.
• Keep in mind that many law schools offer an in-state tuition discount. Decide if the state school where you live is the best fit for you, and if it isn’t then figure out the eligibility requirements where you do want to go.
• If money is very tight, attending law school part time might be a better fit. The more flexible class schedule allows you to work while you’re in school.
• If you’re dead set on being a full-time student, be sure to apply for financial aid and scholarships – though most law schools automatically consider every applicant for merit money.
• Research different types of loans – many law schools offer low-interest loans through the university itself.
• In the end though, the best way to pay for law school is to build as strong an application as possible. A high GPA and LSAT score will not only get you into a good school, but will provide you with the best possible chance at receiving a scholarship.

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rankings Aren’t Enough: 5 Important Factors to Choose the Right Law School appeared first on Law Street.

When news of a deal between Netflix and Comcast initially broke, I was stuck clicking the refresh button, waiting impatiently for – ironically enough – my Comcast Internet service to return after a 3-hour hiatus.

While I had the misfortune of having to deal with slow to nonexistent Internet service, that will no longer be the case for Comcast subscribers streaming movies and TV shows from Netflix.

Addressing recent reports of declining streaming quality and performance, Netflix, whose content makes up 32 percent of evening Internet traffic in North America, has agreed to pay Comcast, the nation’s largest Internet provider, for direct access to its systems. Although specific terms of the deal were not disclosed, Netflix is essentially paying the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to ensure faster streaming.

In previous years, Cogent, a multinational third party content distributor, played the role of middle-man between Comcast and Netflix. With this new deal, Cogent has been removed from the equation, effectively simplifying the digital route from Netflix’s servers to our laptop screens and allowing for faster and higher quality streaming of popular shows like House of Cards.

Although Netflix has called the agreement “mutually beneficial,” there has been controversy regarding potential implications of such a deal.

One concern, according to Elise Hu of NPR, is that “paying for access could become a norm that could stifle opportunities for startup Internet services.” While more established companies could probably afford to pay access fees, such an environment could be prohibitive to newer businesses looking to make a name for themselves.

“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee,” Michael Weinberg, vice president of the digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, told USA Today. “The Internet service provider is injecting itself into the relationship between Netflix and its customers,” he added.

While some believe this deal is yet another example of the insatiable greed of corporate giants like Comcast, others suggest intentions are far less sinister.

Mashable writer Lance Ulanoff insists the Comcast-Netflix deal is just business as usual. According to Ulanoff, the deal is far from the first of its kind. “Comcast has an entire business devoted to ‘wholesale dedicated IP transit,’ which means it will sell this kind of access to anyone that wants to purchase it,” he said. “Netflix’s deal with Comcast is simply the first completed one we’ve heard about. Verizon and T-Mobile are also working on similar non-transit or interconnect deals. It’s standard operating procedure, but not one that consumers know much about, which is one of the reasons there’s so much confusion,” he continued.

As Ulanoff points outs, direct access to Comcast’s systems is not exclusively available to Netflix. Any business can purchase it – for the right price, of course. In fact, Ulanoff suggests other companies are likely already following suit and buying direct access to Comcast’s networks. If so, then why haven’t we heard of any more deals? Ulanoff says such deals are seldom publicized; the deal with Netflix seems to be a rare exception. Although faster Comcast service is, in theory, fair game for all, the scales are clearly tipping against less established companies who simply cannot afford the price tag.

The Comcast-Netflix deal comes only a few months after the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Verizon, which owns Comcast, and effectively struck down the FCC’s net-neutrality rules. In essence, net-neutrality regulations “would have required Internet service providers to treat all online traffic equally, rather than giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service.”

With net-neutrality defeated for the time being (the FCC is drafting new proposals), ISPs like Verizon/Comcast, and AT&T could potentially be free to charge higher rates for “preferred treatment.” When all is said and done, those expenses for online companies like Netflix and Google’s Youtube could ultimately come out of our pockets.

Although future implications remain unclear, the absence of net-neutrality and the partnership of content and service providers set a potentially dangerous precedent. Still, as paying Comcast customers, we really don’t have a whole lot to complain about at this point. Sure, this deal could make things more complicated in the long-term. But on the bright side, customers shouldn’t see any price increases for their service, at least for the time being. So kick back, grab an adult beverage, and drown out any worries about the absence of net-neutrality regulations with a five-hour Netflix binge session.

