Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

A Houston judge was suspended from her job on Friday amid accusations that she solicited prostitutes, sexted from the bench, and used her bailiff to buy drugs.

Hillary Green, who has been a judge since 2007, presided over misdemeanors, traffic cases, and civil suits for Harris County Precinct 7. Her lawyer called the decision “frustrating and surprising” in addition to arguing that many of the accusations were already public when Green was reelected with 86 percent of the vote.

She will remain suspended until a civil trial is held to make a final decision, but her lawyer said that trial could be years down the line and another judge is already slated to replace her, according to the Washington Post.

Accusations against Green first arose during her divorce from Houston Controller Ronald C. Green in 2015. It was at that point that Green said his now ex-wife “operates daily with impaired judgment as evidenced by her presiding over cases in which she has ongoing sexual relationships with litigants and witnesses,” according to the Houston Press.

Suspicions rose further when Claude Barnes, who Green admits she had an affair with for many years, came forward with allegations regarding drug use and hiring prostitutes for threesomes.

“The three of us sat,” Barnes said. “We smoked marijuana. We had a couple drinks and then three of us had sex.”

These accusations led the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to file its first formal inquiry into the Houston judge’s behavior, an investigation that culminated in a 316-page recommendation to suspend her that was released this year. Executive Director Eric Vinson said that the commission has been investigating Green for almost four years and that in his decade in that role he has never seen a judge contest proceedings this strongly, according to the Houston Press.

The commission took note of Green’s inability to change her behavior over a five-year span and called out Green’s “outright betrayal of the public’s trust” in the report.

Other stories allege Green and Barnes smoked marijuana that was confiscated from a citizen, bought cough syrup from a drug dealer named “lover boy,” and that she texted her bailiff about explicit sexual acts that she would perform with him later.

Green admitted to buying $500 worth of cough syrup and smoking marijuana daily, but denied hiring prostitutes. In addition to smoking weed and drinking the syrup, she and Barnes took ecstasy on multiple occasions, but Green denies paying for it. So, even though she was sentencing people for committing minor drug offenses, Green frequently undertook similar behavior, according to the report’s findings.

Disgusted with her behavior, the commission asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend Green while officials prepared their case to permanently remove her. The state bar wrote in May:

To this day, Judge Green has apparently made no attempt to reassign the bailiff with whom she actively participated in an inappropriate sexual texting relation and whom she recruited to assist in illegal drug activity. She engaged the services of a peace officer to commit a criminal act, and indeed he was apparently willing to do so. Incredibly, Judge Green sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Green and her lawyers countered that the allegations are the result of a bitter divorce and that Ronald Green could have stolen her phone and sent some of those text messages. They also argue that the accusations were improperly filed, creating a bureaucratic legal issue. Still, there is already ample evidence that the judge crossed several lines.

Even if some of the allegations aren’t true, Green has already admitted to multiple acts that would break the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The code explicitly states that appropriate action must be taken if a judge is impaired by drugs and that judges must maintain professional relationships with their staff.

Though Green’s civil trial is over a year away, she will almost surely not be reinstated from her suspension with the concrete evidence the bar association already has. Green, who was once part of a powerful political marriage with Ronald, has now had a meteoric fall from grace.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Houston Judge Suspended for Buying Drugs and Prostitutes, Sexting Her Bailiff appeared first on Law Street.

The city of Flint will finally replace aging water lines for 18,000 homes, after the state of Michigan agreed to pay the cost of the project as part of a legal settlement. A federal judge approved the deal on Tuesday and said that the job will have to be completed by 2020. Around 700 homes have already had their pipes replaced.

The costs will be covered by a combination of state and federal funds. Michigan will pay $87 million, and put $10 million aside for unforeseen costs. Part of the project will also be funded by the $100 million that Flint was granted by Congress at the end of last year, but some of that money will also be used to update Flint’s water treatment plant.

Residents and activists that brought the lawsuit are relieved to finally see some action. “The greatest lesson I’ve learned from Flint’s water crisis is that change only happens when you get up and make your voice heard,” said Melissa Mays, one of the plaintiffs and one of the first people who alerted officials after realizing that something was wrong with the city’s water.

Progress!!! The fight isn’t over yet but this a HUGE win for us #FlintWaterCrisis https://t.co/8PNHMPluDX

— Little Miss Flint (@LittleMissFlint) March 27, 2017

In 2014 it was discovered that tap water in Flint was contaminated, after the city stopped extracting its water from Lake Huron and, in an effort to save money, started taking it from the Flint River. It turned out that the water was so corrosive that it quickly eroded the city’s water pipes, collecting iron, lead, and other metals on its way to residents’ homes. Lead is dangerous and can cause long-term physical and mental damage. A dozen people have died from Legionnaires’ disease in the city.

In December 2016, Michigan’s attorney general announced felony charges against two former Flint emergency managers and two other former city officials, saying, “All too prevalent in this Flint Water Investigation was a priority on balance sheets and finances rather than health and safety of the citizens of Flint.” The politicians’ decision to switch water sources to save $5 million resulted in a loss of over $1.5 billion, according to estimates.

A) it only took 3 years to get the ruling
B) 2020?!?!?! Wtf https://t.co/pPqSHOuhX7

— Tatiana Torres (@princessdeleon) March 27, 2017

As part of the agreement the state must also keep providing residents with free bottled water and conduct inspections to ensure that residents have proper filters installed on their taps–and provide such filters for free. Other aspects of the settlement include new water monitoring requirements and that the state maintains current Medicaid funding levels.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Flint to Replace 18,000 Water Lines, Michigan Agrees to Pay $97 Million appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the Snuggie? The infomercial phenomenon product that allowed us to be covered with a blanket while also having access to our arms? Was it a blanket or a robe? A federal trade court has now gotten involved in that debate, ruling that Snuggies should be categorized as blankets, not clothing.

How did questions about Snuggies make it all the way to the U.S. Court of International Trade? This case began in 2010, when the maker of the Snuggie–Allstar Marketing Group–began clashing with the DOJ and Customs and Border Protection over the classification of the product. The U.S. government has traditionally classified Snuggies as garments, meaning that they’re subject to 14.9 percent duties when brought into the U.S. Allstar fought that classification, because if Snuggies were classified as blankets, they would only be subject to 8.5 percent duties.

The DOJ attempted to compare Snuggies to bathrobes, or other robe-like garments, like priestly vestments, or graduation robes. The DOJ also pointed out that they have been worn as novelty garments–for example, people have done pub crawls in their Snuggies.

But according to Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade, who wrote the opinion, Snuggies differ from those kinds of garments in that they are open in the back. Additionally, they don’t have any sort of mechanism to stay closed, like buttons or zippers. Just because something has sleeves, doesn’t mean it’s a garment. Barnett said that the sleeves just allow the blanket “to remain in place and keep the user warm while allowing the user to engage in certain activities requiring the use of their hands.” The ruling also recognized that when Allstar trademarked its product with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it listed the Snuggie as in the category of “fleece blankets and throws.”

So, Allstar will now get to pay less to import its Snuggies. And next time you consider wearing your Snuggie out of the house–remember it’s not clothing!

via GIPHY

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules Snuggies are Blankets, Not Clothing appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning, Dylann Roof, who is accused of shooting nine people at a church in Charleston in 2015, will be representing himself in court. Federal judge Richard Gergel called his request “unwise” but said that he would reluctantly accept it, since he has a Constitutional right to represent himself. “I do find [the] defendant has the personal capacity to self-representation. I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make,” Gergel said.

Judge Gergel and Roof’s lawyers advised him against dismissing them, but to no use. Jury selection in the case was also delayed in the beginning of the month after Roof’s lawyers had questioned his ability to understand the case against him, but it resumed on Monday as well. His former defense team will still be present during the trial and can assist Roof, if he wants help. Reporters present in the courtroom described attorney David Bruck as “frustrated.”

David Bruck now whispering emphatically to Roof. Can’t hear him, but looks frustrated. Bruck turns away and shakes his head. Roof smirking.

— Mike Hayes (@michaelhayes) November 28, 2016

In total, 516 jurors were scheduled to appear in court to be personally questioned by the judge to see if they qualify. After 70 are picked from that group, the lawyers can choose to strike the ones they don’t want until they have 12 jurors and 6 substitutes.

Juror has been qualified. 5 of 70 #DylannRoof

— Sam Tyson (@SamInteractive) November 28, 2016

Roof is accused of killing nine parishioners at the historic black church Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. He is facing 33 charges, including hate crime charges, murder, and obstruction of religion. He’ll represent himself, so he could end up questioning the victims’ family members if they are called to testify, creating a pretty unusual situation that spurred some reactions on social media.

#DylannRoof is setting himself up to be a martyr. For him to be able to question his victims families. Sickening!

— Makeda Nzingha Hill (@makedanzingha) November 28, 2016

Over the weekend, Judge Gergel held a hearing to determine whether Roof was mentally fit to be on trial, which included testimony from a psychologist. Because of that, the hearing was closed to both media and the public to prevent jurors from being affected by any statements or information. This caused some complaints from relatives of the victims, but according to the judge, this is one of the steps taken to make sure that the trial will be fair. According to attorney Chris Adams there are three reasons why defendants might want to defend themselves. He said:

They don’t have faith in their legal team, they want to die, and or they want to conceal their mental illness. In this case, Mr. Roof had a great defense team, so I don’t think there would be any sane reason to not trust them.

Adams believes that Roof wants to hide his mental issues and doesn’t wish to persue a non-death sentence. As his defense team includes Bruck, who is a renowned death penalty lawyer who has argued that the death penalty is excessive, and given that the team claimed that Roof might not be mentally fit for trial, it certainly seems like Roof has no interest in securing himself a lenient sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof Will Represent Himself in Church Shooting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore previously ordered local judges to defy federal guidelines allowing same-sex marriage. But on Friday he was suspended from his position by a unanimous vote from the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, the COJ. Moore will also have to pay for the legal proceedings against him and will not be compensated for the remainder of his term, which is set to end in 2019.

But the decision to suspend Moore is not because Alabama has become more open-minded. The court pointed out that the decision was not technically because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows same-sex marriage–Alabama adopted a law in 2016 that says only straight couples can marry–but because of Moore’s behavior and decisions.

