Lawdable Quotes: Roscoe Pound

"The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."

~ Roscoe Pound

After Dust of Legal Battles Settles, Roma Education Still Struggles

In the fall of 2007, Europe's Roma community enjoyed a momentous legal victory in the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that Roma children could no longer be segregated into separate, "special" schools. Traditionally, Roma children have attended unique institutions, but not always by choice; often, the facilities and resources of the Roma schools were abysmal, and sometimes Roma children were filtered into schools for children with learning disabilities, keeping them from reaching their full academic potential. This week, the BBC takes a look at the state of Roma education, as we near the one year anniversary of the ECHR's historic decision.

The families of 18 Roma children filed a complaint against the Czech government in 2000, arguing that the country's school segregation policy discriminated against Roma youth. The ECHR ruled that the government did not have "adequate justification" for separating the children, and and awarded $4000 euros compensation to each family involved in the case. The suit brought hope to Roma communities all over Europe, and similar complaints have been filed in Greece and Croatia.

In 2005, the Czech Republic closed the schools down, responding to the public outrage after the suit shed light on the tragic conditions often suffered by the children. However, some argue that Roma children all over the continent remain segregated, sometimes in new, more insidious ways. Visiting a former "special school," one BBC correspondent confirms that the only visible change to the institution is its title. 8th grade Roma students continue to review the alphabet, and their Czech teachers bemoan Roma attitudes towards learning, blaming parents and Roma culture for the childrens' stunted education. Czech Minister of Education Ondrej Liska believes this kind of perception can be addressed with sensitivity training for teachers with Roma pupils, but cautions that it will take time:

"I want to see in two years that teachers in schools with a high percentage of Roma children have appropriate training and I want to see a major shift in these schools - but I can't say: tomorrow you have to change the philosophy you've been teaching with for 20 years."

While the Roma demand an end to separate but unequal education, some community leaders acknowledge that they must take more responsibility for the future of their children. Roma rapper Radek Bhanga, popular in the mainstream Czech music scene, decries the Roma "victim mentality," arguing that the Roma could do more to better their own community by taking advantage of the Czech Republic's democratic institutions. But, whoever is to blame, it is the children who are the real victims; there is much work to be done before last year's ruling is made a reality.

Source: BBC News

This Day in Legal History: August 30th

On August 30th, 1967, Justice Thurgood Marshall was confirmed for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall, a tireless advocate for equal rights throughout his career, was best known for his victory in Brown v. Board of Education, the catalyst for school desegration throughout the country. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall to the bench, and he was confirmed 69-11 in the Senate.

While the momentous decision in the Brown case may be Justice Marshall's most renowned achievement, as a lawyer and a judge Marshall made great strides not only for civil rights, but also for abortion rights, the abolition of the death penalty, and the right to a fair trial. His personal encounters with discrimination and inequality profoundly shaped his style as a jurist from the start. As a young man, Marshall applied to the University of Maryland Law School, in his home state. However, because of the school's segregation policies, Marshall was denied entrance; there was not enough room for him in the black-only colleges. Marshall was un-deterred, gaining his law degree at Howard University, going on to challenge discrimination as a leader in the NAACP and in the courtroom. The sting of his earlier rejection came full circle in 1936, when he argued the case Murray v. Pearson for an African-American man who was also denied entrance to the UMD law school. Marshall won the case, which found that the law school alternatives for blacks in the state of Maryland were in fact separate, but not equal.

Justice Marshall served on the Supreme Court until 1991, and his sons have followed in his legal footsteps, working under Clinton administration and in state politics.

Source: The History Channel

Lawdable Quotes: William Shakespeare

"The law hath not been dead, though it may hath slept."

~ William Shakespeare

U.S. Must Pay Up to Big Oil for Offshore Drilling

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision in the lower court mandating that the U.S. government compensate 11 oil companies for violating their leases granted between 1979 - 1984 for offshore drilling locations. In 1990, Congress passed legislation that effectively prohibited the oil companies from developing on their leased areas, prompting them to sue for their development costs and the money paid upfront for their drilling rights.

At the time the leases were granted, each company paid the Department of Interior an upfront "bonus," in addition to the annual royalties and rental fees stipulated by the contracts. The parties to the suit paid $1.1 billion in total to the federal government upfront. But in 1990, Congress amended the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to clearly state that any activity taking place in coastal waters, including off-shore drilling, is subject to regulation and approval under the legislation's provisions. The lease agreements, which had not been evaluated for compliance with the act when they were granted, were then subjected to numerous legal battles, and development and exploration froze to a halt. But, because the two parties developed the leases "in good faith" up until the 1990 amendments, the court ruled that the oil companies are entitled to the upfront payments only, and will not receive additional damages for the costs of the construction and exploration. Still, $1.1 billion is nothing to sneeze at.

Source: The Blog of the Legal Times

Space Jam: Computer Virus Hits NASA

This week, NASA astronauts discovered that laptops transported in July to the International Space Station are infected with a worm virus. While none of the space station's systems are at risk of being compromised, the virus, known as Gammima.AG, is capable of stealing log ins and passwords from infected machines. NASA has launched an investigation into how the virus got onto the laptops and into space, but has noted that this is not the first instance when an infected computer made it to the station.

The infected laptops are non-essential equipment for the astronauts, used primarily to help them monitor their nutrition and send emails home to friends and family. Because the ISS does not maintain a direct internet connection, and all files set to and from earth are thoroughly scanned, NASA suspects that the viruses were transmitted from the personal USB drives of the astronauts.

While NASA descibes the virus infection as a nuisance, the organization vows to implement stricter security controls in the future.