[Mashable] [USA Today] [NPR] [Bloomberg]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [rachellynnae via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Comcast-Netflix Deal: Should We Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced she would not defend her state’s ban on gay marriage, news coverage has been somewhat vague regarding what her announcement actually means.

Rosenblum joins attorneys general from five other states – Nevada, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California – in refusal to support a state gay marriage ban, saying the law would fail to withstand a federal constitutional challenge. According to Rosenblum, while the ban will no longer be defended, it will continue to be enforced in Oregon unless overruled in court.

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Rosenblum explained. “In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs,” she added.

In simpler terms, Rosenblum, after careful study, has determined that the ban conflicts with federal law and will therefore no longer be defended by state attorneys. The word “defended” is typically where confusion arises.

Rosenblum’s decision was ultimately part of a brief filed with U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who is currently presiding over a legal challenge to the state ban, which was added to the Oregon constitution in 2004.

In January 2014, Judge McShane consolidated two lawsuits filed by two different same-sex couples, both challenging Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. Both cases cite the 2013 Supreme Court case US v. Windsor, which established that the US federal interpretation of marriage could not exclusively apply to heterosexual unions.

So, what Rosenblum is effectively saying is that with regard to the current litigation (the consolidated lawsuit brought forth by the two sets of same-sex couples), the gay marriage ban will not be defended (by Oregon State Defendants) before the presiding federal judge (US District Judge McShane).

As The Oregonian points out, “Rosenblum’s action means that both the plaintiffs – who include four same-sex couples – and the main defendant in the case oppose the ban as unconstitutional.” Although it could take longer, Judge McShane is expected to issue a ruling in the coming spring or summer.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in June 2013, there has been a notable rise in nation-wide litigation over same-sex marriage, with state bans being overturned in four courts. At the moment, three of the four decisions are being held pending appeal.

While the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive on a national level, Oregon is no exception.

“[Rosenblum] is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage, in an interview with ABC News. “She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with,” he continued.

According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, however, Rosenblum has in no way overstepped her boundaries. In an interview with The New York Times, Holder said that “state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.” Holder made it clear that he was not encouraging Rosenblum and others to disregard state laws, but declared that “officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.” “When laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection,” Holder continued, “an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it.”

An admitted supporter of gay marriage, Rosenblum released her own statement saying “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” Still, she insists personal opinion did not influence her decision.

Back in November 2004, when the state ban on gay marriage was enacted, 57 percent of Oregonians voted in favor of the ban. At the time, federal law banned recognition of same-sex couples. In ten years however, the political landscape has shifted and federal law has evolved.

“Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state’s prohibition against marriages between two men or two women,” Rosenblum said during a press conference.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope Rosenblum’s decision is a step forward not only for the state of Oregon, but also for the country as a whole. According to Thomas Wheatley, director of organizing at Freedom to Marry, “the rapid momentum for the freedom to marry in states across the country underscores the understanding that the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law apply to gay and non-gay people alike.” “America – and Oregon – are ready for the freedom to marry,” he added.

In Oregon, supporters of gay marriage have nearly reached their goal of collecting enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would ask voters to strike the ban on gay marriage from the state Constitution. Come November, voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on the issue.

[The Oregonian] [ABC News] [The Guardian] [Buzzfeed] [Bloomberg] [The Washington Post] [The New York Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with Oregon Not Defending Its Own Gay Marriage Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

When Randy Frails clicked “donate,” he thought his $1,000 was going to the campaign of Georgia Congressman and Democrat John Barrow. Instead, his donation ended up in the pocket of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

In an effort to increase their online presence for upcoming elections, the NRCC has been building fake campaign websites – sites that appear to belong to Democratic candidates, but actually spread a pro-Republican message. The phony John Barrow site that fooled Frails is one of at least 15 fake Democrat campaign sites created by the NRCC.

While many are calling this tactic deception, NRCC Press Secretary Daniel Scarpinato thinks it’s brilliant. “The idea is people who are looking for information on the candidate, one of the places we all go now is online and so this is a way for folks to find out more about the candidates and information they may not find on the candidate’s own site,” Scarpinato said in an interview with CNN. “…We are very proud of this program,” he continued.