Roy Moore, Alabama’s chief justice, has been essentially been fired for his defiance to marriage equality. https://t.co/6cc0sa9bv3

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 30, 2016

Earlier this year, Moore ordered local judges to go against the federal ruling that allows same-sex marriage and stop the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples, which created chaos in the state’s marriage license offices. He was charged with six counts of violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Moore on his part claimed he was only providing judges a “status update.” The COJ did not buy that explanation, but couldn’t agree on whether or not to remove him from office, which left them with the option to suspend him. There is no real difference in practice between removing and suspending someone from office.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) first filed the complaint against Moore that later led to the charges against him. SPLC President Richard Cohen was relieved on Friday, saying in a statement:

The Court of the Judiciary has done the citizens of Alabama a great service by suspending Roy Moore from the bench. He disgraced his office and undermined the integrity of the judiciary by putting his personal religious beliefs above his sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Moore was elected to be a judge, not a preacher. It’s something that he never seemed to understand. The people of Alabama who cherish the rule of law are not going to miss the Ayatollah of Alabama.

SPLC tweeted the six charges against Moore.

Here are the judicial canons Ala. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is guilty of violating: https://t.co/H8DqRKzv1A pic.twitter.com/gvmYv6j53F

— SPLC (@splcenter) September 30, 2016

Moore was previously removed from office in 2003 for his refusal to take down a Ten Commandments monument from a judicial building, despite orders from a federal court. He then claimed he was removed because of his acknowledgement of God, and voters re-elected him in 2012. But this time Moore, 69, cannot run again because of the age restriction for the position.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Chief Justice Suspended Over Anti-Gay Marriage Order appeared first on Law Street.

Another mall shooting took place on Monday morning, this time in Houston, Texas. Nine people were wounded before police took the suspect down. Police officers initially responded to a 911 call at 6:30 a.m. after reports of a shooting victim close to a strip mall, but realized that the shooter was still active when they got there.

Officers soon tracked down and killed the gunman, who was firing shots at moving traffic from the parking lot of the mall. The nine wounded people, one in critical condition, initially believed to be six, were inside their own vehicles when they were injured. Police did not release the suspect’s identity, but did say that he is a lawyer, and “there were issues concerning his law firm.”

Active shooter at Weslayan & Bissonnet has been shot by our officers; no reports of other suspects at this time #hounews

— Houston Police (@houstonpolice) September 26, 2016

One witness, Eduardo Andrade, said he heard an explosion when he was driving by the scene of the attack:

As I was driving by Law Street I suddenly heard a big explosion. I covered myself, accelerated and tried to get out of there. I did not know if someone was following me or trying to shoot me.

It is unclear whether this had anything to do with terrorism. According to authorities, they were investigating the suspect’s car for possible bombs.

Houston gunman injures six at US mall before being shot https://t.co/aubyR3pVbM

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 26, 2016

The shooting in Houston comes only three days after a shooting at a mall in Burlington, Washington, which left five people dead. Police arrested that shooter, Arcan Cetin, who was reportedly found unarmed in a zombie-like state after a daylong search on Saturday evening. Cetin had a history of domestic abuse against his stepfather. His ex-girlfriend used to work at the store in which he opened fire. A judge had previously ordered him to not possess a firearm.

Cetin is expected to appear in court on Monday to be formally charged with five counts of first-degree murder. Authorities first described Cetin as being Hispanic, but later changed that to Turkish. No details have been released about the Houston shooter’s ethnicity.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawyer Wounds 9 in Houston Parking Lot Before Being Killed by Police appeared first on Law Street.

After serving only three months in Santa Clara County jail for sexual assault, former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner was released on Friday morning. He left after serving half of a six-month sentence that he received in June after he was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on Stanford’s campus in of January last year.

The case has been widely covered and the judge was harshly criticized for the lenient punishment. Prosecutors wanted a six-year sentence, but Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky responded saying, “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him. I think he will not be a danger to others.”

As Turner left the jail, wearing dress pants and a wrinkled white shirt, a small group of demonstrators and members of the press watched. Sandra Pfeiffer, who told NPR member station KQED that she was a rape survivor herself, said, “Other people get locked away for a very long time, why did he get out after 90 days? Why? Why? It doesn’t make sense.”

In the aftermath of Turner’s sentencing, the Department of Education released a list of sexual assault complaints at colleges across the country. The list revealed that Stanford had five federal complaints–not counting Brock Turner’s case, which was conducted in the justice system not by the university–into how the school handled sexual assault cases. According to the list, Stanford had the most of any school under review.

Before Turner was sentenced, his father sent a controversial letter to the judge in his son’s case, which also led to a lot of criticism. In the letter, he argued that his son didn’t deserve to have his life ruined by a prison sentence. He wrote, “His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”

In court, Turner’s victim read a powerful statement in court where she questioned the lenient punishment and society’s view on sexual assault. She also wondered what the outcome would have been if the assailant had not been a privileged, white star-athlete:

If I had been sexually assaulted by an un-athletic guy from a community college, what would his sentence be? If a first time offender from an underprivileged background was accused of three felonies and displayed no accountability for his actions other than drinking, what would his sentence be?

Turner’s early release made a lot of people on Twitter mad, as some saw it as an example of white privilege.

I know dudes from my hood who’ve had their lives ruined over a bag of weed and this dude Brock Turner just did 3 months for rape.

— Blédakiss (@ChefRoble) September 2, 2016

If only Brock Turner were a poor undocumented Mexican immigrant & not ‘an All-American boy,’ Trumpists cld use him to vilify a whole people.

— Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) September 2, 2016

Some argued that his sentence reflects one of the many reasons why victims of sexual abuse often do not speak up.

If you ever say “Why don’t rape victims just tell the police?” Please refer to the Brock Turner case and realize that it’s not that simple.

— tess (@that1mum) September 2, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brock Turner Released From Jail After Serving 3 Months for Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

It is finally seen as professional misconduct for men to make sexist remarks or call women “honey” and similar epithets when practicing law in court. Thanks to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) revisions to its ethics rules, sexism as well as comments or actions based on a person’s religion, race, sex, sexual orientation and other factors are no longer allowed.

Discrimination Against Women

Even though some states already have similar rules in place, there has been no formal, nationwide prohibition against such behavior. Therefore many male lawyers have felt free to use misogynistic language to undermine female opposing counsels, causing many female law practitioners to feel belittled and discriminated against.

Some of the women who spoke with the New York Times described how condescending male lawyers treated them when carrying out their profession. “Don’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman,” one man told lawyer Lori Rifkin when she objected to him interrupting her. “I got the pat on the head,” said Jenny Waters, now chief executive of the National Association of Women Lawyers, about working as a lawyer.

NAWL is a group that has supported the rights of female lawyers since 1899 and has over 5,000 members. They sent a letter to ABA to support the amendment to the ethics rule. And it worked–ABA presented the revised rule at its annual meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday. Any violations against it will result in either a fine or suspension from practice.

The Changes

The additions to the rule prevent discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and several other factors. They also detail what constitutes sexual harassment. The updated the ethics rule notes:

Discrimination and harassment by lawyers […] undermines confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others

The rule also describes that it applies during any activity that is related to the lawyer’s practicing of law. This includes when:

Representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.

This part of the rule caused critics to say that the new rules could lead to limitations on free speech while working with clients, but so far no lawyers have objected to the adoption of the revisions. Further revisions were made before approving the rule to make sure it is only offensive conduct if the person doing it “knows or reasonably should know [it] is harassment or discrimination.”

Only 36 percent of law practitioners are women, according to the American Bar Association, and they still make about $1,400 less than men per month. But at least this new rule is more than welcome as a step forward in the fight for gender equality.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Sweet-Talking: ABA Bans Calling Female Lawyers ‘Honey’ appeared first on Law Street.

Another police officer has been found not guilty on all charges in the death of Freddie Gray. Ceasar R. Goodson Jr. was the third officer out of six to stand trial after the 25-year-old Baltimore man died while in police custody. None of the trials so far have ended in a conviction–a troubling sign for those who hope for justice for the Gray family.

The first trial in the case of Freddie Gray in December 2015 ended in a mistrial due to the jury’s inability to deliver a unanimous verdict. In May, the second officer to go to trial was cleared of all charges, including second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of misconduct in office.

On Thursday, Goodson–who drove the van that took Freddie Gray to prison–was also cleared of all charges. His charges were the most serious: second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment, and misconduct in office.

Freddie Gray was arrested last April after running from officers. The officers found he had a knife on him and placed him in the police van. With feet shackled, hands cuffed behind his back, and no seat belt, he had no chance of holding on during the ride.

The prosecutor claimed that Goodson made a wide turn to intentionally injure Gray. Gray ended up unconscious with a fatal spine injury as well as head injuries in the back of the van, and died a week later. The Judge Barry G. Williams rejected the claim, saying, “The court finds there is insufficient evidence that the defendant gave or intended to give Mr. Gray a rough ride.”

The verdict has sparked new life for opinions from the public as well as celebrities.

NO1 KILLED FREDDIE GRAY,
& YET…HE’S DEADTHERE MUST B DEFINITIVE
DIMENSIONS & DESCRIPTIONS
OF LEGAL KNIFE..WHAT R THEYWHATS“FUZZINESS”

— Cher (@cher) June 23, 2016

It is unacceptable that #FreddieGray's death was ruled a homicide & yet no police officer was held responsible. This is happening too often.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) June 23, 2016

They kill our daddies then make fun of us for being fatherless. #FreddieGray pic.twitter.com/LEHuTZaE0l

— Bipartisan Report (@Bipartisanism) June 23, 2016

How long can we ask our brothers and sisters to be patient when justice for #FreddieGray is not served?

— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) June 23, 2016

The result of Thursday’s verdict also puts increased pressure on Baltimore State Attorney, Marilyn Mosby, who initially promised to bring justice in the case. To charge police officers with murder is extremely unusual. According to NBC, no officer has been convicted for murder or manslaughter in the line of duty between 2005 and 2011. It was seen as a very ambitious move from Mosby.

“If she abandons the prosecution of the four remaining trials, the only interpretation of that is that she has been defeated–certainly that does not bode well politically for her,” said lawyer Warren Alperstein to New York Times.

Hopefully Mosby succeeds in bringing some justice for the people of Baltimore, and in doing so, sets an example for the future of police conduct.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Driver in Freddie Gray Case Found Not Guilty appeared first on Law Street.

Tom  Brady is officially a free man–free to play in the first four games of this year’s season, that is. Earlier today, Judge Richard M. Berman nullified the punishment that the NFL levied against Brady for his role in the famed deflategate scandal of last year’s playoffs.

Berman’s ruling was based mainly on procedural concerns. According to the decision:

The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (four-game suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

Berman’s decision could have brought finality after a drawn out back-and-forth battle between the star Patriots’ quarterback, represented by the NFLPA, and the NFL. However the NFL is going to continue to appeal it–the case will now make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell elaborated in a written statement today:

We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today’s decision. We will appeal today’s ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner’s responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season.