Source: BBC News

Sergei Rachmaninoff'sThirteen Preludes, Op. 32

This week we are featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Thirteen Preludes, Op.32 for your listening pleasure. These works are brought to you courtesy of Musopen, a website which hosts musical pieces in the public domain.

Prelude in G Major, Op. 32 No. 5

Prelude in G Sharp Minor, Op. 32 No. 12

Source: Musopen

Lawdable Quotes: Oliver Wendell Holmes

"This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice."

~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

California Court Dismisses Doors Suit

Last week, the Supreme Court of California refused to hear the appeal of Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger, two former members of the notorious rock group the Doors, who had sought the right to profit off of their former band's title in recent tours. Accused of violating a written agreement made in the 1970s, the two must now pay a hefty sum of 5 million to their former bandmates.

Despite missing at least half of the original band, the keyboardist and guitarist had hit the concert circuit in 2003, calling themselves The Doors of the 21st Century. Fellow Doors drummer John Densmore, as well as the family of Jim Morrisson, took the two to court, charging that the use of the iconic name violated an earlier agreement made by the band. According to their contract, the four members agreed that any business decision involving the Doors had to be agreed upon unanimously. Morrisson, unable to approve the tour from the grave, and Densmore, who refused to participate, were clearly not included in the decision-making. So, in 2005 a court ordered the renegade Doors to cease using their former band's name, and to cut the profits from the tour with Densmore and Morrissson's family.

Densmore objected to the tour in the first place, wisely understanding that without Jim Morrisson, the Doors could never be complete. Manzarek and Krieger still try to keep the light alive, now touring as the "Riders on the Storm" and jamming to their old hits. But, the Doors without Jim Morrisson sounds downright criminal to me.

Source: TheLaw.com

Lawdable Quotes: Mahatma Gandhi

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so."

~ Mahatma Gandhi

Frustration Brews over South Africa's Release of "Lion Killer"

South Africans reeled yesterday over the release on parole of Mark Scott-Crossley, a white South African guilty of the brutal murder of an African employee, whom he and co-worker Simon Mathebula beat and fed to a pack of lions. The 2004 killing shocked the country, where violent crime is endemic and the wounds inflicted by racism are still raw. In 2005 Scott-Crossley was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, but his sentence was overturned on appeal in 2007; finding that the prosecution could not prove the victim was still alive when he was fed to the lions, a judge ruled that Scott-Crossley was only an accessory to murder. Mark Scott-Crossley had served 2/3 of his 5 year sentence when he was released this week. Mathebula will serve 15 years.

Scott-Crossley had fired the victim, construction worker Nelson Chisale, from his company in 2003. When Chisale arrived to retrieve his belongings, Scott-Crossley and Mathebula attacked him, and after beating him, drove him to a local white lion reserve, where they threw him to the animals. Scott-Crossley claims they had not intended to kill Chisale with the beating, but that he was already dead when they handed him over to the lions.

Chisale's family, South African unions, and the general public have strongly denounced Scott-Crossley's release, arguing that the deeply ingrained privileges granted to whites during apartheid continue to persist. On behalf of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, spokeswoman Jan Tsiane stated that in South Africa, "it is clear... that those who are rich and white will continue to be treated differently to those who are poor." Prisoners rights organizations were similarly angered, questioning how such a ruthless killer could be given preferential treatment over the non-violent, elderly, and infirm inmates in the country's prisons. South Africa's parliament has also promised an inquiry into the early release.

Source: BBC News

More iPhones, More Problems?

The world of higher education has been bitterly divided in recent years over the role that technology should play in the classroom. Dedicated readers of the Fastcase Blog may remember our post about the University of Chicago Law School Dean, who shut down wireless internet in the classroom when he realized students spent more time surfing the web than listening to their professors. On the other end of the spectrum, some universities are instead racing to encourage the assimilation of the newest devices and trends into academia. No example is perhaps more symbolic of this movement than the introduction of iPhone 101.

Several universities, including the University of Maryland, have announced that they will be giving iPhone and iPod Touch devices to either some or all incoming freshman, which they believe will keep students better connected with the classroom and more engaged with campus life. Defending the initiative, Kyle Dickson of Texas' Abilene Christian University explains, "We think this is the way the future is going to work." While professors may be wary of allowing devices with such potential for distraction into the classroom, instant access to the internet could be a boon for students and faculty alike, facilitating out of class participation and even providing a resource for crisis management and scheduling information.

Nevertheless, opponents bemoan the iPhone programs as wasteful and inneffective. Some fear that the need to "keep up with the Jones's" in techonological savvy could subvert what should be the primary objective of these colleges, that is, to educate. Others believe that allowing students to amuse themselves on the internet or play with iPhones in class will rob them of intellectual strength and analytical skills, some of the few intangibles that are not available online at the click of a mouse. Professor Robert Summers of Cornell Law, who has favored banning laptops in the past, has also spoken out against the iPhone phenomenon:

“I would ban that too if I knew the students were using it in class. What we want to encourage in these students is active intellectual experience, in which they develop the wide range of complex reasoning abilities required of the good lawyers."

But, whether you think that cutting edge technology enhances or hurts the classroom experience, there is one truth we can all agree on: the iPhone looks cool. Education aside, it may be that these schools just want to join the in-crowd. Or so the skeptics say.

Source: The New York Times

D.C. Circuit Gives States the Green Light on Emissions Regulations

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, in the case Sierra Club v. EPA, that states can in fact supplement the emissions monitoring performed by the Environmental Protection Agency, vacating a rule established by the Bush administration in 2003. The relationships between state and federal environmental agencies have long been thorny, at times acrimonious, and the decision was a major blow to the EPA’s stated desire to maintain federal control over the enforcement of environmental policies.