At first glance, it’s clear that faux-campaign sites for Democratic candidates like John Barrow, John Lewis, and Ann Kirkpatrick were designed to trick viewers into thinking they are visiting official campaign sites. According to TIME, “the tactic smacks of ‘spoofing’ scams, whereby spammers masquerade under fake phone numbers or email addresses to win trust.” If you stop to read the actual text on the sites, however, you’ll find lines like “John Lewis is bad for Montana” and “Kirkpatrick is a huge embarrassment to Arizona.” The problem is that most people, thinking they’re on a legitimate campaign site, do not take the time to read the “fine print” and skip right to donating. Like Frails, a doctor in Florida fell victim to a spoof site for Democrat Alex Sink and mistakenly donated.

While these fake campaign sites are certainly causing both confusion and controversy, this isn’t the first time websites and URLs have been used deceptively. Democrats in Florida created the website jollyforcongress.com, which by its URL leads viewers to believe it’s a site for Republican David Jolly. With the Democrat’s site however, a key difference is that there is no option to donate and the site itself looks much more like a negative ad rather than a legitimate campaign site. With the way the NRCC’s sites are set up, the most pressing question is whether or not they have gone too far.

According to regulations set forth by the Federal Election Commission, sites like these are allowed if they “clearly indicate opposition to the named candidate.” Paul S. Ryan, a campaign law expert at the Campaign Legal Center, believes the nature of the NRCC websites crosses the legal line. “In my view it is not the case that these websites clearly and unambiguously show opposition,” Ryan told TIME. “On the contrary the URLs of these websites would lead a reasonable viewer to think the websites are supporting the candidate,” he said. 

In an interview with TPM, election law attorney Joseph Birkenstock said although he has seen this type of tactic before, the deception of the NRCC’s sites is on another level. “This is different. This is the first time I’ve seen one where they use a banner where by its own terms is actually express advocacy on behalf of that candidate. One word at the end of the line contradicts the banner and contradicts the URL,” Birkenstock said. 

Despite these claims, Scarpinato and the NRCC continue to back their political tactic.

“I think that sites are clear in terms of the disclosure and the content where were coming from,” Scarpinato told CNN. “And I also think it’s important for voters to get all the perspectives on the candidates. So just as a candidate is going to put information out about themselves, we’re going to put out information about the candidate that they are not putting out that we think is important for voters to know,” he said. 

All things considered, it’s not yet clear whether the NRCC has violated any laws. Experts say the FEC will consider the case, but not to expect a ruling anytime soon. The FEC is infamously slow in their investigation and it’s doubtful they will reach a decision before midterm elections.

Even if the phony campaign sites are deemed legal by the FEC, Birkenstock and other campaign law experts are worried they could have further negative consequences – namely deterring voter donations in the future. “It sows confusion. Now other people are reading these articles when they go to their actual website, it’s not inconceivable to me that somebody says when they go to that actual website they say ‘well, man I don’t know now,’” Birkenstock told TPM. “This looks like it’s the right page but so did the other one. How sure can I be that when I click donate that she’s actually going to get the money that I want to give her?” he added.

Overall, fake campaign websites are a questionable move by the Republican Party, whose reputation has suffered in recent years. Even for those who sympathize with the GOP, it’s difficult to call this most recent political tactic anything but deceptive. With midterm elections around the corner, it will be interesting to see whether or not the strategy was effective.

Whether you call it deception or ingenuity, tactics like these certainly shed light on a disturbing trend within American politics. In the words of Kathy Kiely of the Sunlight Foundation, “it’s just another example of how un-transparent and shady the system of funding political campaigns has become.”

[CNN] [TIME] [TPM] [The Wire]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Donkey Hotey via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Deception: Read Before You Click appeared first on Law Street.

In December 2012, Colorado voters made history by approving Amendment 64, legalizing the use and possession of marijuana for anyone over the age of 21. Not long after, Washington voters followed suit, passing Initiative 502 in a state election and effectively legalizing recreational use of the drug.

Although Washingtonians will have to wait until roughly April 2014, pot can officially be sold in specially licensed stores in Colorado as of January 1, 2014. Now that you can legally buy, sell, and smoke marijuana in certain states, there are still questions that need answering.