So, the NFL has now signed itself up for an even lengthier court process than it probably originally bargained for. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will assign a panel of three judges chosen from a pool of 23 once the appeal is filed. The NFL will then have to convince two or more of the three that Berman was wrong in the way that he applied the law. While that seems simple enough, it’s the waiting game that dominates appeals cases that is at issue here. A case can take up to a year to appear in front of an appeals court, which means that this whole controversy will be hanging over the NFL, the NFLPA, and Brady for quite a bit longer. If the appeal does go through, it’s unclear how Brady could actually be punished, although a suspension appears to be a possibility.

Brady will play in the first regular season game next Thursday against the Pittsburgh Steelers. So why is the NFL even bothering to appeal?  One big issue is that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for how the NFL handles suspension–the door has now been opened for another round of scrutiny in the appeals process by the courts. That could get expensive, and mean that the threat of NFL punishment holds less weight for players because there’s a new avenue for an appeal. For example, Cowboys player Greg Hardy is apparently looking to appeal his four-game suspension for domestic violence. At the end of the day, this entire debacle doesn’t look great for the NFL, regardless of whether or not Brady was actually in the wrong and aware of the under-inflated balls.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How is DeflateGate Still Not Over?: The Next Steps for the Belabored NFL Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

If you ever wondered if spelling, grammar, and punctuation were really important, the answer is yes. Not only will using them make you look halfway literate, it will make law enforcing just that much easier.

You have to be a smooth talker in order to talk your way out of paying a parking ticket on a grammar-cality. Andrea Cammelleri, then, must be one smooth talker.

It’s a Comma Mistake

In Ohio, there are certain types of things that cannot be parked for more than 24 hours in certain spots. The village thought that Cammelleri’s pickup truck was one of those things that could not be parked where she chose. That is why they so happily provided her with a ticket when she failed to follow the whole ‘don’t park here for more than 24 hours’ law that they thought was so clear.

They were apparently wrong–both in that Cammelleri’s truck was not one of the vehicles that made the don’t park here list, and because the law was not as clear as they had assumed.

The reason they thought that Cammelleri was illegally parked was because a pickup truck is a motor vehicle and the way the village reads the law in question, motor vehicles were included in the list of covered things. However, they were missing one vital piece of information to make that assumption true: a comma.

If you have ever gotten into a debate about commas (this is a real thing that happens all the time when you are a writer and/or editor), then you will be happy to know that the debate has finally found its way to court with a definitive, legal answer.

What the law actually says is that motor vehicle campers could not park in the spot for that long. What exactly is a motor vehicle camper? A fancy term for RV? Or just a long way to say camper?

Cammelleri said that she wasn’t sure what it was, but she knew here truck wasn’t one. Therefore that ticket she got for illegally parking should be tossed.

The village had a different argument. Come on, they told the court. It’s pretty obvious we meant to say “motor vehicle, camper” and not “motor vehicle camper.” This woman’s just trying to weasel out of paying up. Let’s just fine her, and use the money to fix the law. (Okay. That last part was completely editorialized.)

Who did the court side with? If you read the headline, and I am assuming you must have in order to have gotten here, then you already know the answer. The court sided with Cammelleri.

Why? They ruled that while contextually the law might be understandable, technically it could be read both ways. If they want the court to interpret the law the way the village does, then they better go change it to be both contextually and technically right. Otherwise, they should start saving their parking tickets for illegally parked motor vehicle campers, whatever those might be.

Proofread or Lose Money

What can you learn from the forgotten comma? If you want to get paid, you better proofread. Otherwise, you miss losing more money than a Macy’s mispriced mailer.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thank the Grammar Police For This Dismissed Parking Ticket appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that the users of marijuana for medical purposes now have the right to bake the drugs in cookies, take it in lozenge form or as tropical oils in addition to smoking it. The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form, and speaks volumes about the changes happening in the marijuana industry.

The Court found that the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.” Restricting medical access  in Canada to marijuana in a dried form has now been declared “null and void.” That renders sections four and five of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, unenforceable.

This decision supports earlier rulings by lower Courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person’s right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.

Medical marijuana patients don’t always want to expose themselves to the effects of smoking the drugs. Inhaling marijuana could present health risks, and is said to be less effective for some conditions that administer cannabis derivatives. With inhalation being a large issue, the smoking process is said to irritate the lungs, which is why smokers are more likely to have an ongoing cough or other health problems like chest colds and lung infections.

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheezing–similar to that of tobacco smoking. 

Some medical marijuana users wanted to avoid those side effects. But other methods like brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking weed into brownies left patients vulnerable to be charged with possession and trafficking under the law.

“This is monumental,” said David Posner, CEO of Nutritional High, a Canadian company that has been testing marijuana-infused candy and drinks for sale in the United States later this year. “Another market the size of California just opened up for our products.”

So what does this mean for the U.S. exactly? Four states–Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as Washington D.C.–have legalized marijuana, while a total of 14 states have decriminalized certain amounts of possession. Legal marijuana is said to be the fastest-growing industry in the U.S. According to ArcView, over the next five years, the marijuana industry is expected to continue to grow. They are predicting that 14 more states will legalize recreational marijuana and two more will legalize medical marijuana. At least ten states are already considering legalizing recreational marijuana in just the next two years through ballot measures or state legislatures.

In that context, Canada extending its medical marijuana market, and the U.S.’s current growing market promise continued growth. Non-traditional ways to consume marijuana will continue to rise–this week’s decision was just the beginning.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weed Trend Grows: Canada Legalizes Medical Edibles appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

Portions of a law known as the Patriot Act were allowed to expire on May 31, 2015. The Patriot Act is one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history, originating in a time of fear and later being at the heart of leaks by Edward Snowden that revealed a massive data gathering effort by the NSA of Americans’ information. Read on to learn more about what exactly the Patriot Act is, where it originated from, and the future outlook of its laws.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is one of most divisive laws passed in recent history; however, like many other boogeymen, the actual details of what it entails are unclear to much of the American public. So what exactly is the Patriot Act?

What is the Patriot Act?

The USA Patriot Act or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed in October 2001. The act dramatically expanded the ability of the United States government to conduct surveillance and investigate citizens without their knowledge.

Unlike similar preceding pieces of legislation, this act lacked the familiar protections that preserve rights in the face of legislation; its statutes were also hard to define and limit. This was due to the speed at which the law passed through congress and was signed by President George W. Bush. The bill was passed quickly due to widespread fear mongering immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, including on the part of Attorney General John Ashcroft who warned any delay could result in another devastating attack.  Watch the video below for more details on the Patriot Act.

Illegality

In the first legal challenge to the act, despite it being in place since 2001, a three-judge panel ruled the law illegal. The panel, however, did not say the law was unconstitutional; instead that the federal government’s mass-data collections had gone beyond what the original creators of the act envisioned when they signed it into law. This is an important distinction in that it effectively says that lawmakers have power to create such an all-encompassing law, but that the Patriot Act was no such law.

Expired Provisions

While the recent ruling may have impacted the decision to let parts of the law expire, the Patriot Act was actually created with built in sunset provisions that were designed to expire unless extended by congress. Thus, after much deliberation, key components of the act were allowed to expire. One such aspect was the so-called Lone Wolf provision, which basically allowed the U.S. intelligence system to monitor individual people even if they had no known terrorist affiliation. This clause was supposedly never used and it was only allowable against non-citizens.

Another major aspect allowed to expire was the roving wiretap. As the name implied, it allowed the surveillance network to maintain taps on any one of a person’s devices, not just a single phone.

Probably the most well-known provision of the law allowed to expire was section 215. This section was the grounds the NSA used to collect data on a large number of Americans without their express permission, even if they were not suspected of terrorism or of any other crime. This section had also been used by agencies such as the CIA and FBI to track financial records of suspected terrorists and criminals.  The video below highlights what provisions of the Patriot Act will expire and what that means, specifically in relation to section 215.

Its Future and Its Successors

While these unpopular parts of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire, a similar successor was quickly passed. Known as the Freedom Act, this new law allows for greater transparency and puts the onus for compiling phone records on companies. Additionally, the Freedom Act also requires the disclosure of how often data collection is requested and allows for more opinions from judges from the mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the aftermath of the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act and following the passage of the Freedom Act, opinions quickly poured in. While those who supported the Patriot Act claim that this has led to a degradation in U.S. security, many others actually view the two bills as essentially the same. In fact, for this latter group, the new Freedom Act does little more than privatize the collection of people’s data while offering the vaguest efforts at greater transparency. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA was compiling the data, but now the onus will fall on the telecom companies themselves. Now the companies will store the data and whenever the NSA or FBI wants to use it they will need to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Aside from changing who collects the data, the new law really does not do much. This new collection method may actually cost more due to private inefficiencies and also the money the government will pay the companies for their efforts. It also protects these same companies, such as AT&T, from lawsuits. Meaning, regardless of opinion, Americans may now be paying more money to spy on themselves. The video below explains the specifics of the new Freedom Act, even suggesting that it might lead to more widespread surveillance.

When the Freedom Act successfully passed through congress, despite repeated efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama immediately signed the legislation. While he and others in the government and business community lauded the new act and its potential for greater oversight and transparency, the reality remains to be seen.

The Origins of the Act

Most people associate the Patriot Act with the events of 9/11. In actuality, many of the ideas contained in the act had been debated for years but had not won the necessary support. The Patriot Act was actually the result of a compromise over another proposed bill known as the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, while the events of 9/11 did not necessarily spawn the ideas for the Patriot Act, they did serve as the catalyst to convince lawmakers that a law of that type was at last needed to prevent any further attacks.

However, how they came to this decision and how it was passed has only added fuel to the fire of those who find it controversial and even illegal. The law was originally introduced to congress by Ashcroft, who gave congress a week to pass the bill or risk the consequences of another attack. Members in both houses attempted to make changes to the law, but most were scrapped in order to meet the deadline. Certainly no one wanted to be responsible for another terrorist attack against the United States due to idleness.

While the law itself has generated controversy, extending its provision has also led to extended debates. In 2009 when it was first up for review, certain provisions were set to expire, which led to a lengthy debate and even a delayed vote. In the end, though, President Obama reauthorized the act in 2010 for one more year.

The president had another opportunity the following year, in 2011, to refuse to authorize the act or at least to add amendments. One such amendment, suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), called for government oversight and transparency for how the act was used by the FBI. Leahy had actually been the one leading the charge for more oversight measures for the original act, too. Despite these attempts, the amendment was ignored once more and President Obama confirmed the act yet again.

Public Sentiment

An act this controversial and requiring so much support would seem to be a likely candidate for the legislative trash heap; however, even following the disclosure made by Edward Snowden about the NSA monitoring civilians’ phones, this law is still far from unpopular. In fact, the opposite is true. In light of the act expiring, CNN polled people across party lines to gather their opinions. According to that poll, 61 percent of people felt the law should have been renewed.

