DOCSLIB.ORG

94239NCJRS.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
94239NCJRS.Pdf If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -....,.--.--r~----- - ~ - ~- -~- --~~~-~. () rI' " " . 0t:- '"t'~ ::1 National Criminal Justice Reference Service ~ .. {I' ~Ii \j I L >;" , '" (I 0,,:. oF'. '. o o n '.I IJ' \i o· This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condmon ofthe documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on HI~s frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. ~~c .- , ,.1) '0'" f)~' ' - ,~ l~ . "', II o. , ~11I_2.5 (i. o \') ji ,.'\ o 11111.1 o· . '0 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 o o . ocP MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ,0 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS-}963-A o i r, ~ D ,,\ J Microfilming procedures used to creqte this fiche comply with , the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. ~"J .' D ~. ,r. , 0 " j~f Points of view or Opir'lions stated in this document are ~i those of the author(s) and do not represent the official ';:r.. ,So ,., ~. .. C',';, . J position or policies of the U. Department of Justice. II ! 400N.CagitoIStr5let, N.W, / Wa.shVn9t~n, D.C.2()pot, G ). ': 0 () . '/ i'1; f'" National Instituteo of Justice United States Department of Justice " Washington, O.C. ,20;;31',.. , " o a f o '.~ \1 c: ~ 0 . " I o !' d a .. (d -----~ --- -----. '.. _-----=. ~ r .. """""._........ , ""'-"-' -'-"~"-- .......,. ".----..- '_._.-. "0- .... -.,--..... ----.......... - ..-- . ..... 5) ;\~ r 0 I I . i) I '" I \) j I I f) 1 I, 1 I ,~), .-~ [) \ Q l \ CONFERENCE ON \ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT f AND FEDERAL APPELLATE ADVOCACY 1 G'=' J I" .' f I 1 i ~ 0 1 I .l i ,(J I FINAL REPORT <) I ) u.s. Department of Justice I Grant NUmber 83-NI-AX-0003 I 1 .::.-. ~ ~. ,"It The Acadertly for State. and Local Government lsa hot~for-profitJ tax-exempt' public foundation 'operated by the Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, Na­ tional J\ssociationof Counties, National Conference of State Legis­ latures, National Governors' Association, National League of. Cities,and U.S: Conference of Mayors; The Academy's purpose is to assist these seven o~?nizations of public officials in seeking so­ ACQUiSITIONS lutions to C?ritical prob~~ins in American states and communities prepared by 0". and the federal system ~ral. " o The Academy for State and Local Government 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 349 I Washington, D. C. 20001 ., (202) 638-1445 U.S. Department of Justice Natlonallnslilute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stat?d in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily o represent the official position or poliCies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this rap;:rtgb'gd material has been granted by Public Demain u.s. Department of Justice June 15, 1984 to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the 00!!JiII!II'rt owner. 11 Q II " Q " . r <J TABLE OF CONTENTS /1 ,~ \ , PAGE 1. Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ';:.,• • • • • • • • eo. • • • • • • • 1 2. Purpose and Mi~sion •••••••••• ,0 ••••• ,. •••••••••• 0 •••••• G~ 2 3. Scope • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e· • • 3 .. 4. Organizational Structure · .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 5. Planning and Review Committee. · . ., .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 6. Management Structure • • • • • • • .0. • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 1. INTRODUCTION • Administrative · . · . ·. · . .. · . · . ·. · .. · .. .... 7 \\ · . ·. Financial . • •• e • . ·. · .... · .. ·. • ~? ·. · . .· .. ·. .... ·. 7 Fee •• 0 • . .. .. · .· .. .. · .· .. · . · . .. · . .· . • • · ... ·. 8 • Registration · .. .. · ... · . · ... · . · . • • ·. .... ·. .. ·. 8 \", Tapes • . .. • • ..... · ... • • . .. -. •• 8 Publications . · · .. • · .. · .· . · .. • 0 · . .. .. .. .... · ... 9 7. Panel Members • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 8. Conference #1 Georgetown University Law Center 1\ Was.hington, D. C • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22 • Conference Attendees . .. · . · . .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 Survey Results • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • _ • 30. /l 9. Conference #2 - Pepperdine University Law School Malibu, California • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • • a 38 (I Confe't"ence Attendees,) • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ _ • • a _ _ • 39 • Survey Results • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D • • • _ • 42 10. Summary .•• ~ ...•.. _ •• _ •..•.. , ......•.••..•.....•....••.. 51 J-t' 11. Appendix .. 0 ••• • ''>_ •• ___ .......... ~ ............ 0 ••••••••••• 53 iii l B (.::.\ )(".~ } r 17~ ,I' w '~ \0 t Iii l <:' /, 1. Introduction ,~, 1\'! \ This is the final repo~t on the Conference on "U.S. S~preme Court l t and Federal Appellate Advocacy," under grant #83-NI-AX-0003. 1 The two conferences were administered by the Aca~~my for State and \ 1 .. Local Government/State and Local Legal Center and co-sponsored by the i National Association of Attorneys General, the National Institute of 1 Municipal Law Officers * and the National District Attorneys Association. This report summarizes what pas been accomplished during the r grant period and documents the activities undertaken. It highlights 1 2. PURPOSE AND MISSION the key accomplishments and prob::J,.ems during 'this period. "In addition, this report reviews the essence, of the "Conference on U. S. Suprerr..e Court and Federal Appellate Advocacy" so that its success can be used for the future. o * The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers did not participate in co-sponsoring the second conference. o ~ f \\ .", , '~\. () ----- ---- -- -- . n. ,..