First off, what exactly does legal mean?

In Colorado…

• Residents, of at least 21 years of age, can buy up to an ounce of marijuana at a time. If you aren’t a Colorado resident, the maximum amount that can be purchased drops to a quarter-ounce.
• Marijuana purchased in Colorado cannot cross state lines.
• The drug can be sold commercially – but only by specially licensed stores.
• It is illegal to consume marijuana openly or publicly. “Retail marijuana” is intended for private, personal use in locations not open to the public.
• The drug cannot be consumed in the vicinity of licensed stores, bars, and restaurants. Consumption in public transportation, cars, limos and taxis is also illegal.
• It is illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana. Anyone with 5 nanograms or more in their blood while driving can be arrested for a DUI, which could result in fines or jail time.

In Washington, although possession of marijuana is already legal, other significant parts of Initiative 502, namely selling marijuana commercially, will not go into effect for a few months. Like Colorado, however, some restrictions are already in place…

• Marijuana is prohibited in public settings.
• Drivers are prohibited from having more than 5 nanograms in their blood, an amount supposedly comparable to .08 blood alcohol content, while driving.
• Washington State universities can set their own rules regarding marijuana use. In an effort to avoid losing federal funding, University of Washington and Washington State University currently prohibit use and possession of pot on campus grounds.
• To deter underage use of the drug, Washington will adopt public health strategies similar to successful anti-tobacco campaigns. Specifically, retail outlets will not be allowed within 1,000 feet of schools and marijuana advertising will be tightly regulated.

Is legalization of marijuana technically unconstitutional?

Technically, the answer is yes.

Known as the “supremacy clause,” Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme law of the land” – hence the name. Seeing as marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law, the recent legalization of the drug in Colorado and Washington provides an interesting example of the interplay between state and federal laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Department of Justice is taking a “trust but verify approach to the state laws.” In addition, Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo to prosecutors across the U.S. 

The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests. 

Still, for those worried about (technically) violating federal laws, Alison Holcomb, author of I-502 in Washington and drug policy director for the Washington State ACLU, says not to worry.

“Federal law enforcement resources tend to be focused on major organized crime,” Holcomb said in an interview with CBS News. “It is very, very rare that marijuana use is subjected to federal enforcement, unless users are on federal lands like national parks. By and large, the DEA has much better things to do than go after the marijuana users.”

Can I lose my job for using marijuana?

Although it has yet to become a problem in Washington, Colorado’s recent legalization has created a dilemma for businesses and their employees. While Amendment 64 legalized weed, it also gave employers the right to drug test their employees and subsequently fire them if they test positive. Simply put, the new law does not “affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.” 

Last April, the Court of Appeals in Colorado upheld the firing of Brandon Coats, a Dish Network employee who was let go after he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test. Coats, a quadriplegic who has used a wheelchair since age 16, uses medicinal marijuana to control his muscle spasms. Coats sued Dish Network, arguing that his use of the drug was legal and that he was never impaired while at work.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ultimately decided Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in legal activities during their free time, does not include marijuana use. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the judges ruled that the protections of the statute do not apply. Colorado’s Supreme Court announced it will review the case.

With the outcome of Coats’ case still uncertain, one can’t help but wonder: If smoking marijuana can result in a person losing his or her job, is it really legal?

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Harry Levine, a sociology professor at Queens College and operator of the website marijuana-arrests.com, said the conundrum is the result of clashes between state and federal law. “Everyone’s attention is focused on the shiny new post-prohibition legal marijuana industry, and how regulated, interesting, and cool it is,” Levine said, “but over here behind door number one is the still-existing structures of nationwide drug prohibition.” 

Can I fly with my marijuana?

Again, since federal law regarding marijuana remains unchanged, the drug will not be allowed on airplanes – even if you’re flying out of Colorado or Washington. On the “air side” of an airport, which begins at the security checkpoint, federal law reigns supreme. When it comes to possession of weed before going through security, airports have differing policies. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, for example, offers travelers “amnesty boxes” – a place where marijuana can be stashed or disposed of without legal consequences. At Denver’s Airport however, weed is banned entirely, even in the areas before security.

Because state law forbids any facility from setting any further regulations, airports in Washington are unable to ban the legal amount of cannabis.