Additionally, while lawmakers in Washington did not agree that the Patriot Act as it was originally constructed should be renewed, they did agree that something similar was still needed to support America’s anti-terrorism efforts. In an odd coupling, Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans united to defeat the expiring Patriot Act and then pass its successor, the Freedom Act. While the Freedom Act was overwhelmingly passed, small groups on both sides held out. On one side were those in the old-guard of Republicans, such as McConnell and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who felt the Patriot Act should have been renewed as it was. Conversely, some legislators such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) wanted it scrapped altogether. Paul and his like-minded supporters viewed the whole program as an example of government overreach.

The public and congress therefore still view the Patriot Act and its successor as necessary and vital to national security, even after the Snowden revelations revealed that security is coming at a cost to everyone’s privacy.

Conclusion

The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial law, passed during a time of public terror in the wake of the greatest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. The law itself gave the American intelligence community widespread powers to spy on and investigate its own citizens, without discretion and often without reason.

After much public outcry, the most contested parts of the law were allowed to die off; however, its  successor the Freedom Act guarantees nearly the same all-encompassing powers for the intelligence community, while merely shifting the effort to compile data onto communications companies. All this, even in the face of revelations, that data compiled through the Patriot Act did not aid in any major terror investigation.

Sources

Primary

Electronic Privacy Information Center: USA Patriot Act

Additional

USA Today: Here’s what happens now that the Patriot Act provisions expired

Reuters: USA Freedom Act vs. expired Patriot Act Provisions: How Do the Spy Laws Differ?

Daily Tech: Despite Support From Senator Sanders, Senator Paul Loses USA Freedom Act Fight

Politifact: Revise the Patriot Act to Increase Oversight on Government Surveillance

CNN: Six in Ten Back Renewal of NSA Data Collection

Law Street Media: NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal

NPR: NSA’s Bulk Collection of American’s Phone Data is illegal, appeals court rules

Business Insider: Obama’s Signature on the Freedom Act Reverses Security Policy That Has Been in Place Since 9/11

CNN: NSA Surveillance Bill Passes After Weeks-Long Showdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expiration of Patriot Act Reignites Security v. Privacy Debate in America appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

An unfortunate reality of the world in which we live is that new crimes are perpetrated and new victims are created every day. There’s a firmly carved out space in our justice system–and by extension, our society–for offenders. But what about the victims of crimes? What spaces do they occupy in our justice system, and what rights do they have? Read on to learn about the pressing issues in victims’ rights, and what progress is being made to advocate for victims within our justice system.

What are victims’ rights?

The newly developing field of victims’ rights law comes from the theory that there needs to be a place for the victim in the justice system and within the victim’s own legal process. Currently there are two players in our traditional criminal justice system: the prosecutor and the defendant. However, victims’ rights advocates argue that this construction leaves little or no room for the victim of the crime, and that instead the victim is treated as another piece of evidence or as an aside. Victims’ rights advocates work to create a space for victims in the court room, or any other part of the legal process.

Much of victims’ rights theory is focused on the concept of agency: victims are independent people who should be able to play their own roles in the discussion of the crimes perpetrated against them. Often victims don’t have access to lawyers or advocates; victims’ rights law provides appropriate channels for their voices, and can involve appointing legal representation to victims.

Victims’ rights law is broad, amorphous, and serves as an umbrella for different aspects of how victims interact with the legal system. According to the Department of Justice, victims’ rights include:

1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court or parole proceeding involving the crime, or of any release or escape of the accused.
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case.
6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

One particularly important aspect of victims’ rights law is enforcement, or the ability of victims to actually assert themselves into a criminal case. The National Crime Victim Law Institute is at the forefront of the push to train lawyers in this discipline and support crime victims in the justice system.

National Crime Victim Law Institute

The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI), an institute housed within Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, is the foremost authority in victims’ rights law. Founded in 1997, the NCVLI “promotes balance and fairness in the justice system through crime victim centered legal advocacy, education, and resource sharing.” Among a variety of tools and initiatives, the institute trains actors in the justice system, from attorneys and judges to the victims themselves, on the scope and enforceability of victims’ rights. Additionally, the institute’s National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys provides a network of legal advocates who work for free on behalf of crime victims. The NCVLI also hosts the Crime Victim Law Conference, which is the only national conference of its kind that focuses on training and educating crime victim advocates. Watch the video below for more information on the conference.

Examples of Victims’ Rights

Right to Notice

The right to notice is a “gateway” right that needs to be afforded to victims, meaning that if a victim does not receive the right to notice, he will not be able to participate in the rest of the proceedings. The NCVLI sheds further light on this right. According to the NCVLI, the right to notice is the “right to advisement of the existence of crime victims’ rights and the right to advisement of specific events during the criminal justice process.” The right to notice can include that the victim receives notice for proceedings such as hearings, trials, or the possible release or parole of the person who perpetrated the crime against the victim. As with many of these rights, the ways to invoke the right to notice varies from state to state, and can sometimes require that a victim request notifications.

Right to Be Present

The right to be present, or the right of the victim to stay in the courtroom during the trial of the accused, used to generally be considered a given. According to the NCVLI, however, that changed in 1975 with the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (and the adoption by many states in their rules of evidence as well), which allows for the sequestration of all witnesses, save a party representative from each side. If the victim is a witness, he will not be allowed to stay in the courtroom during the trial. While this rule prevents witnesses from having their testimony altered by what they observe in trial, it takes away the right to be present from victims. States have started to backtrack on this; many states now guarantee the right to be present, or leave it up to the states’ discretion, but there are still states where victims are excluded from proceedings.

Right to Be Heard 

The right to be heard deals specifically with victims’ ability to actively participate in the criminal proceedings of those who committed a crime against them. The right to be heard allows the victim to speak to the court at various stages, either verbally or through a written statement, although in many states how exactly this plays out is up to the court’s discretion. Points at which a victim may wish to address the court include release, plea, sentencing, and parole. In federal cases, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) allows the victim to reasonably address the court at proceedings such as parole, release, or plea hearings.

Right to Protection

A right to protection works to ensure that the victim will not be harassed or discriminated against because of his role in the proceedings, or for his status as a victim. This includes keeping the victim updated on the status of the offender, particularly when it comes to things like parole and release status, or if the offender escapes. Victims have the right to feel safe, even if they participate in the legal proceedings against the person(s) who wronged them.

Other Rights

There are significantly more rights that should be afforded to victims–the above list is not exhaustive. Other victims’ rights issues include the rights to due process, fairness, dignity, and respect; the right to information and referral; the right to apply for victim compensation; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to confer; the right to a copy of the pre-sentence report and transcripts; and the right to standings and remedies.

Victims and Attorneys

In a court case, the defendant is guaranteed access to an attorney, though whether or not he chooses to exercise that right is up to the individual. Victims, however, do not have the same right. Prosecutors are not attorneys for the victim–they are attorneys for the state, or the “people.” They don’t necessarily have to do what is best for the victim; they are required to do their job as sanctioned by the government.

On the other hand, attorneys for victims can advise them of their legal rights, and help them act upon them. These lawyers can advocate for the victims’ rights listed above in states where those rights are not guaranteed, fight for restitution in cases where victims owe medical bills or other related costs, ensure that a victim’s records are not allowed to be exploited, as well as many other ways in which a victim may need assistance.

Challenges in Victims’ Rights Law

Victims’ rights work is currently a rather small field of work. While the recognition of the need of victims’ rights law has grown over the last several decades, there are still very few lawyers, institutions, and funding available for the practice. In addition, victims’ rights law features some unique challenges, some of which are described below.

Changing the Culture

One of the largest problems to overcome for those working in the victims’ rights field is the current culture of our justice system, and the need for balance between victims’ and defendants’ rights. There are plenty of rights afforded by our constitution and other governing legal documents and procedures that protect defendants. For example, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, rights for victims aren’t similarly ingrained in our society; moreover, there are concerns that granting rights to victims takes away from the rights of defendants. Countering that culture and finding an appropriate balance is a struggle for those who work in the field of victims’ rights.

Funding and Time

Given that victims’ rights law is a relatively small field and requires a lot of work, those who work in the field do have a problem gaining funding. According to Meg Garvin, Executive Director & Clinical Professor of Law at the NCVLI, there are very few people who work in victims’ rights law particularly, and funding is hard to come by. As NCVLI points out on its website:

Did you know the average amicus curiae brief requires 140 hours of attorney time? Some briefs, including those to the United States Supreme Court, require much more time, and most also require payment of filing costs. The fair market value of just the attorney time on the average brief is $36,400.

Arguments Against Victims’ Rights

Those who work in victims’ rights law also have to deal with the debate over whether or not a move toward more robust and protected victims’ rights is appropriate. Critics of the field of victims’ rights law point to the logistical difficulties of including victims in proceedings, and again cite the need for witness sequestration. There is also concern over how to deal with crimes that have multiple victims, particularly if the victims all want different things or have contrasting views that may further complicate the case.

Furthermore, there are worries about the ethics of advocating for victims before the offenders are actually declared guilty. As Wendy Kaminer of the American Prospect puts it,

The practical problems posed by the victims’ rights amendment are, however, less daunting than its repressive ideology. It attacks the presumption of innocence. When we identify and legally empower a victim before conviction, we assume that a crime has been committed, although that is sometimes disputed at trial (think of an acquaintance rape case); we also assume the veracity and reliability of the self-proclaimed victim.

Conclusion

Victims’ rights law focuses on an important, seemingly often forgotten person in any case–the victim. Victims’ rights encompass almost every aspect of the justice system, from allowing victims the right to notice, to granting them an active role in proceedings. Victims’ rights law isn’t just limited to the courtroom, either, but plays a role in policy discussions and advocacy throughout our legal system. Advocating for the victim to play an active role can ensure that our justice system is as fair, effective, and representative as possible.

Resources

Primary

Office of the United States Attorneys: Crime Victims’ Rights Act

National Archives: Bill of Rights

NCVLI: Fundamentals of Victims’ Rights: A Summary of 12 Common Victims’ Rights

Office of Justice Programs: Office for the Victims of Crimes

NCVLI: Victim Law Library

Additional

American Prospect: Victims Versus Suspects

National Association of Victims’ Rights Attorneys: Pro Bono

ACLU: Factsheet on the Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Victims in the Justice System: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is often considered to be one of the “necessary evils” of life. Some people are lucky enough to never get the summons, while others seem to be prime choices. But few people know what to do once they get that summons in the mail, and fewer still know about the judicial history and roles that juries play. Read on to learn about the intricacies of the American jury process.

Why do we have juries?