•. - ~ ir 2. Purpose and Mission The purpos~ of the conferences on "U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Advocacy" was to educate stateVand local lawyers in tech- I niquesI, of presenting a case before the high Court and to improve the t quality of state and local advocacy. In addition, the objectives of I f \' the conferences were as fOllows: I • To bring together the finest ~ppellate advocates for state and local government attorneys; I J • To produce a three-hour videotape course that can 1/ be used for years to help prepare state and local rl II.' government lawyers for Supreme Court arguments; and, I 3. SCOPE • To broaden the audiences of the two conferences to include officials who could not afford to travel a great distance. I I' The mission of the conferences was to reach the widest audience of state and local attorneys and to provide ideas and information on making more effective oral and written presentations to the I U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the conferences provided a unique opportunity to hear panel discussions concerning important principles for effective appellate advocacy. The conferences provided expert training in four major categories: .' Preparation for oral argument; • ,Presentation of an oral argument; • Presentation of~etitions and oppositions; and, • TeChniques of writing briefs ror parties and for amicus cllriae. 2 "'-'1 I i i 1 ! I j I ! j 3. Scope 'J I , I The conferences on "U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate \ Advocacy" provided the most effective learning seminar for state and I1 I ... local attorneys throughout the country, focusing on the techniques for ! J presenting cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Presentations, panel 2 , discussions and a moot court argument were presented illustrating ! I1 techniques of argument. In addition, "highly qualified experts offered i I ! their advice in aiding state and local attorneys on techniques of: I I I • Presenting oral arguments before the court; I 4 • ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE • Writing briefs in high Court cases; and, J • Requesting the Court to grant and deny a hearing in a case. I ,I I 1 The first conference was h(~ld at Georgetown University Law i Center, Washington, DoC. on October 17-18, 1983, and the second con­ \ j ference was held at Pepperdine University Law School, Malibu, i California on March 5-6, 1984. I ~~: I I I 1 I I L ! .. \: r I t o ! '" f 11 III ! t 3 l Il I ~ LJ rII Tbe National Association or Attorneys General (NAAG) fosters ,:;::/ communication and cooperation among the states' chief legal officers 4. Organizational structure and thei~ 5,000 staff attorneys. The Attorneys General frequently The four co-sponsoring organizations were uniquely suited to make appear before the Supreme Court re~resenting the states. The ., the conferences a success because the combined members of these groups association has created a Supreme Court clearinghouse which informs guaranteed access to state and local government officials that could Attorneys General on Supreme Court developments affecting states, not have been achieved by anyone of the organizations individually. arranges moot court sessions for Attorneys General and their staffs The conferences could not have been successfully completed without the who have arguments before the Court and coordinates p.re~aration of assistance of the co-sponsoring groups. The co-sponsors were: briefs amicus curiae by the states. The Academy ror State and Local Government (ASLG) is a public The National District Attorneys A6~ociation (NDAA) represents policy center operated by seven national state, county and city the nation's district
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philip Allen Lacovara
    Arbitration Experience Philip Allen Chairman, sole arbitrator, or tribunal/panel member in arbitrations administered Lacovara by International Chamber of Commerce, London Court of International Arbitration, JAMS, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, American Arbitration Association, Netherlands Arbitration Institute, Swiss Chamber’s Arbitration Institution, and ad hoc arbitrations governed by Federal Arbitration Act, English Arbitration Act, etc. Independent Arbitrator Arbitral experience in matters including telecommunications, intellectual property, insurance and re-insurance, executive employment, construction, mining, heavy equipment manufacturing, aviation, licensing and distribution, pharmaceuticals, technology, partnership dissolution, mergers & acquisitions and earn outs, financial transactions, energy supply contracts, securities underwriting, etc. Mediation experience in matters involving financial services, securities, executive employment, technology licensing, contracting, franchise distribution, construction, insurance and reinsurance coverage, class actions, hedge funds, professional malpractice, etc. Professional Affiliations ▪ Fellow, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (London). ▪ Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators ▪ Panel of International Arbitrators, International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) (international affiliate of American Arbitration Association). ▪ Chambers Band 1: Leading International Arbitrators. ▪ Member, London Court of International Arbitration. ▪ JAMS, The Resolution Experts:
    [Show full text]
  • Stanley Mosk: a Federalist for the 1980'S Arthur J
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 12 Article 6 Number 3 Spring 1985 1-1-1985 Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's Arthur J. Goldberg Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur J. Goldberg, Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's, 12 Hastings Const. L.Q. 395 (1985). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol12/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's By ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG* Introduction The era of the Burger Court has been marked by significant erosions of the safeguards set forth in the Bill of Rights.1 A number of the Court's decisions have overturned or circumscribed important Warren Court opinions, particularly in the area of civil rights and civil liberties.2 This trend has been criticized sharply by several members of the Court who-contrary to long-standing practice-have "gone public" to air their views.3 * Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law. The author is grateful for the assistance of Meredith J. Watts, a member of the California Bar and a former editor of the Hastings ConstitutionalLaw Quarterly, in the preparation of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion-From Privacy to Equality: the Failure of the Justifications for Taking Human Life
    ESSAY ABORTION-FROM PRIVACY TO EQUALITY: THE FAILURE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR TAKING HUMAN LIFE Robert John Araujo, S.J.° TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1738 II. EQUALITY RECONSIDERED .................................................. 1741 III. EQUALITY'S SOURCE- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE .............................. 1744 IV. A CONTEMPORARY AND PROBLEMATIC UNDERSTANDING OF EQUALITY .......................................... 1745 V. EQUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF ABORTION "RIGHTS" CLAIMS-THE FOUNDATION OF RoE ................... 1747 VI. THE UNSATISFACTORY CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUM ENTS OF ROE ........................................................... 1754 VII. ROE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT .......................... 1758 VIII. THE SEARCH FOR NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS-CASEY ........................... 1763 IX. THE EMERGENCE OF THE EQUALITY ARGUMENT ................ 1766 * Visiting Professor of Law, Boston College. The Author would like to thank Professor Richard Myers for his valuable comments to an earlier draft of this Essay. The Author expresses his gratitude to the American College of Pediatricians for their kind permission to include their materials in the Appendix to this Essay. 1737 HeinOnline -- 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1737 2008-2009 1738 HOUSTON LAW REVIEW [45:5 X. EQUALITY COMES OF AGE IN THE CARHART CASES ............1772 XI. EQUALITY, YES-BUT EQUALITY FOR ALL .......................... 1779 X II. CONCLUSION ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating the 200Th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia Susan Low Bloch Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1516 90 Geo. L.J. 549-605 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal History Commons Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia SUSAN Low BLOCH* AND RUTH BADER GINSBURG** INTRODUCTION February 27, 2001 marked the 200th anniversary of the federal courts of the District of Columbia, the courts we know today as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The history of these courts is complex, and sometimes enigmatic. Their names changed no fewer than six times since their creation; for some thirty years, from 1863 until 1893, the two courts existed as one umbrella tribunal, named the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.' The courts' location in the nation's capital and their dual jurisdiction as both federal and local forums rendered the District of Columbia courts unique tribunals destined to make substantial contributions to American jurisprudence. This Essay describes the evolution of these courts from a three-judge circuit court with both trial and appellate jurisdiction to the two courts whose 200th anniversary we celebrated this past year.2 It then examines two main themes characteristic of these unique tribunals.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycling the Old Circuit System