Confusion over the federal and state mandates has plagued the regulatory agencies since the passage of the Clean Air Act. The monitoring of stationary polluters, such as power plants or factories, proved to be particularly complicated. In 1990, attempting to streamline the Act, Congress introduced a permit program for polluters, to be supervised by the EPA and implemented at the state level. The specifics, however, left room for interpretation, especially in the area of enforcement: who was responsible for issuing monitoring guidelines, and how would the EPA and the states resolve disagreements over their effectiveness?

Some states have argued that the EPA’s monitoring guidelines are not stringent enough, and would like to impose their own inspections. Initially, the EPA supported state monitoring, which was strongly opposed by industry leaders, and fought in court for rules to that effect. But, in 2002, the EPA abruptly changed course. The agency settled a case with an industry organization that had challenged its proposed pro-state monitoring rule by reversing its position, and instead amended the rule to prohibit state regulations.

In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit found that the rule impeded the implementation of the Clean Air Act, by preventing the enforcement of adequate permit monitoring. The dissenting judge, however, found that the federal monitoring guidelines meet the definition of “adequate.”

Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club, gave a heartfelt statement after the decision, declaring it “a huge victory against one of the most egregious rollbacks of environmental protections in our nation's history."

Source: Legal Times

"No-Fly" List Suit is Cleared for Take-off

On Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to reinstate a challenge to the no-fly list in a federal trial court, the first suit of its kind permitted to go forward. The court's decision opens the door to each individual who suspects that he is included on the list, hundreds of thousands of names long, granting him review of the evidence against him and a trial by jury.

Ibrahim v. Homeland Security was intitially thrown out in the federal district court on the grounds that any suit involving the Transportation and Security Administration must be filed in an appeals court, where the right to produce evidence and call a jury is restricted. The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that because the FBI, rather than the TSA, compiles the no-fly list, the case could proceed at the trial level. The suit was brought by Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford student from Malaysia, who alleges that in 2005 she was handcuffed and detained at an airport for several hours, without explanation, when a flight attendant realized her name was on the no-fly list. Ibrahim has no criminal record or links to terrorism, and while TSA has neither confirmed nor denied that her name is on the list, she charges that the list and her treatment violated her constitutional rights against unlawful search and discrimination.

Ibrahim is only one of thousands who have endured delays and mix-ups due to their questionable inclusion on the list. One of the most frustrating hassles can be sharing a name with an individual on the list, and the inclusion of some amazingly common names (even James Wilson, according to the travel blog Gadling...) has created many an airport nightmare. Thankfully, TSA has set up an inquiry system called TRIP through which mistaken identities can be resolved and individuals can request removal. But now, if all else fails, beleaguered travelers like Ibrahim can take their case to court.

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle

Report Highlights 50 Best Law Firms for Women

According to a report released this week by Working Mother magazine in collaboration with Flextime Lawyers LLC, some law firms are making an effort to attract and retain female lawyers through flexibility and family-friendly policies and benefits.

The data for this report comes from a 400-question online survey, open to firms with at least 50 lawyers.  This year, 115 firms took part. The responses of each firm were evaluated on workplace profile, family-friendly policies, flexibility, leadership, compensation, advancement and retention of women, among other factors.  The top 50 were selected according to their scores.

The report does not rank the list, but highlights some of the progressive programs, policies, and benefits from each firm.  All of the top 50 firms listed provide women with the option to reduce their hours while remaining on the partnership track, with many also encouraging a gradual transition from part to full time work for new mothers returning from maternity leave.  Several firms also subsidize emergency back-up childcare, and provide assistance in finding elder care when necessary.

Additionally, this year's study showed several positive trends compared to last year’s data: average maternity leave increased from 12 weeks to 14, and the rate of female equity partners rose from 16 percent to 19 percent, with non-equity partners jumping from 22 percent to 28 percent.  

Source: AM Law Daily

IOC Won't Medal for Right to a Fair Trial...

The Beijing Olympics, like most, have raised hairy ethical questions about the fairness of competition. Are the female Chinese gymnasts really 16? Are genetic modifications going to be the next, more insidious form of doping? Is Michael Phelps man, or fish?

Most coverage focuses on the need to prevent the use of illegal, performance enhancing drugs; a number of elite American athletes (including swimmers Phelps and Torres) have consented to an even stricter testing schedule with the US anti-doping agency to prove that their talents are all natural. Few, however, take a close look at the consequences of the testing regimen for those who come back positive. Some athletes who test positive for various steroids and drugs are innocent, exhibiting trace amounts of chemicals from other sources in their blood, yet the IOC continues to bar them from competition.


This week, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog contends that the International Olympic Committee might be more dedicated to the appearance of fairness than the fate of the athletes, who have little recourse to prove their innocence in time to compete. One victim of testing is Zach Lund, an American skeleton racer who was barred from Turin's Winter Olympics for showing the chemical Finasteride in his blood, present not from steroid use but from his hair-regrowth treatment. Even though the IOC cleared him of wrong-doing, he was prohibited from racing and put on probation for a year.

Athletes have little power to appeal the anti-doping decisions of the IOC; competitors may take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but decisions there must be handed down within 24 hours. According to Jonathon Taylor, who works on anti-doping cases for professional tennis, at the Olympics, "you have to maintain the credibility of the spectacle, so you need to deal quickly with any investigation of doping." But, this may rob the competitors of "full due process," especially when the Games are taking place in a notoriously remote place like China, with visas hard to come by and a lengthy flight for most of the field's legal experts.