What does legalization mean for prior offenders and those currently in prison for weed crimes?

Fair or not, it does not change a thing.

From 2006 to 2010, there have been more than 50,000 marijuana-related arrests in the state of Colorado. For those still serving time in prison, the new legalization will do nothing to free them or reduce their sentencing. In addition, those who have already served time will not have their records expunged.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Since the crimes were committed when possession or distribution of marijuana was against the law, the charges stick. According to Matthew Fleischer, an investigative journalist and contributor to TakePart.com, “whether or not the old law was unpopular or unjust is immaterial.”

Unfortunately for anyone sitting in prison for weed crimes, the United States does not guarantee “retroactive ameliorative relief” in sentencing. Although it’s a mouthful, the term simply means letting convicts out of prison after a law changes.

The U.S. is one of only 22 countries that fail to guarantee this relief. In an interview with TakePart, Amanda Solter, Project Director of the Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law, elaborated further. “The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean,” she said and added, “even Russia provides this right.”

Is marijuana legalization a continuing trend?

Most likely.

Brandy Zadrozny, a researcher and reporter for The Daily Beast, provides excellent insight regarding the future of legalization in her informative “Guide to State Pot Laws.”

According to Zadrozny, the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that nine states –Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – and the District of Columbia have introduced some form of marijuana legislation. Alaska, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin are likely to follow suit.

For the most part, state legislative action regarding marijuana legalization depends heavily on grassroots (no pun intended) support within the individual state. As Zadrozny cleverly puts it, “the data seems to support that if you smoke it, the laws will come.”

Everything considered, experts say Alaska will be the next state to join Colorado and Washington’s exclusive club.

[CNN] [CNTraveler] [The Daily Beast] [CBS News] [ABC News] [Take Part] [BuzzFeed] [Huffington Post] [Colorado State Legislature] [Washington State LCB] [U.S. Archives]

—

Matt DiCenso 

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Be Blunt: What Marijuana Legalization Actually Means appeared first on Law Street.

Mexican citizen Edgar Tamayo Arias was executed last Wednesday night in Texas for the fatal shooting of a police officer, despite pressure from the Mexican government and U.S. State Department to reconsider.

Tamayo’s execution by lethal injection marks the first of 2014 for Texas, a state that carried out 16 executions last year, according to The Bureau of Justice preliminary statistics. In fact, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Texas has been the most active death penalty state with 509 executions – roughly 37 percent of the 1,360 total executions that have taken place nationwide.

While capital punishment has been a divisive issue for years, Tamayo’s case was especially controversial.  In January 1994, Officer Guy Gaddis was transporting Tamayo and another suspect from a robbery scene. Tamayo, who was carrying a concealed pistol, reached for the weapon and shot Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo fled on foot and was arrested a few blocks away. Despite the heinous nature of his crime, the Mexican government claimed Tamayo’s trial was tainted because he had not been properly informed of his right to diplomatic assistance following his arrest.

This right, granted by a 1963 international agreement known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, “requires all countries who signed it to provide foreign nationals accused of a crime with notice and an opportunity to seek assistance from their consulate.” The Mexican government called Tamayo’s case “a clear violation by the United States of its international obligations.”

According to Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, “assistance would likely have been critical. Language barriers and intellectual disabilities hampered his [Tamayo’s] ability to receive a fair trial. It might have made the difference between an execution and a more appropriate means of holding him accountable.”

Tamayo’s case is not the first in which allegations of a violation of consular rights have been raised. Within the past five years, the state of Texas has executed two other Mexican citizens amid disputes regarding international rights. Jose Ernesto Medellin and Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., both convicted of rape and murder, were executed in 2008 and 2011 respectively.

Tamayo’s lawyers and supporters were not the only ones questioning Texas’ legal procedures. In 2004, the International Court of Justice – the primary judicial body of the United Nations – ruled that the United States had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention. According to the ICJ, the U.S. had failed to inform Mexican consulates immediately after the arrests of nearly 50 Mexican citizens, Tamayo included. In what became known as the “Avena decision,” the ICJ ordered the U.S. to reconsider the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals. In 2005, then-president George W. Bush backed the ICJ, calling for states to abide by the court’s ruling. In the end however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Medellín v Texas case that “although the ‘Avena decision’ is a binding obligation under international law, without a statute from Congress the president does not have the power to force states to comply with ICJ rulings.” Without the proper legislation, Texas was essentially free to circumvent international law.