Though it is often maligned, serving on a jury is an important civil service that allows us to have fair trials. Many consider this act to be one of the best ways that citizens can assure that the judiciary holds up our rights and liberties. Each potential member of a jury will first receive a mailing. Any other form of contact, including phone calls and in person visits, should be considered fraud and reported.

A jury is promised to citizens of the United States in the Constitution:

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Juries are representatives from the community that make up a cross section of that community; rarely will there be two people who are alike. The goal is to be as impartial and fair as possible when trying to reach a verdict.

There are slight differences between juries in civil and criminal cases, but both are given clear instructions on what they need to decide. In a civil case, the burden of proof o the plaintiff, or the obligation to prove what one says, is much lower than the burden of proof on the prosecutor in a criminal case. The burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case the burden is “preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not, in most cases.

To serve on a jury, one must:

• Be a United States citizen.
• Be at least 18 years of age.
• Reside primarily in the judicial district for one year.
• Be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form.
• Have no disqualifying mental or physical condition.
• Not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
• Never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored).

However, some people can still avoid jury duty even if they meet the above requirements, such as members of the armed forces on active duty, police and firemen, and “public officers” of local, state, or federal governments. These people are not likely to receive a mailing from the state, but in such a case they often can just call in and report the problem. With only a few exemptions, including being physically unable to get to the courthouse, there are few other reasons that a person would be allowed to call in with an excuse–everyone else must fill out the form they received and show up on the given day.

Are there any controversies over juror eligibility? 

As our nation grows and changes, questions about who exactly can be on a jury have evolved. A recent example includes a 2013 California bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to serve on juries. California assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) did not want to change any of the other stipulations for serving on a jury, but hoped that this particular bill would reduce the amount of times one person would have to serve on a jury, and would also “help integrate immigrants into the community.” The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who said, “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Still, it helped to raise questions about who exactly should serve on a jury.

There are also concerns about the age at which one can serve on a jury–questions are raised that 18 may be too young, or on the flip side, not young enough. In George v. United States, a minor defendant who was under indictment for violation of the Selective Service Act of 1948 challenged the exclusion of minors from the grand jury. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, upholding the right to exclude minors from jury service.

What does a jury do?

Serving on a jury is a very formulaic procedure that requires a lot of “hurry up a wait” timing. Each step is meticulously thought out, but just takes time because of the sheer amount of people that they call at one time.

Here’s how the process is supposed to go: You’ll be expected to bring photo identification (driver’s license, state ID card, student ID) so that they can verify your identity and jury summons. Then you will sit and wait while everyone else checks in and things happen behind the scenes. Eventually, you may be subject to a voir dire. Voir Dire is “the second stage of jury procedures, and is the process by which the court and the attorneys narrow down the pool of juries to the 12 people that will decide the case.” How this happens largely depends on the state, the case, and even the specific judge. You may be asked questions so that the lawyers can determine who is going to be fair and able to listen to the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions. Lawyers are trained to look at every single thing you do while answering the questions; as a result, people are often released for reasons that may seem unclear.

The lawyers are looking for anything that may make the potential juror biased against the person he or she is defending. Some of those disqualifiers may be personal knowledge of the case, or prejudicial views. Others include:

• Negative pretrial publicity.
• A connection to law enforcement.
• Being a victim in a similar case.
• A past connection with someone involved in the trial.

Jurors can also be disqualified for falling asleep, illness, contact with the defendant, or bringing outside information into the court.

What problems are there in jury selection?

One of the biggest problems that comes from juries and jury selection is that “well rounded” aspect that they go for–often, it isn’t as well rounded as they had hoped. One of the biggest problems in recent memory was the grand jury in the Ferguson case: the jury was largely white, middle-class people on the older side.

According to CNS News:

The grand jury is composed of 12 people “selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens,” according to Missouri law. The jury is 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white, but about two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black. Brown was black. The officer is white.

While a grand jury is a slightly different process, this example highlights the difficulty of finding a good cross section of people to serve on an unbiased jury.

Sometimes the problem isn’t always with who is included in the jury, but who was excluded and why. The Equal Justice Initiative explains that many African American jurors are excluded from juries because lawyers sometimes think that they won’t be unbiased, explaining:

In Powers v. Ohio, 141 the United States Supreme Court held that jurors have a right not to be excluded based on their race, yet race-based exclusion continues to stigmatize growing numbers of Americans.

Serving on a Jury

If you are one of the “lucky” few, you are then sworn in by the judge. You will receive some basic notes about what you can and cannot do during the trial. Both sides will remind you not to make decisions until you have heard everything, and you will be encouraged to pay attention to every little detail. During the trial, you will not be allowed to talk to anyone about what is going on inside the courtroom; this rule includes members of your family, or reporters who might want a scoop.

After the trial starts, you may be shuffled back and forth a few times depending on what is argued. From there, you can just expect discussions and explanations from many different people. Each case is handled differently depending on the evidence and the people present. Eventually you will hear the closing arguments and move to deliberation.

The first step of the verdict is usually to select a spokesperson whose “role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict.” The jury is also free to ask questions or look closely at evidence. They then have to deliberate away from any other people. If something goes wrong, like a juror speaking to an outside party, or if a juror seems “off,” they can be removed. Deliberations may take a few hours, or they could take days. In some cases, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous decision. While in some courts having ten out of 12 people agree still serves as a valid decision, others will call it a hung jury and declare a mistrial.

However, there is another controversial choice that few people know about–jury nullification.

Jury Nullification

When many people serve on a jury, they often think that they have two options to decide upon: guilty or not guilty. However, there is a third option that few people know about–jury nullification, or the practice of saying “not guilty” in a case involving a law you feel is unjust. Basically, the jury feels that the defendant does not deserve that particular punishment for what he or she did.

This is a jury’s way of saying, “by the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty, but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.”

For a full explanation, see the video below.

 Conclusion

Some people love serving on a jury while others hate it–it all really depends on what kind of person you are; however, it is one of your duties as a citizen, and the chances of you actually serving are very low. While the juror system has evolved significantly over time, and there are still questions that routinely pop up, it stands strong as one of the tenets of the American justice system.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Courts: Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses

New York Western District Courts: Frequently Asked Questions – Jury Duty

U.S. Courts: Jury Service

Additional

American Bar Association: How Courts Work

Cornell: Sixth Amendment

FindLaw: How Are Potential Jurors Selected?

Fox News: California Bill Would Let Illegal Immigrants Serve on Juries

New American: New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

American Bar: Effective Voir Dire

Bloomberg View: Ferguson’s Grand Jury Problem

Court Listener: George v. United States

Find Law: What is the Role of a Jury in a Criminal Case

Fully Informed Jury Association: Can a Juror Be Removed?

The People’s Law Library of Maryland: What to Expect the Day You Go to Court

Lawyers: Excluding Jurors: Removing and Disqualifying

The New York Times: Jury Duty? Prepare for Rejection; Though Many Are Called, Few Ever Deliberate

Primer: Five Easy Steps For Surviving Jury Duty

The Pennsylvania Code: Conduct of Jury Trial

Truth Out: Jury Nullification: Why Every American Needs to Learn This Taboo Verdict

Wise Geek: What Happens When There’s a Hung Jury?

Flex Your Rights: Nine Arguments for Nullification Debunked

Lifehacker: Eight Myths About Jury Duty, Debunked

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Can Expect When You’re Called For Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

As someone who grew up firmly entrenched in the era of technology, interpreting what people say via plain text on a screen is almost second nature to me. Emojis, elongated words, abbreviations, as silly as it sounds, all convey their own unique meaning. So, it follows that how to deal with those unique meanings is an important question that jurors and the legal system were going to have to deal with someday. Well that day is today, as an argument over the significance of emojis and other kinds of virtual language have made their way into the much-anticipated trial of alleged Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.

Silk Road was an online site where many illicit transactions took place–particularly the sale of illegal drugs. It was a virtual black market, hidden under layers of secrecy and encryption. In November 2013, the website was shut down and Ulbricht, 29, was arrested and accused of being “Dread Pirate Roberts,” the founder of the site.

Ulbricht is now on trial, facing charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and procuring murder. That last one refers to the fact that “assassins” allegedly advertised their services on Silk Road.

His trial has taken a weird turn though. It was more common when I was younger, but every couple of years someone writes a reactionary article claiming that today’s teenagers are using emoticons and abbreviations to set up giant orgies (or whatever it is that kids do these days). These articles are usually much-ridiculed by anyone who’s ever seen a computer before, like this CNN piece from December entitled “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.” Choice abbreviations from this article included: “IWSN – I want sex now” “GNOC – Get naked on camera,” and “KPC– Keeping parents clueless.”

Well, parts of Ulbricht’s trial kind of sounds like a real life reenactment of an article warning parents about the acronyms that those darn kids nowadays are using.

pic.twitter.com/5YGWmqi0jA

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

That brings us back to the whole emoji issue too, because apparently this happened “IRL”:

He said “emoticon” literally every time there was an emoticon pic.twitter.com/deisI0nSEH

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

There was also a  particular message at issue in which a “smilie face” was used, and the prosecutor didn’t mention the smilie face after reading the message to the jury.

Essentially, the issue here is that the attorneys in this case are realizing that they can’t treat Ulbricht’s emails, chats, texts, or whatever other form of online communication like they’d treat a letter or an audio recording. The ways in which we communicate online have developed their own nuances, such as elongating certain words like “soooo” or using multiple question marks. Both of these were discussed in Ulbricht’s trial so far.

That’s why Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht’s attorney, wrote a letter to the judge asking that any forms of written communication–including emails, chats, and texts–be shown to the jury, not read aloud. He argued that the danger of different inflections, or ignoring parts of the message altogether (like just saying “emoticon”) was too high. The prosecution, obviously, disagreed.

Eventually Judge Katherine B. Forrest allowed a compromise. She allowed the chats and other text-based communications to be read into the record, but also instructed the jury to read them on their own and take note of any symbols.

This is just one part of a trial that in many ways deals with a world that has the potential to be utterly foreign to some of the jurors. Judge Forrest even recommended to both sides of the case that they develop a glossary for the terms that jurors may never have heard of, like Bitcoin, IP address, and Tor.

It’s a division in our society that is as inevitable as it is ubiquitous–knowledge of technology divides people of different ages, different social classes, and even different interests. That being said, it’s clear that the ways in which we communicate are ever-changing, and not as easy to interpret as they used to be. It’s easy to tell if someone is sarcastic from their tone when you listen to a recorded voicemail; it is not as easy when reading an email. The jurors will have to weigh these changes in technology along with the charges against Ulbricht, and moving forward, I bet we’ll see a lot more cases where the meanings of different facets of technological communication are up for debate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emojis in Court: Does a :) Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

One good thing about living in the USA is that constitution-given right to freedom of speech. So, for example, I could name my child whatever I wanted (unless maybe it is something along the lines of Hitler). While this may not seem like much, it is better than what we might get in some countries–though kids who were “allowed” to be named whatever weird thing passed through their parents’ heads at naming time might not think this is a good idea, right Apple Martin? Right my sister, Novella? (Named after short novels.)