Does the International Olympic Committee have its anti-doping priorities straight? Let us know what you think below, in the comments.

Source: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog

Disney Characters Arrested During Labor Protest

Children the world over were undoubtedly troubled by news images of their favorite Disney characters being carted off to jail in handcuffs on Friday. Last week, police in Anaheim, California arrested 32 individuals, including Minnie Mouse, Tinkerbell, and Snow White, during a labor protest staged by hotel workers in the Disney resort. After a march to the gates of Disneyland, the protestors were cited for several traffic violations and failure to obey a police officer. The demonstration was arranged by union workers in three of Disneyland's hotels, who dispute alleged moves by the Disney corporation to cut back benefits, full time jobs, and keep wages stagnant.

Leaders of the Unite Here Local 681 Union state that Disney has proposed switching to a higher proportion of part time jobs with limited benefits to cut back on health care costs. The union also argues that Disney's offers will make health care unaffordable for most of the service workers at the resorts, while keeping wages several dollars less per hour than other hotels in the region. Ada Briceno, union president, explains that the organization had agreed to lower wages in exchange for a free health care fund, but now that the initial contract has expired, Disney wants to eliminate the free plan for new hires and raise the number of working hours necessary to qualify for the benefits.

Disney and Unite Here Local 681 have been in talks for months, but Disney chides the group for spending more time on public spectacles than negotiating the details of the new agreement. But, Lisa Haines, a spokeswoman for Disney, seems optimistic that the dispute can be peacefully resolved, stating:

"We do remain hopeful that we can reach an agreement that's both fair and equitable, providing that union leadership is reasonable and realistic in its approach."

Still, the protestors chant: Mickey, shame on you.

Source: CNN

Hackers Strike Olympic Gold

According to BBC News, the Beijing Olympics have proven a major boon for computer hackers and spammers this summer, providing endless content to lure unsuspecting web-surfers into scams and malicious downloads. As new spamming techniques grow increasingly sophisticated, it has become more and more difficult for users to distinguish between valid content and bogus emails and links. By referencing the Olympics, hackers can tap into a widely followed event to increase their likelihood of capturing an innocent reader. Experts have also predicted a proliferation of fake websites, ones that mimic Olympic themes to draw people in.

Botnets are also vying for Olympic success, using the games in their spam to incorporate more machines into their networks. Once infected, after a click on a spam link or a fake software download, a computer is integrated into the botnet system, and it will begin spamming other machines. One notorious botnet, dubbed Rustock, has been using links to phony CNN videos of the games to recruit new machines.

And even the International Olympic Committee is not immune from the spam attacks. According to MessageLabs, a security company, a hacker is targeting professional sports clubs with emails purporting to be from the IOC. The emails include a malicious Adobe download that can hijack a computer's data.

Security experts caution that one should never open an email from an unknown source, even if it is seemingly harmless. While the hackers may be stepping up their game this summer, they certainly won't earn any medals for it.

Source: The BBC

Lawdable Quotes: Mark Twain

"To succeed in the other trades, capacity must be shown; in the law, concealment of it will do."

~ Mark Twain

California Schools win Religious Course Credit Dispute

Last week, California Federal District Judge James Otero ruled in favor of the University of California in a hotly debated suit over the school's policy on granting credit for certain courses in Christian high schools. Several religious schools, as well as individual students, allege that the public university is guilty of discrimination for its refusal to accept credit for certain science and history classes with Christian overtones. Judge Otero, however, found that the University's policy exhibits no opposition to religion, but only denies credit for classes which omit necessary subjects or that fail to foster critical thinking.

Charles Robinson of the University of California defends the institution's practices, stating that the plaintiffs demands amount to a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards." Even so, those who attend religious schools without sufficient instruction still have the opportunity to earn credit through assessment tests. The plaintiffs, however, assert that the schools refuse to honor courses that include "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

Otero disagreed, citing several University-approved textbooks with religious themes as well as its approval of biology classes that include both creationism and evolution. Moreover, UC accepts credit for classes that use unapproved religious texts for supplemental reading, as long as the courses cover the essential topics. Otero also sided with a number of the University's rejections, including classes that relied on textbooks published by Bob Jones University, in which science or history are secondary to Christianity and the word of the Bible.

The plaintiff's have appealed Otero's dismissal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle

For Ted Kaczynski, There's No Place Like Home...

It would seem a bit ironic for Ted Kaczynski to make a hobby of protecting the best interests of his victims and their families, but thats just what the man known as the Unabomber did last week. In June, Kaczynski learned from an article in the Washington Post that the FBI has leant his dilapidated cabin, from where he launched his bombing attacks, to D.C.'s Newseum. The cabin is featured in an exhibit of the relationship between the FBI and the news media, called G-Men and Journalists: Top News Stories of the FBI's First Century. In July, Kaczynski wrote a letter to the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals condemning the exhibit, arguing that the publicity surrounding the cabin's display could create undue harm and distress to his victims and their loved ones, and that it violated their expressed wishes for privacy.

Kaczynski's brief letter, written by hand, holds the government responsible for the publicity of the cabin, citing the advertisement he had seen, which reads "From FBI Vault." The cabin, Kaczynski's hideout in rural Montana during his Unabomber days, was seized from another woman shortly after Kaczynki's arrest. It was there that Kaczynski wrote his "Unabomber Manifesto," lambasting modern society and the scourge of technology, which he sent to The Washington Post and the New York Times in 1995. When it first swept the cabin, the FBI seized the typewriter on which Kaczynski wrote his tract, and several earlier drafts of the document. Kaczynski, who during his trial was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, pleaded guily to 18 years of random bombings, which led to at least 29 injuries and 3 deaths. He is now serving a life sentence in prison without parole.