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 27 Issue 4 Article 5 2-1976 Recycling the Old Circuit System Stanley Mosk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mosk, Stanley (1976) "Recycling the Old Circuit System," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 27 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol27/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mosk: Recycling the Old Circuit System RECYCLING THE OLD CIRCUIT SYSTEM STANLEY MOSK* I. INTRODUCTION To paraphrase Winston Churchill's characterization of de- mocracy: our judicial system is not a very good one, but it hap- pens to be the best there is. Nevertheless, on a theory that justice, like chastity, must be an absolute, courts constantly receive an abundance of censure from a wide assortment of sources. Today the criticism of the judiciary, though couched in a variety of terms, is often bottomed on a theme that appellate judges in their ivory towers at both state and federal levels, fail to comprehend the daily agonies of contemporary society as reflected in trial court proceedings. In the 1930's President Roosevelt and a liberal coalition railed against the Supreme Court for invalidating early New Deal legislation. The "nine old men," they said, were out of touch with the desperate needs of a society struggling to avoid economic disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring / Summer 2003 Newsletter
    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Historical Society_ NEWSLETTER S PRI NG/SU MM E R 200} A Trailblazer: Reflections on the Character and r l fo und Justice Lillie they Career efJu stice Mildred Lillie tended to stay until retire­ ment. O n e of her fo rmer BY H ON. EARL JOH NSON, JR. judicial attorneys, Ann O ustad, was with her over Legal giant. Legend. Institution. 17'ailblazer. two decades before retiring. These are the words the media - and the sources Linda Beder had been with they quoted - have used to describe Presiding Justice her over sixteen years and Mildred Lillie and her record-setting fifty-five year Pamela McCallum fo r ten career as a judge and forty-four years as a Justice on the when Justice Lillie passed California Court of Appeal. Those superlatives are all away. Connie Sullivan was absolutely accurate and richly deserved. l_ _j h er judicial ass istant for I write from a different perspective, however - as a some eighteen years before retiring and O lga Hayek colleague of Justice Lillie for the entire eighteen years served in that role for over a decade before retiring, she was Presiding Justice of Division Seven. I hope to too. For the many lawyers who saw her only in the provide some sense of what it was like to work with a courtroom, Justice Lillie could be an imposing, even recognized giant, a legend, an institution, a trailblazer. intimidating figure. But within the Division she was Readers will be disappointed if they are expecting neither intimidating nor autocratic.
    [Show full text]
  • California Legal History | 2009: Vol. 4
    Volume 4: 2009 California Legal History Journal of the California Supreme Court Historical Society California Legal History Volume 4 2009 Journal of the California Supreme Court Historical Society ii California Legal History is published annually by the California Supreme Court Historical Society, a non-profit corporation dedicated to recovering, preserving, and promoting California’s legal and judicial history, with particular emphasis on the California Supreme Court. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: Membership in the Society is open to individuals at the rate of $50 or more per year, which includes the journal as a member benefit. For individual membership, please visit www.cschs.org, or contact the Society at (800) 353-7357 or 4747 North First Street, Fresno, CA 93726. Libraries may subscribe at the same rate through William S. Hein & Co. Please visit http://www.wshein.com or telephone (800) 828-7571. Back issues are available to individuals and libraries through William S. Hein & Co. at http://www.wshein.com or (800) 828-7571. Please note that issues prior to 2006 were published as California Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook. (4 vols., 1994 to 1998-1999). SUBMIssION INFORMATION: Submissions of articles and book reviews are welcome on any aspect of California legal history, broadly construed. Unsolicited manuscripts are welcome as are prior inquiries. Submissions are reviewed by independent scholarly referees. In recognition of the hybrid nature of legal history, manuscripts will be accepted in both standard legal style (Bluebook) or standard academic style (Chicago Manu- al). Citations of cases and law review articles should generally be in Bluebook style. Manuscripts should be sent by email as MS Word or WordPerfect files.
    [Show full text]
  • CA Capital Murder Cases That Are Scotus Cleared
    Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Case summaries of California capital murderers with exhausted appeals CALIFORNIA CAPITAL MURDER CASES THAT ARE “SCOTUS CLEARED” As of December 6, 2016 Name Sentence Date Crime Trial Stevie Fields 35 Cal.3d 329 (1983) 8/21/79 Los Angeles Los Angeles Albert Brown 6 Cal.4th 322 (1993) 2/22/82 Riverside Riverside Fernando Belmontes 45 Cal.3d 744 (1988) 10/5/82 San Joaquin San Joaquin Kevin Cooper 53 Cal.3d 771 (1991) 5/15/85 San Bernardino San Diego Tiequon Cox 53 Cal.3d 618 (1991) 5/7/86 Los Angeles Los Angeles Royal Hayes Stanislaus 21 Cal.4th 1211 (1999) 8/8/86 Santa Cruz (penalty retrial) Harvey Heishman 45 Cal.3d 147 (1988) 3/30/81 Alameda Alameda Michael Morales 48 Cal.3d 527 (1989) 6/14/83 San Joaquin Ventura Scott Pinholster 1 Cal.4th 865 (1992) 6/14/84 Los Angeles Los Angeles Douglas Mickey 54 Cal.3d 612 (1991) 9/23/83 Placer San Mateo Mitchell Sims 5 Cal.4th 405 (1993) 9/11/87 Los Angeles Los Angeles David Raley 2 Cal.4th 870 (1992) 5/17/88 San Mateo Santa Clara Richard Gonzales Samayoa 15 Cal.4th 795 (1997) 6/28/88 San Diego San Diego Robert Fairbank 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997) 9/5/89 San Mateo San Mateo William Charles Payton 3 Cal.4th 1050 (1992) 3/5/82 Orange County Orange County Albert Cunningham Jr. 25 Cal.4th 926 (2001) 6/16/89 Los Angeles Los Angeles Anthony John Sully 53 Cal.3d 1195 (1991) 7/15/86 San Mateo San Mateo Ronald Lee Deere 53 Cal.3d 705 (1991) 7/18/86 Riverside Riverside Hector Juan Ayala 24 Cal.4th 243 (2000) 11/30/89 San Diego San Diego Case summaries of California capital murderers with exhausted appeals Inmate: Stevie Fields 35 Cal.3d 329 (1983) Date Sentenced: 8/21/79 | Crime and Trial: Los Angeles Stevie Fields was paroled from prison on September 13, 1978, after serving a sentence for manslaughter for bludgeoning a man to death with a barbell.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruth Bader Ginsberg