Some countries tell you what you can or cannot name your child through the use of approved lists, banned lists, etc. Or, as is the case in France, the country lets you name the kid whatever you want, but then might decide the name is not in the kid’s best interest and require a name-change.

Just ask the parents of little Nutella…er, Ella. You see, a French court recently decided that naming your child after a trademarked, chocolatety, eatable spread could cause the child to be ridiculed one day. And since all any kid needs is one more reason to be made fun of when they reach the horrible school-year ages, the court felt that this needed to be rectified. Apparently, the name was bad enough that they felt the need to rule on it. And, as you might suppose from everything I have already said, they ruled that the baby should be renamed; however, the parents of the baby decided not to show up to trial, so the court was forced to pick a new name for the kid on its own. And thus, Ella was born–the name, not the child, who had obviously already been born by this point.

Courtesy of Giphy.

This was not the only time France has banned a name. They have also overruled Fraise, or ‘strawberry’ in French. So basically, what I am getting is that French judges hate chocolate covered strawberries, if not anything that could be related to fondue–and anything that has to do with that whole fattening, if not delicious, world.

Courtesy of Giphy.

In conclusion, if you are planning on naming your child something weird, please do not birth your child in France. Or maybe do: your kid might name you parent of the year after having their name changed from Steak’n’Eggs to Stan because you were smart enough to go into labor in a place that cares so much about its citizens that it wants to get into their lives even at the naming stage.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Court Renames Baby From Nutella to Ella appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you keeping track, Chris Brown has landed himself in legal trouble for at least the third time since his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. This time the R&B singer found himself in court because of a recent performance he gave at the Fiesta Nightclub in San Jose, California. The terms of Brown’s probation require him to get permission before leaving Los Angeles County; however, he didn’t do that, and instead traveled over 300 miles outside of the county for the January 11 show.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Brandlin revoked Brown’s probation yesterday in light of the unapproved travel, as well as the fact that Brown is still 200 hours short of completing the required community service component of his plea agreement. Probation revocation isn’t necessarily a go-directly-to-jail card; judges have several different options at their disposal in this type of situation, including requiring entry into some type of treatment program or adding additional time onto the length of probation, among other things. In Brown’s case, Brandlin is allowing the singer to remain free at least until March when another hearing in the matter is scheduled.

Brown’s attorney Mark Geragos–known for representing celebrity defendants, including Michael Jackson and notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson–claimed that Brown’s unauthorized travel was not in fact the singer’s fault, but rather that Geragos’ office provided him with bad information on this particular term of his probation.

Brown’s probation dates back to the infamous incident with Rihanna following the Grammys in 2009, when he choked, punched, and bit her. Since his arrest and subsequent plea agreement in that case, Brown has not stayed out of legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after being arrested for punching a man outside his Washington, DC hotel. He was sentenced to time already served after spending two days in jail; however, because he was already on probation for assaulting Rihanna he received 131 days in jail as a result of the new guilty plea. He was also ordered to enter rehab as a result of this incident, but he was kicked out for violating the center’s rules before finishing the four-month program. He was also charged in a hit-and-run incident in early 2013, but the charges were later dropped.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chris Brown is Back in Court…Again appeared first on Law Street.

There are two lessons I learned from the following story:

1. Never go on a cruise if you owe the government money (or even if the government erroneously thinks that you owe it money); and
2. Yellowstone National Park is all about collecting its debts so don’t think you can get away with cheating it out of even a dime.

It all started in 2003 when Hope Clarke forgot to put her hot chocolate and marshmallows away one night when she was visiting Yellowstone. Helpful hint: if you are visiting a national park, do not forget to put away your food. There is actually a good reason for this: animals that eat people-food. So, when she forgot to put away her food she received a $50 fine that was probably reasonable and frankly would in no way inspire me to write about it. So why am I?

Courtesy of giphy.

To answer that, let’s move forward to 2004. Clarke, in another travel-related expedition, went on a cruise to Mexico. Everything was going great, and–I assume, but I did not ask her this myself–if you had asked her right before she exited the cruise when it landed back in the US, she probably would have told you that she had a good time; however, the government had something to say about this smooth sailing.

You see, Clarke did not exit the ship of her own accord. She was escorted out of the ship in handcuffs after having been awakened at 6:30am by federal agents. The agents then dragged her before a judge in leg shackles.

What happened?

Well, customs agents who meet ships at the port and perform random checks of passenger lists had found an interesting thing on Ms. Clarke’s record: that year-old $50 fine from Yellowstone. They did what they would have done to any hardened criminal and immediately threw her before a judge.

Clarke tried to come up with some defense for her horrid deed. She said something really lame like that Yellowstone would not let her leave until she paid the fine, and thus, since she was not still in the park, she must have already paid it. Of course, she might have said that a little more respectfully, but I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t there.

Clearly she was lying, though. There was no way this would have happened if that fine had already been paid. So basically, she should have been thrown in jail for both the unpaid fine and perjury. Only wait, the judge went a different way. Instead of buying either the story of the criminal or the claims of the feds, he looked at the citation itself, which said that the fine had indeed been paid. Understandably after that he dropped the case and Clarke was free to go while the government was left to ponder what exactly had gone wrong.

Courtesy of giphy.

All I know is that my mom was right: if you don’t clean up your mess right now, young lady, bad things are going to happen.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens in Yellowstone Does Not Stay in Yellowstone appeared first on Law Street.

There are few topics as loaded in the American consciousness right now as the crime of rape. The Department of Education launched a massive investigation into the way that universities and colleges handle rape allegations, and hashtags like #YesAllWomen and #BeenRapedNeverReported have led to raw, powerful discussions on social media. However, one of the most immediate issues when it comes to dealing with rape in this nation is the complicated way in which we prosecute it. The Washington State Supreme Court just made a ruling that sheds light into the difficulty that comes with trying a rape case.

There are obviously a lot of moving parts when it comes to rape prosecution — social pressures, lack of reporting, and institutionalized victim-blaming to name just a few. All of these are essential factors that affect every step of a rape prosecution, and that needs to be kept in mind. But on the most basic level, prosecuting rape is complicated because of one simple question that we still haven’t figured out: who needs to prove what?

Think of a murder case. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. Because of the nature of that crime, there’s no paranoia about false accusations the way there is with a rape case. Very few people argue about what the victim was wearing, or whether they invited someone over, or whether they were drinking matter at all. There’s no claim that the victim didn’t make it clear enough that they didn’t want to be murdered. There’s no real consent argument to make, except for possibly in a doctor-assisted suicide case, but those are rare outliers, not a normal consideration. We as a people know that being murdered is horrible, and the person who commits the murder is in the wrong. In order to make sure that the right person receives justice,however, affirmative defenses do exist — the most well-known probably being self-defense or insanity. This is not to say that murder cases are straightforward, but rather that the idea of “murder” and how to deal with it in a court is significantly more understood and accepted.

Compare that to a rape case. Like I said, there are all the other issues to contend with first — lack of investigation, lack of reporting, intense cultural shame. For all of those reasons, and many others, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) estimates that for every 100 rapes, only 46 are reported to the police, and only nine of those even get a day in court. Those abysmal statistics aside, when the case makes it to court there are even more compounded issues.

One of the big problems that we can’t seem to move past is the mere concept that rape can involve an act that in another context is not a crime. It’s different than other violent crimes in that way; no one can make that argument about murder or robbery. The inability to grasp that concept is what has led to national paranoia over false accusations and a perverted fascination about the actions of the victim.

And that brings us to the prosecution of rape — consent is so hard to define and prove that it makes even the ability to prosecute rape messy. A recent case in Washington highlights the issue. The State Supreme Court overturned a ruling that placed the burden on the defendant to prove consent in a rape case. This was a 1975 decision that made it so that the prosecution didn’t have to focus so much on proving there was a lack of consent, but rather the defendant had to show that there was consent. This protected the victim from unfair and inappropriate scrutiny. As Justice Susan Owens put it in her dissent:

In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim…. Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.

A move toward providing the most just outcomes whenever possible should be applauded. But within the context of how difficult it already is to prove a rape case and the horrible way our society usually deals with rape, it’s tough to imagine that this decision truly did that. There’s a lot that needs to happen to ensure that our justice system fairly deals with rape and sexual assault, and to be fair a lot of it, such as working to remove the stigma and societal judgment about rape, isn’t even really possible for the judiciary to do. That being said, this step backward in Washington has a lot of potential to be dangerous. There’s no perfect answer yet for how to best prosecute rape, but Washington’s step backward can’t be it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Courts Turn Back the Clock on Rape Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow is Halloween. It is the time of year when black cats and haunted houses start popping up all over the place, terrifying young children and adults alike. Do not let these fake terrors alarm you: Halloween is not any scarier than any other day of the year. This isn’t because ghosts, demons, and zombies do not exist, though, but rather because they are real – and they can pop up any day of the year. That’s right – you should never stop fearing!

So you don’t believe me, skeptic? Then let me tell you stories about eight “mythical” creatures and how they ended up in courtrooms around the world.

Fright Right: Vampire

Courtesy of Tumblr.

Courtney Royal, aka Vampish (sic) Black Sheep League of Doom Gardamun Family Circle Master Vampire High Priest (as he is known on court documents), is not pleased with a Texas jail that is refusing to accommodate his religion: Vampirism. Vampire High Priest is serving a lifetime sentence (which, since vampires are part of the undead, means he should technically already be free but let’s just ignore that for now) so it is extra important he is granted the right to be a vampire. After all, he needs blood to survive.

Since vampires are not a recognized religion in Texas prisons, Vampire High Priest had to file a suit for religious accommodation and $150,000 for pain and suffering. He might have to take a bite of a couple of fellow inmates for that blood supply, though, because his case was dismissed as frivolous (disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting he should bite his fellow inmates. Cannibalism is never the answer).

P.S., this was my favorite vampire case, but it was nowhere near the only vampire case. This is apparently a pretty thriving practice.

Para-aroma Activity: Demons

Courtesy of Giphy.

A house full of prank-loving demons would be bad on its own. But then you add in the fact that they are apparently very flatulent demons and all of a sudden it’s like you are stuck forever with the world’s worst roommates. (By the way, “fart demons,” as they are called, are now my favorite type of demons – to write about – they do not seem like something I would enjoy seeing…or rather smelling.)