Source: MSNBC

Lawdable Quotes: Michel de Montaigne

"It would be better to have no laws at all, than to have too many."

~ Michel de Montaigne

Fashion Police Embrace Bullet Proof Label

This week, Colombian designer Miguel Caballero launched his newest upscale fashion line in South Africa, one he hopes will win the heart's of the country's elite. But his fans are not only attracted the to aesthetics of his designs; Mr. Caballero's clothing is bullet proof, a major selling point in countries like South Africa and his own, which suffer notoriously high rates of violent crime. A Johannesburg businessman agreed to host Cabellero's first fashion show in the country, which was attended by military personal as well as wealthy fashionistas.

According to Mr. Caballero, his clothing line can withstand shots from even AK 47s, and customers can add stab-proofing to their garments for an extra fee. Ari Ben David, Caballero's South African collaborator, admits that the line is quite pricey and is probably "out of reach for the ordinary person." Nevertheless, Caballero's label has been steadily growing, and South Africa is the most recent of the 16 countries where his designs are available.

Source: BBC News

“Hot Tubbing” Steams Up the Courtroom

As American judges are growing increasingly frustrated with partisan expert witnesses, some are looking to a method of testimony newly employed in Australia, coyly dubbed “hot tubbing.” Sadly, this does not involve an actual hot tub, but a group discussion between experts to review conflicting evidence and judgments in the courtroom, a system which some believe has promise in the United States.

Like most other English speaking countries, the U.S. follows the tradition of allowing opposing sides in a trial to select their own witnesses. These experts have been known to exhibit bias in favor of their employers, often resulting in the presentation of entirely contrary evidence from the prosecution and defense at trial. In the majority of common law countries, judges are well-equipped to sift through conflicting facts. However, in the U.S., where juries sit in judgment for civil cases, disparities in testimony can confuse unfamiliar jurors, making reform all the more essential. While American judges often have the power to appoint their own experts, judges often waive their right out of general distrust of expert witnesses. According to Oscar G. Chase, a professor of law at New York University,

“Many judges, if not most, have been trial lawyers, and they are suspicious that any expert is truly neutral. The virtue of our system is that it allows people to sort of balance things out.”

Australia, where the defense and prosecution also enjoy the power to appoint witnesses, has tried to inject more fairness into the process by creating a courtroom conversation between the specialists from both sides. Hot tubbing in the land down under involves a debate between the parties over contradictory evidence and conclusions, providing a space where the two sides can reach an agreement on some issues, and elucidate their differences on others. Critics caution, however, that scientific disputes can be bitter and often difficult to resolve, and arguments may lead to further disorder during trial.

But, while one supposedly neutral expert may gloss over real disagreements in the scientific community, the hot tub model can collaboratively incorporate the opinions of all sides, and ideally, reach a consensus. Not to mention the fact that it sounds a heck of a good time.

Source: The New York Times

Guns Banned from Georgia Airport, For Now...

For an update on the firearms controversy rocking the state of Georgia, U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob declined the request of guns rights organizations to allow guns in the terminal of Atlanta's airport while he makes his final decision in their suit against the state. On behalf of pro-firearms organizations, GeorgiaCarry.org had asked for temporary rights to guns in Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport during the months-long trial that will decide the matter for good.

Pro-gun activists, including Georgia's governor, Sonny Perdue, a supporter of the legislation which legalized concealed weapons on public transportation, have been busy making their case. Governor Perdue spoke in favor of allowing firearms at the airport, arguing that it would make his wife feel safer while walking from the terminal to the parking lot at night. But gun-control advocates and transportation officials have also been working behind the scenes to ensure travelers' safety. Airport officials have petitioned the Transportation and Security Administration to create a federal ban of firearms in all areas of U.S. airports, which the TSA is currently studying. Meanwhile, Congressman Bennie Thompson, chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee, has publicly called for the TSA to amend its gun laws and threatened federal intervention in the event that Georgia does not comply with federal regulations.

The decision is a slight set-back for guns rights activists, but it is definitely not the end of the road in Georgia's gun rights saga.

Source: CNN

Would You Trade Life in Prison for a Bucket of KFC?

Tremayne Durham thought it was a fair deal. Durham, who was accused of the 2006 murder of an Oregon man, pled guilty to the crime on the condition that he could take a break from prison gruel to feast in fast food heaven. Judge Eric Bergstrom guaranteed Durham two meals for his plea, the first a spread of fried chicken and the second an italian-themed dinner. In support of the decision, Deputy District Attorney Josh Lamborn explained that the agreement would save some money for the state of Oregon.

In 2006 Durham, a New Yorker, had the wild idea of putting together his own ice cream truck. Unfortunately, he got cold feet after he bought his new vehicle, and the business from which he had ordered it refused to give him a refund. Enraged, Durham drove cross country to Oregon to seek revenge against the company's owner, but confronted a former employee instead, shooting and killing the man. Durham has been sentenced to life in prison, but will be up for parole in 30 years time.

One has to wonder why a man with such a passion for good eating would give up his ice cream dream. He could have had it all: fast food and his freedom.

Source: CNN

Incoming ABA President Calls for Judicial Reform

This week, incoming American Bar Association President H. Thomas Wells, Jr. of Alabama, gave a rousing speech at the organization's annual meeting in New York City. Wells called for improvements in the methods for appointing and electing judges, criticizing the increasing influence that politics and money have in the process. From the Legal Times:

"The federal judicial nomination and confirmation process has been bogged down by "lengthy partisan conflict and delay," Wells said, adding that if compared to the making of sausage, it would be "an insult to sausage makers."