While Texas is not bound by the Vienna Convention, Rust-Tierney points out that Texas’ decision may challenge the U.S. Constitution. She states, “the Constitution places the authority to define and engage in foreign policy with the federal government [and also] some argue that by refusing to follow the dictates of the Vienna Convention, Texas is setting international law and policy.”

Even more troublesome, the legal ramifications from the Tamayo case could have an impact for Americans who find themselves in legal trouble overseas. In a letter written to Texas Governor Rick Perry last month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged him to grant Tamayo a new hearing, calling the decision to set an execution date “extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Kerry wrote “I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo’s conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer [but] this is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries.”

In the end, despite appeals and diplomatic pressure, Texas would not back down. According to Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Perry, the state was simply enforcing its laws. “It doesn’t matter where you’re from – if you commit a despicable crime like this in Texas, you are subject to our state laws, including a fair trial by jury and the ultimate penalty.”

Twenty other foreign citizens, including 11 Mexicans, remain on death row in Texas.

[CNN] [Fox News Latino] [The Guardian] [LA Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@MattDiCenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Zaldylmg via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican National Executed Despite Pressure from Mexican and U.S. Governments appeared first on Law Street.

When the body of semi-professional football player Odin Lloyd was discovered in a Massachusetts industrial park in June 2013, police quickly linked the then-New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez to the murder.

Amid the investigation of Hernandez’s involvement in the Lloyd case, there was also speculation that Hernandez may have played a role in the July 2012 murders of Daniel Jorge Correia de Abreu and Safiro Teixeira Furtado.

Court documents released for the first time on Thursday revealed that Boston police have been investigating whether Hernandez may have pulled the trigger. According to the June 28 police affidavit and search warrant application, “there is…probable cause to believe that Aaron Hernandez was operating the suspect vehicle used in the shooting homicides…and may have been the shooter.”

Although no one has been officially charged with the 2012 drive-by murders of Abreu and Furtado, the newly released documents show that shortly after Hernandez’s arrest in 2013, police received a call from an anonymous tipster, urging them to look into the NFL star’s possible involvement.

Upon further investigation, police recovered what they believe to be the vehicle and weapon involved, in addition to video footage which allegedly shows Hernandez stalking the victims at a nightclub in Boston.

The vehicle, a Toyota 4Runner SUV, was found at the Bristol, Conn. home of Hernandez’s uncle. While the released documents do not reveal specifically what the police found in the vehicle, they provide a timeline of what may have happened the night Abreu and Furtado were killed.

Video footage shows Hernandez and an accomplice, believed to be Alexander Bradley, entering a Boston nightclub directly behind Abreu and Furtado. Shortly after their arrival, Hernandez and Bradley are seen leaving the club and returning to a silver SUV around 1:17am. When the victims leave the club at approximately 2:10 am, outside video shows Hernandez’s silver SUV circling the block.

According to the documents, two men driving in the area told police they saw a silver SUV pull up next the victims’ BMW at a red light. Shots were fired and the SUV sped away. The witnesses described the driver as a Hispanic man with short dark hair. This account matches another one given to police by a passenger riding in the BMW with the victims.

If the assertions made by police turn out to be true, it would mean that Hernandez played the 2012-2013 NFL season after killing two people.

These most recent allegations come in the wake of Hernandez’s arrest for the murder of Odin Lloyd last summer, a charge for which he is currently awaiting trial. Following a year that saw the arrests of more than 40 NFL players, this certainly casts yet another dark shadow over the NFL. Although the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy states that all persons associated with the league are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League,” some players have clearly missed the memo. Despite a troublesome year however, the NFL has remained consistent in its discipline of players and coaches alike, with punishments that “may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement.”

Bad publicity aside, the Super Bowl, and the annual media frenzy that surrounds the NFL’s main event, is only weeks away. If the Patriots win on Sunday, Hernandez could find himself watching his former team play on football’s biggest stage.

[Boston Globe] [CNN]

Featured image courtesy of [Aaron Frutman via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Suspect Hernandez May Be Shooter in 2012 Double Homicide appeared first on Law Street.