A Romanian man, Madalin Ciculescu, sued a church, four priests, and a bishop because they did not exorcise his house of the odorous, trickster demons – though they told him they did. Ciculescu asked the men of the cloth to come in to his house after his TV kept switching off and on, a possessed hair dryer had a black shadow come out whenever it was turned on, and truly horrendous foul smells were all around the house (without even a “My bad,” to make the offense less rude).

The church claimed in court that it had properly exorcised the house and anything he saw or heard (or smelled) after (that word feels important to me) the exorcism were products of his imagination – or maybe just an elaborate way to get out of saying excuse me. The court agreed.

Hoax Story: Ghost

Courtesy of Giphy.

I could tell you about the guy who was fined in Portsmouth for standing in a graveyard and pretending to be a ghost by flapping his arms and saying “wooooh,” but that would be too easy. So instead, I am going to scare you with the “Tale of the Ghost Employees.”

Erwin Zambrano Moya is suing the Subway sandwich shop franchisee for whom he worked for employing ghost workers. Now, before you say Moya is a crazy person, let me state this up front: Moya is not the person who is crazy in this story. That honor belongs to his boss who circumvented paying overtime by paying a worker for up to 40 hours and then paying any other hours they worked to a “ghost” employee on the payroll who happened to have the same bank account or mailing address.  Both Moya and “Ever Ventura” (among others) got paychecks for hours Moya worked. After a couple of years of this, Moya and Ventura (who was probably paying taxes but was never actually receiving a paycheck) got fed up and Moya took it upon himself, his ghosts, his coworkers, and his coworkers’ ghosts to start a class action lawsuit in civil court. I have an eerie feeling he just might win.

Attack of the Religious Tomatoes: Monster

Courtesy of Giphy.

I’ve got to tell you. Prison is just no place for people with non-mainstream “religions.” If I didn’t convince you of this with the vampire case, maybe this one will do it. It is a cruel world when inmates cannot practice their constitutional-given right to be a Rastafarian from behind jail bars. Oh, wait. They can. My mistake; that was a typo. Let me try again: it is a cruel world when inmates cannot practice their constitutional-given right to be a Pastafarian from behind jail bars.

What, you ask, is Pastafarianism? Well, it is the self-proclaimed parody religion that claims the Spaghetti Monster created the world and that pirates were its early followers. The Oregon man who created the religion as a protest to teaching intelligent design in schools (demanding his faith in the monster be taught in school with the other religions) claims to have touched the lives of millions with his “noodly appendage.”

You can recognize a Pastafarian from the colander they wear on their head. Unless, of course, they are in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for attempted assault after chasing a couple with a hatchet. In that case, they might find out that the prison system discriminates against them for trying to live a humble life and follow the teaching of the Spaghetti Monster – saying they do not accommodate satirical religions. They might then have their colander taken away from them. Then they might sue for $5 million. Just ask Stephen Cavanaugh. Because everything I just said is true about him.

QuIT: Clowns (and not even the California machete wielding ones)

Courtesy of Giphy.

When you enter a haunted house, you expect to be assaulted. In fact, you most likely paid for that very thrill. However, I am willing to bet that when you signed up for the affront, you did not mean to allow clowns with sex toys to be the ones that did it.

If you attended the Massacre Haunted House in Illinois this year, though, you might have been out of luck in the ‘not being harassed by perverted clowns’ department. This is the case with Regina Janito, her 17-year-old daughter, and three other minors. When they got into the parking lot of the haunted house, they were met by two male clowns holding sex toys; one of whom allegedly poked the 17-year-old with the toy and made lewd comments, while the other supposedly mimed sex acts with the toy. It may not surprise you to learn that Janito has decided to sue.

In my opinion, there is not much scarier than creepy clowns, but sexual-deviant, creepy clowns are one of the few things that make the cut. I feel for you, Janito.

Little Sicky: Satan

Courtesy of Giphy.

Caius Veiovis, a Satanist and vampire (what did I tell you about these vampires) in Massachusetts with horn implants, green bones tattooed on his fingers, and 666 etched into his forehead, was recently sentenced to three consecutive life sentences for the kidnapping, murder, and dismemberment of three men. Upon hearing the verdict, he told the members of the jury that he would see them all in hell. So, have fun with that, his fellow inmates.

Plight of the Living Dead: Zombie

Courtesy of Giphy.

Donald Miller Jr. found out something interesting about himself in court last year: he is not one of the living. Miller died in 1994, but years later he returned from the unknown. Which is more than three years after he died, and three years is the statute of limitation for resurrections; thus, he is not alive; however, he is also clearly not dead. So, the only other option is that he is one of the undead. In other words, he must be a zombie.

Confused? Let me give you some more information. In the 1980s, Miller, an alcoholic, disappeared. In 1994, he was declared dead by a court and his ex-wife began to collect his social security benefits for herself and their two children. Then, one day out of the blue, Miller showed up and asked the court for his social security number and license back. He basically said, “Sorry. Didn’t realize this would be a big deal, but I lost my job, owed a lot of money, and thought it would be best to disappear for a while. But I’m back, so everything is cool. Just declare me living again, please.”

This was not as easy as one might think, though. First, the ex-wife said she couldn’t repay the social security benefits she had been receiving, and then the court said it didn’t really matter if she could pay because a death ruling cannot be overturned after three years. Actual quote from the judge: “I don’t know where that leaves [Miller], but [he’s] still deceased as far as the law is concerned.”

Watch out Ohio, the walking dead is in your midst.

The Unfair Witch Project: Witches

Courtesy of Tumblr.

Helen Ukpadio, aka Lady Apostle, is threatening to sue for defamation. And really, I cannot blame her. You see, the British Humanist Association and the Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network made complaints that she was claiming children who cry or get sick at night are Satan possessed. These claims were part of documents that led to her being barred from the UK. However, the problem is Apostle has never once claimed this. It is an absolutely ludicrous claim intended to make her look bad. She does not believe that Satan is possessing children. She believes black, red, and vampire (there is that word again…) witchcraft spirits are possessing children and making them cry. Way different!

Apostle is a former witch herself, so she ought to be able to recognize witches. However, she is probably not as much of a Satan expert, so she would not presume to recognize his possessions. If she sues, she claims it will be for half a million pounds (about $806,000).

So, you see? When you are walking around this Halloween and you see a frightening costume, you don’t have to be scared. It is the monster lurking underneath the costume that might come after you. Good luck! Bwahahahaha…

Courtesy of Giphy.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court of 1000 Corpses: 8 Times Halloween Horrors Were Real appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has served on a jury, read To Kill a Mockingbird, or watched a legal drama knows that strict formalism and decorum exists in the courtroom. Judges must wear robes, the jury sits in its box, officers escort the defendant in and out, and lawyers speak only when it’s their turn.

This same ceremonious solemnity also makes the courtroom a place of intrigue, especially to a juror. Perhaps never having been in a courtroom, the strangeness and newness of the court experience picques the juror’s interest. Objectively, a courtroom is a bit unusual — where else is it totally normal for someone to walk around in long black robes? The conditions exist for jurors to want to memorialize and capture their experiences through social media — a tweet, selfie, or Instagram upload.

A recent study by the Federal Judicial Center, however, has revealed that few jurors actually succumb to using social media during a trial. This seems counterintuitive. Social media has such an easiness to it, and a trial is such a spectacle — it would only seem natural for jurors to use social media during their court experience. Why don’t they?

The study reveals a few reasons, including that trial judges explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones and carefully instruct jurors to not use social media in reference to the trial. Apparently these admonitions work to curb the desire to tweet or use Instagram. Although the impulse might exist to want to use social media, warnings by the Judge control those inclinations.

Interestingly, jurors buy in. At concerts and movies, instructions often say to not take pictures or record, but few heed these restrictions. What makes the courtroom so different that jurors predominantly comply with the request to refrain from using social media? Is it that they fear criminal penalty?

While penalty might play some role, I think the same reasons that a juror might feel compelled to capture the court experience simultaneously curb social media usage. The formalism of the court creates intrigue but also compliance to the rules of the court. The juror sees the Judge complying with the dress code and donning robes. The lawyers submit to strict procedural rules on how to conduct a trial. Even police officers obey their instructions with scrupulousness. The whole atmosphere in the court is one of obedience, and it is thus not surprising that jurors implicitly follow suit and refrain from using social media when told.

If you have never been to a court, it is an interesting experience. You will notice how an atmosphere, a space, and the culture of a place can change your behavior and how you think.

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t Jurors Succumb to the Lure of the Selfie in Court? appeared first on Law Street.

A slew of recent crimes committed by minors has prompted debate over whether or not they should be tried as adults in court. Earlier this year in Wisconsin, two preteen girls brutally stabbed their classmate in the name of a mythical being known as Slenderman. Due to the severity and the premeditated nature of their heinous act, the girls have been charged as adults. In a case this month, three Albuquerque teenagers brutally attacked and killed homeless men. Two of the perpetrators, aged 15 and 16, will likely be charged as adults.

The process by which a minor’s case is transferred to adult criminal court is called a waiver, because the judge “waives” the typical protections provided by juvenile court. Many protections afforded to juveniles are the same as those offered to adults. As held by the Supreme Court, these protections include advance notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to remain silent. Perhaps the most significant difference between juvenile and adult courts is that minors in court do not have the right to trial by a jury. This is in order to provide a more intimate and diagnostic experience for juveniles.

When Can Minors be Tried as Adults?

A multitude of factors can lead a minor to be tried in adult court. Most states do not have any age limit for charging minors as adults if they have committed a particularly serious crime such as murder. However, to be handed the death penalty, a juvenile must be 16 years old in 18 states, 17 in 5 states, and 18 in 15 states. According to fairsentencingofyouth.org, the cost to keep one minor in prison for life could educate 169 children for a year.

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice, it is estimated that as many as 250,000 youth annually are prosecuted as adults. The United States is the only country in which minors can receive life in prison. Currently, there are 2,570 minors serving life sentences without parole. Twenty-two juveniles, all aged 17, have received the death penalty in the United States since 1973. In Iraq, 46 minors received the death penalty between 1990 and 2009; however, Iraq’s numbers are a vast outlier, as only 17 juveniles in total were sentenced to death in every country besides the United States and Iraq.

Due to the rising crime rate among youths and the recent violent crimes committed by children, many states are working to lower the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults. Generally, there are five factors that can cause a minor to be charged as an adult. If the perpetrator has committed a serious crime, has a lengthy prior record, is an older teenager, did not improve with prior attempts at rehabilitation, or if future rehab attempts seem unrealistic, he or she may be tried as an adult.