The ABA is also set to vote on recommendations for Congress; the proposed resolution asks Congress to encourage greater bi-partisanship and more better communication between the executive and legislative branches over nominations. Since President Bush took office, the ABA has played a less significant role in selection; the President no longer takes ABA ratings for judges into consideration as he makes his decision, although the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to peruse the ABA evaluations before confirmation. In his address, Wells indicated that the ABA will support whichever approach the next president chooses.

Finally, Wells bemoaned the large sums spent on state judicial elections, which have harmed courts' reputations for impartiality. He also unveiled a new website resource for elections laws, aimed at encouraging voting and public involvement in the judicial process.

Source: The Blog of the Legal Times

NYPD Sued for Stats on Race in Police Shootings

This week, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the New York Police Department for failing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request made after the deadly police shooting of Sean Bell, a young, unarmed African-American, in 2006. The shooting, which took place after Bell's bachelor party on the night before his wedding, spurred a public outcry against police brutality and racism, and the organization sought from the NYPD statistics on the race of victims of police shootings. A police spokesperson stated that the statistics on race were often in individual reports that for a number of reasons are "exempt from disclosure."

Up until 1998, the data released by the NYPD on police shootings included information regarding the race of the victim. Compiled reports for 1996 and 1997 revealed that almost 90% of persons shot by police officers were either black or hispanic. According to former police chief Louis Anemone, in 1998 police commissioner Howard Safir altered the department's policy, calling for the removal of statistics on race from the annual reports. Anemone's testimony was included in the brief filed by the Civil Liberties Union, and according to The New York Times, Safir was not available for comment on Anemone's claim. While Anemone did not comment on the purpose behind Safir's decision, he did speculate that it could have been related to the 1999 killing of an unarmed West African immigrant, which took place just before the 1998 report was finished. Officers fired 41 times at Amadou Diallo, and his death electrified the city with racial tension and accusations of police misconduct.

Source: The New York Times

Bittersweet Courtroom Win for American Indians

Last Thursday, Judge Federal District Court Judge James Robertson decided in favor of a group of Native Americans who had sued the Department of Interior for the mismanagement of a government trust fund, finding that the state had shown gross negligence in its supervision of the fund. The suit was originally filed in 1996, and the descendants of the initial trustees (those looking for compensation in the case) now number 500,000. While Robertson decried the government's conduct, he found that the trustees were only owed $455 million of the $48 billion that they claimed, arguing that the laws for government trusts differed than those for the private sector. The plaintiffs had claimed the larger figure represented the amount of money that the Department of Interior had made from fraud and misuse of the trust's wealth.

Nevertheless, the judge was harshly critical of the government's many blunders, which included the misplacement of important financial records. Robertson did not mandate that the Department of Interior pay the sum, but hearings deciding the details will follow in August.

Source: The New York Times

Earthquake Creates Bar Exam Controversy

While the damage caused by this month's 5.4 magnitude earthquake in California was relatively minimal, there are some who may still be reeling in its aftermath. As reported by the National Law Journal, the California State Bar Exam was administered the morning of the quake, and test-takers throughout the quake zone were in the last minutes of the essay section when it hit. Steve Mitchell, a test-taker in a site near the earthquake's epicenter, reported that in those final minutes, the testing room began to shake and tiles fell from the ceiling, hitting several people and forcing others underneath their desks. During a recess, Mitchell heard from his peers that test-takers in other rooms had been promised an extra five minutes to make up for the lost time. However, they reported that they were never given the extra time, and Mitchell says his room did not receive any either.

While Mitchell and the other witness interviewed by the Law Journal had successfully finished despite the time crunch, all agreed that it was only fair to those who may have needed the extra minutes to account for the disruption. Gayle Murphy at the State Bar of California acknowledged that the bar had not yet received any official complaints, but stated that the earthquake will be taken into consideration as the exams are being graded.

Source: The National Law Journal

Lawdable Quotes: Edmund Burke

"We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature."

~ Edmund Burke

Lawdable Quotes: Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Good men must not obey the laws too well."

~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

MIT OpenCourseWare: The Law of Mergers and Acquisitions

MIT OpenCourseWare

15.649 The Law of Mergers and Acquisitions

Interested in the law behind Mergers and Acquisitions? Through MIT's OpenCourseWare project, you can follow a previously held class for self study.  This class was taught at the Sloan School of Management in the spring of 2003.  The Fastcase blog focus will be classes related to the legal world but the OpenCourseWare initiative has many classes in numerous disciplines and is well worth checking out on its own.

Course Description:

This course is designed to give students an introduction to the law-sensitive aspects of Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A). In Module I, we examine the legal implications of key roles and deal structures, and walk through some of the issues that would typically arise in a simple and friendly transaction. We also give a class to the legal issues arising in LBOs and the legal concerns of financial sponsors more generally, and another class to employment-related issues, including those relating to managers facing unsettled circumstances. In Module II, we look at a variety of complications, including those that arise in the friendly or unfriendly purchase of a publicly-held company; deals involving distressed and hi-tech companies; antitrust concerns; allegations of misconduct by management or board members; and deals involving non-U.S. companies. 

Course Materials:

• Course Syllabus
• Lecture Notes
• Tax Considerations in Deal Structures
• Putting The Deal Together
• Employment Law: The Perspectives of Key Employees and of the Corporation as an Employer
• Intellectual Property as an Asset; Selling and Buying the Hi-tech Start-up
• The Legal Liability of Managers and Board Members
• Antitrust Concerns and Regulatory Clearance
• The Distressed Company

Additional Materials:
Readings
Assignments
Study Materials
Download All Course Materials (Zip File)

Supreme Court Denies Medellin's Appeal

The controversial trial of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national and death row inmate, has now been put to rest. After the U.S. Supreme Court denied his final appeal on Tuesday night, Medellin was executed by lethal injection in Texas.

Jose Medellin was convicted of rape and murder in 1993, and was sentenced to death. His lawyers appealed, however, arguing that Medellin was denied his right as a Mexican citizen to meet with consular officials. This right is guaranteed by international treaty in the Vienna Convention of 1963, to which the United States is a signatory, but Medellin was not informed about this entitlement until after his conviction. Medellin was only one of at least 50 foreign nationals whose right to contact with his consul has been denied after arrest.

At the International Court of Justice in 2004, Mexico sued the United States for violating the Vienna Convention by failing to notify Mexican authoritees that its citizens were being detained, and demanded that states where Mexican nationals had been sentenced review the cases. The ICJ ruled in Mexico's favor, and President Bush moved to comply with the decision by issuing a memorandum calling for the states to fall in line.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stands as a roadblock to observance of the treaty. In one case, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, the court declared that international treaty obligations did not have domestic authority as binding law. And in the Medellin decision (Medellin v. Texas), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that President Bush did not have the authority to enforce a treaty without the permission of Congress. In short, the states are not obligated to enforce a treaty negotiated by the federal executive branch. Thus, despite presidential intervention, the Supreme Court held Medellin's conviction in March this year, and dismissed his last ditch effort to appeal on Tuesday evening.

To be sure, Medellin's story is only the tip of the iceberg. Despite the Supreme Court's interpretation, both the ICJ and the international community at large have denounced the execution. Critics have also demanded treaty compliance, arguing that American nationals will now be less safe if arrested in foreign countries that also refuse to enforce the law.

Source: CNN and the ABA Journal

Speak Your Mind and You're Out

So much for practicing your freedom of speech, in Arizona that is. A prestigious, yet outdated, country club is drawing attention for its removal of members who have become publicly critical of the men-only bar and grill located on the grounds. Earlier this summer, the New York Times uncovered a number of unsatisfied members who had brought the matter to the attention of the attorney general’s office. Members who filed the complaint found error not just with the unequal accommodations, women being placed in a dreary back room equipped with a hot plate while men recline in front of big-screen TVs downing a few cold ones, but also with the entire idea of having to be separated. The attorney general's office has taken interest in the case and intends to file suit if a satisfactory response is not made by the club.

Club manager, Pasquale LaRocca finds nothing wrong with their policy and board members appear to feel the same way. Immediately after the complaint was filed, the board applied what they considered to be necessary adjustments to club rules making it so anyone who actively took part in the opposition could have their membership revoked. The motion was obviously not intended to be a joke as Russell Brown was informed of his removal from the club after he publicly denounced the clubs policy just a few weeks ago. In particular, Brown criticized the club for barring a woman’s ability to complete a business deal after a round of golf, an activity that frequently occurs under the roof of the gentleman’s grill. Disappointed by the club's decision but standing by his statements, Brown will be joining the women of Phoenix in the search for a club where he is welcome.

Source: New York Times

The Future of Law: Freedom of Thought

One of the most cherished liberties enjoyed by American citizens is the freedom of thought, one typically so protected that we can take it for granted. Traditionally, the mind has been a private sphere, inaccessible even under the most tyrannical regimes. And in the American judicial system, defendants are held accountable for their actions, not their ideas. However, as neuroscience and psychology continue to make notable advancements in the understanding of the human brain, the mind has become an increasingly public entity: we can now measure and dissect the brain to understand a person's thoughts, impairments, and biological tendencies. The use of new technologies has created a number of moral quandaries in the courtroom, creating questions of responsibility, the ethics of lie detector testing, and potential implications for jury selection.

One up and coming test is the brain scan, which can detect irregularities in the brain of a defendant. While some neuroscientists have decried the scans as unreliable, others claim that the technology can reveal a mental handicap (such as a deformity or cyst) in an individual that may have altered his or her judgment or ability to reason. This type of evidence has been especially significant in death penalty cases, and creates a higher probability of a life-sentence for those seen to be mentally unfit. Nevertheless, opponents argue that the line between mental incapacity and moral responsibility is razor thin; if all actions are predetermined by brain function and chemistry, why do some people suffering certain conditions commit crimes, while others do not?

Many forensic experts are now looking to the future, in which neuroscience will likely play a central role. Some foresee a major transformation of legal ethics, which will be put to the test by a variety of new advancements in lie detection and brain-imaging. For example, lie detection software has already been developed, using f.M.R.I. software, that claims to detect different areas of the brain at work depending on whether the subject is lying or telling the truth. These machines have not yet reached a level of accuracy that admits them to usage in the courts, but if they are allowed in the future, they could expose the privacy of a person's thoughts to a public examination unlike any seen before. One potential application of this tool could be for jury selection; some tests have shown sub-conscious bias or racism in subjects who claimed none. This discovery, however, must be tempered by the fact that thoughts do not always translate into actions.

And these are only the developments that are on the horizon. The vast progress being made in the field every day ensures that the questions will only lead to more difficult and divisive ones in the future. Some laud the recent advancements for fostering a more just and better-informed judicial system. Others, like Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, warn that the freedom of thought is under grave attack, and that guidelines are necessary to prevent abuse of our new mind-reading powers.

What is your position? Is neuroscience a boon or a danger in the courtroom? Let us know in the comments below.