If a judge or prosecutor in a juvenile case wishes to try the offender as an adult, the first step is to hold a waiver hearing. In this situation, the prosecutor must argue his or her case as to why the juvenile should be tried as an adult by providing probable cause that the minor committed the crime. Afterwards, the judge considers if the minor has a good chance to succeed at rehabilitation.

Occasionally, minors who are tried as adults receive greater sympathy from juries in adult criminal courts, which may seem favorable. However, a trial in adult court can lead to far more severe sentences, and even the death penalty or life in prison. Juveniles charged as adults can also end up in prisons as opposed to juvenile detention centers.

The Debate

Does doling out adult sentences to juveniles make a difference, though? Some studies claim that there is no evidence to date that doing so reduces criminal activity among minors.

Those in favor of trying minors as adults argue that a crime is a crime, and just because a child commits it does not impact the victim’s suffering. There is also the claim that sentencing minors to less-severe punishments for their actions will not deter them from future criminal activity. Not treating minors who commit serious crimes as responsible for their actions will, arguably, turn them into irresponsible adults as well.

Those against minors being tried in adult court believe that they lack the ability to fully comprehend the nature of their crimes. Yet while many argue that children cannot mentally plan and execute a crime and understand its consequences, the case of the Wisconsin teens disproves this thought. The two preteens spent substantial time plotting the murder and how to hide the evidence of their crime.

Of course, children are capable of committing very serious and violent offenses that can cause tremendous suffering,” she continued. “But children are also uniquely capable of growth and change, and a sentence that gives them no opportunity to show their capacity to change is a sentence that denies the differences between children and adults.

-Alison Parker, the U.S. director for the advocacy group Human Rights Watch

It is difficult to know how to properly punish underage criminals for their sometimes heinous crimes. At the moment, the trend leans in the direction of ensuring that they take responsibility for their actions by trying juveniles as adults.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Rawle C. Jackman via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Minor” Offenses? Trying Juveniles as Adults is on the Rise in the US appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled last week that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision is notable, but not in the way you might think. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney did not rule the death penalty itself to be unconstitutional, but rather the conditions that accompany it–namely the long wait for California’s death row prisoners.

California has not executed an inmate since a different federal court put a hold on executions in 2006. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the use of the death penalty was cruel and unusual because the technicians administering the drugs were mostly untrained and had little experience with the drugs they were using. As a result, California had to stop executing inmates until they came up with new protocols for humane executions. This has not happened yet, so the ban has remained.

Yet California has not stopped giving felons death sentences. They currently have 748 inmates on death row, the most of any state.

Carney argues that leaving the fate of these prisoners uncertain is more cruel and unusual than killing them. In his eyes, prisoners have the right to know if they are going to die or not. Here’s a notable excerpt of his ruling:

“California juries have imposed the death sentence on more than 900 individuals since 1978. Yet only 13 of those 900 have been executed by the State. Of the remainder, 94 have died of causes other than execution by the State.”

Carney’s problem with California’s death penalty is not the pain it causes but the arbitrariness of it all. More death row inmates in California have died in their jail cells than have been executed. None of these inmates knew how their end would come. There is no way to tell which death row inmates will ever actually be killed. In fact, the death of an inmate is often not based on legitimate factors, such as severity of crime, but on unpredictable factors like length of appeal.

Carney argues that a death penalty must be administered fairly, and not just based on who can appeal their case the longest. Inmates with a shorter appeals process have a greater chance of being killed once California sorts out its implementation problems.

This decision is notable because it is the first time that a federal judge has ever ruled that delays in death row proceedings are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This is especially interesting because the Supreme Court has previously ruled that delays are not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Carney seems to be bucking a precedent set by the highest court.

Granted, there will be an appeal. It is possible, even likely, that an appeals court will side with the Supreme Court and rule that delays are not cruel and unusual but merely a normal part of the death penalty process. Still, the fact that a court ruled that a prisoner has the right to know if or when he or she will be killed is significant.

California could potentially get the death penalty back if they sped up the process with which they kill their criminals. But now that a new precedent has been set, states with a large backlog of death row inmates should prepare for some legal challenges.

The list of states with many inmates on death row may have new additions soon–states are running out of the drugs necessary for lethal injection, and experiments with other drug cocktails have not gone well. Some states are continuing with experimentation. Some are trying out new and untested drugs. However, it is likely that many will have to wait for a more viable option to present itself. It is possible that this waiting could be found to be cruel and unusual punishment for those on death row. Only time will tell, but this ruling has the chance to change the nature of capital punishment in the United States.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Coghlan via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: California Death Penalty Delays appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

It’s safe to say that BP became one of the most hated companies in America in April of 2010 for causing the biggest oil spill to happen in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. Almost 5 million barrels of oil ended up in the water. Needless to say, the Gulf States were affected by the tremendous damage, and some individuals and businesses continue to suffer even now.

Facing not just an image crisis, but also the potential for hundreds of lawsuits, BP started compensating businesses and individuals soon after the spill started. The swift action looked good for the company, but recently, has proven to be a headache for its legal team.

The actual agreement to compensate individuals and businesses after the spill took almost two years to develop- it was completed in December 2012. But it didn’t take long for BP to take exception with how the settlement was applied. Late last year, BP tried to stop paying settlements for two reasons: first, because the formula being used to calculate claims was inflating the amount of money people received, and second, too many of the claims being awarded couldn’t be tied directly to the spill. If BP got its way, it would owe a lot less money to a lot fewer people.

BP argued in court that the terms of the settlement were being misconstrued and taken advantage of- but the court disagreed. 2 of 3 judges on an appeals panel said that while certain accounting methods need to change (a win for BP’s first claim), the company agreed to the terms of this settlement, and now has to stick to them. According to a company spokesman, BP is considering the possibility of an appeal.

Companies battling out the terms of an agreement in court aren’t particularly unusual, but this case is interesting because of the circumstances surrounding the agreement, and how BP has responded as a company. The settlement was drafted over a two-year period; it wasn’t created in a day, or even a month. But the settlement was certainly great PR for the company. While it didn’t undo everything that happened during the spill, it showed the company was willing to work with those who had been negatively affected by its actions.

With that said, throughout the course of developing this agreement, BP could have had any kind of financial expert look over the calculations. It should be safe to assume that someone from BP looked over the math, because as the appellate panel pointed out, BP agreed to the terms of the settlement before signing them. BP now claims that the formulas used were too broad or not accurate enough, but in the two year period leading up to the deal being signed, we should wonder whether that question ever came up.

And the same goes for BP’s contention that too many business and individuals who can’t prove they were affected by the spill are getting money. If there was a loophole so large, one that didn’t narrow the beneficiaries of the settlement to people affected by the spill- wouldn’t BP have caught that? Additionally, while they aren’t required to provide supplemental documentation while making the claim, individuals and businesses that apply for money from the company are held to the penalties of perjury. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick noted the settlement’s claims “are not as protective of BP’s present concerns as might have been achievable, but they are the protections that were accepted by the parties and approved by the district court.” Basically, BP had the opportunity to narrow the definitions and procedures used in the settlement, but they didn’t.

But the bigger picture here might be that companies, no matter how big, can’t just renege on a settlement they debated and eventually agreed to. BP is paying billions more than it expected to as a result of this settlement. And understandably, it’s probably looking for a way to minimize the loss. But BP should have thought ahead when it agreed to a settlement that wasn’t as precise as possible. Of course, it’s also possible the company had no problems with the settlement until it realized just how much money it would have to hand over to people filing claims. According to BP’s website, the company has already shelled out over $11 billion, and people are still filing claims.

Whatever happens, BP is turning into a prime example of an agreement gone wrong.

[NYT] [Bloomberg] [Case] [BP]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Roy Luck via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules BP Must Stick to Agreement it Signed appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

For the past several years, the NYPD has been in trouble over a troubling “stop and frisk” policy. But with the election of Bill De Blasio, it looks like that policy may be going away.

The term “stop and frisk” stems from the practice of stopping individuals on the street, and searching them for contraband items- without probable cause. New York in particular came under fire over the past few years for taking part in the “stop and frisk” activities, and targeting minorities in the process.

Legally, there is some precedent on the issue. Terry v. Ohio was a case in 1968, which determined that officers could stop individuals without probable cause, so long as the officer had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe something was wrong. Many people claim that the NYPD took this to a new level, and used it to discriminate the people they stopped based on race, using “reasonable suspicion,” as a backdrop for that.

A lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008, and it was decided that the NYPD did indeed unfairly target minorities, specifically African American and Latino men. Rather than accept the fact the NYPD was acting in a systemically racist way, the city fought an appeals process over the ruling.

But with the newly elected mayor, Bill De Blasio, came a change in regards to the policy. This stance was one on which De Blasio campaigned last year. On Thursday, January 30, 2014 the mayor announced he would stop the appeals process of the lawsuit, agreeing to the recommendations by the judge who ruled on the case last year.

It seems as though the mayor might be looking at solutions outside of the courts, too.

This week, NYPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that rather than putting rookie police officers in high-crime neighborhoods, the NYPD would instead place more veteran officers with a better understanding of the complex dynamics in these situations.

The proposal can be seen as a step in the right direction when trying to train officers for the future. As Bratton pointed out, it would be possible for young, inexperienced, officers to take the “easy” way out, and engage in stop-and-frisk activities because it seems like the simplest way to target suspicious behavior. But starting a career with activities like this could lead to acting that way for years to come, perpetuating the kind of system for which New York is now under fire.

But are these two actions enough? Probably not, but they are two good places to start.

By changing the rhetoric and course of action Bloomberg had regarding the stop and frisk policies, De Blasio is acknowledging the systematic wrongdoings the NYPD took part in over the past years, and perhaps even decades. While the settlement itself may not change the attitudes of every NYPD officer, it is a sign of De Blasio’s willingness to move forward past these discriminatory policies.

On the same token, changing policies regarding young officers in dangerous neighborhoods may make an impact, but not until further down the road. It may not have been the lack of experience of the officers, which lead them to stop and frisk thousands of individuals without reasonable suspicion. That could have just as easily come from poor training, or a poor example set by higher-up officers in the NYPD. It could have been the result of already prejudiced individuals. And it some cases, it could have just made a mistake.

Regardless of the motivations behind the stop and frisk frenzy that took place in New York, moving forward, there isn’t going to be an easy fix to it. Though De Blasio seems to be taking the right steps in promoting change, it would be naïve to think that something as systematic and prejudiced as this policy will go away overnight. It will take major commitment on De Blasio’s part to maintain growth away from this policy.

[WSJ] [Terry v. Ohio] [NYT] [Floyd Case]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [debra via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With a New Regime, Can New York Settle on Controversial Policy? appeared first on Law Street.