Source: The New York Times Magazine

Australians Becoming Fans of the Fake Sick Day

The largest fraud case in history has begun developing in Australia between just about every company and worker on the continent. Decreasing productivity, a loss of $10 billion a year to be exact, has led most Australian companies to require a doctor’s note or some other confirmation when employees take sick leave. With workers taking an average of 10 days off a year as a result of illness, legitimate or otherwise, companies are becoming irritable over their lack of attendance. Now, as if phony diplomas were not enough, anyone can purchase a fool-proof doctors note online to avoid confrontation with their superiors.

Notes come with a semi-warning that they are “for novelty use only” while the website recommends putting them to use to get out of bothersome contracts such as gym memberships and includes in the fine print that they should not be used for illegal activity. It appears this company has forgotten just how illegal it is to forge someone else’s signature. Lawyers from the Australian Medical Association warn that using these fraudulent notes could lead to serious charges as they use the names of real doctors in order to be convincing. So far police have maintained their distance since the company is located outside of Australia but this in no way means that those making use of the certificates will be so lucky. Fraudulent behavior is never an issue to be taken lightly and users could face penalties or even unemployment.

Source: Reuters

Fastcase Search Tips -- Batch Printing

By popular demand, the Fastcase legal research service has just launched a batch printing feature, which allows you to print multiple cases at once using Fastcase’s dual-column printing service. During the beta of this feature, you will be able to select up to 20 documents at a time to print – either from your search results page, or as you read through the cases. (We plan to increase this number based on your feedback as we fully launch the feature later.)

The service is simple to use, and those familiar with batch processing from other web-based software (such as selecting multiple e-mails for deletion) will recognize many of the same features on Fastcase. Your service now includes a “Print Queue,” where documents wait in line to be printed together. Then, when you’re ready to print them, go to the Print Queue, select print options just like you would when printing a single document, and hit print.

You can add documents to your Print Queue from the search results page, simply by clicking the printer icon in the left-hand column. You may also or select Add to My Print Queue when reading the full text of any case.

To print all your selected documents, simply go to the Print drop down and select View Print Queue. From there you will be able to print the documents in either Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format (which allows most other office suites to open the document).

Your feedback is essential to how we add new features to Fastcase, and we look forward to any comments, questions or suggestions you may have. Please send them to us via e-mail at support-at-fastcase.com.

No Verdict on the London Tube Bombings

This week, the jury in the trial of three suspects associated with the London tube bombings on July 7, 2005, was dismissed after it failed to reach a verdict. The judge chose to discharge the jury on Friday after it deliberated for two weeks without a conclusion. However, it seems unlikely that this will be the end of the proceedings; according to the BBC, the prosecutors plan to retry the defendants.

Evidence has shown that the three men, Waheed Ali, Sadeer Saleem, and Mohammed Shakil joined the bombing plot's leader, Mohammad Sidique Khan, on a trip to London in 2004, during which the group allegedly investigated the security mechanisms in the city. While there is no proof that the three were directly involved in the 2005 underground suicide bombings, which killed 52 people, prosecutors claim that they "shared the same objectives" as the perpetrators and were aware of the attack. The defendents assert their innocence, maintaining that their 2004 trip was for leisure only (although they do not deny their connection to the now deceased Mohammad Sidique Khan). The men also voiced their belief that the bombings were un-Islamic. They are the only suspects who have been tried for involvement in the attacks.

Source: The BBC

Lawdable Quotes: John Quincy Adams

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws."

~ John Quincy Adams

Lawdable Quote: Abraham Lincoln

"Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear that charter of his own and his children's liberty."

~ President Abraham Lincoln

Fastcase on Fox Business News!

Fastcase was recently featured on the Digital Dollars segment on Fox Business News. Watch our CEO (Ed Walters) and President (Phil Rosenthal) discuss Fastcase and the disruption we're creating in the legal research market below:

Source: Fox Business News

Learning to Share is Harder Than it Looks

This week the New York Times reported on the prevalence of evidence sharing that has prosecutors all worked up despite legal requirements to do so. Evidence is a precious material to anyone entering the court room; a key material to bringing justice that can take months or years to dig up and only a matter of minutes to destroy. As a rule, courts require the prosecution to share certain pieces of their evidence with the defense attorneys who in turn may share it with the defendants themselves. While evidence sharing may not necessarily pose a dangerous threat in all cases, prosecutors argue it can and does have a negative affect on the outcome of many trials.

Citing cases involving gangs, drug rings and other organized crimes, prosecutors working on a recent case in the Federal District Court of Manhattan raised a number of concerns to the presiding judge. Although they find no problem in releasing information related to the crime-scene, weapons and other more fact-based materials, the prosecutors on the case were appalled at the request by the defendant to bring the testimonies to his cell for reviewal over the weekend. Evidence known as 3500 materials include statements from witnesses scheduled to appear in court, available for the judge and jury’s viewing so there is no confusion over whether or not the truth is being told. According to one prosecutor on the case, 3500 materials are, “confirmation that someone has cooperated” and insists that it poses a risk for anyone who has agreed to provide testimony.

Another possible threat is the recent decision by the Supreme Court to rule any statements invalid when they have been previously issued by a witness that is now unable to appear in court. By eliminating the validity of missing witnesses and allowing suspects to view all testimony prior to their court appearance, the courts have created a dangerous situation for anyone still willing to come forward. Prosecutors argue that suspects awaiting trial have strong connections on the outside who can easily be called on to interfere with anyone holding incriminating evidence.

Source: New York Times

Free Book of the Month: The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes

Selected Quote: "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience"


Download the entire publication below:

The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes (PDF)

Read the entire publication online (Courtesy of Harvard's Law Library)