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW – INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIO N (IJA) Oral History of Distinguished American Judges HON. RUTH BADER GINSBURG JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT An Interview with Trevor W. Morrison, Dean and Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law New York University School of Law July 5, 2016 All rights in this oral history interview belong to New York University. Quoting or excerpting of this oral history interview is permitted as long as the quot ation or excerpt is limited to fair use as defined by law. For quotations or excerpts that exceed fair use, permission must be obtained from the Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) at Wilf Hall, 139 Macdougal Street, Room 420, New York 10012, or [email protected], and should identify the specific passages to be quoted, intended use, and identification of the user. Any permission granted will comply with agreements made with the interviewees and/or interviewers who participated in this oral history. All permitted uses must cite and give proper credit to: IJA Oral History of Distinguished American Judges, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: An Interview with Trevor W. Morrison, 2016. *The transcript shall control over the video for any permitted use in accordance with the above paragraph. Any differences in the transcript from the video reflect post-interview clarifications made by the participants and IJA. The footnotes were added by IJA solely for the reader’s information; no representation is made as to the accuracy or completeness of any of such footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?
    S. HRG. 106–1061 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2000 Serial No. J–106–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–753 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 68 DeWine, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • VOLUME XXXIX NUMBER 3, 2017 42Nd Annual Meeting June 5, 2017
    VOLUME XXXIX NUMBER 3, 2017 42nd Annual Meeting June 5, 2017 Beautiful weather created the perfect setting for the editor for the Harvard Law Review. Upon completion Society’s 42nd Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017. Following of law school he clerked for Judges Harold Leventhal and the now time-honored schedule, the fi rst event of the day David L. Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the was the Annual Lecture. It D.C. Circuit. Immediately was given in the Supreme afterwards he clerked for Court Chamber as it has Chief Justice Warren Burger been for two decades and during the Court’s 1980-81 was presented by President Term. Emeritus John Sexton of New In 1981 Sexton joined York University. President the faculty of the New York Sexton spoke on the subject University School of Law of Warren Burger, the Court and was named its Dean in and Society. As many 1988. He was appointed the members already know, the 15th President of New York Supreme Court Historical [email protected] by Photos University in 2002 and held Society owes its existence the offi ce until 2016. to Chief Justice Warren President Sexton op- Burger. He saw the need for ened his presentation an organization that would commenting that he had be dedicated to protecting, enjoyed the privilege to preserving and exploring the clerk for three remarkable history of the Supreme Court judges: Judge Leventhal, and he played a fundamental Judge Bazelon and Chief role in the creation of the President Emeritus John Sexton discussed the contributions Justice Burger.
    [Show full text]
  • CA Brief Cover
    S238309 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RON BRIGGS AND JOHN VAN DE KAMP, Petitioners, vs. JERRY BROWN, in his official capacity as the Governor of California; KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California; CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL; and DOES I THROUGH XX, Respondents, CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY– NO ON PROP. 62, YES ON PROP. 66, Intervenor. PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION OF INTERVENOR CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY– NO ON PROP. 62, YES ON PROP. 66 TO THE PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF Charles H. Bell, Jr. SBN 60553 Kent S. Scheidegger SBN 105178 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Terry J. Martin SBN 307802 Kymberlee C. Stapleton SBN 213463 Email: [email protected] Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP 2131 L Street 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, California 95816 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-0345 Telephone: (916) 442-7757 Fax: (916) 446-1194 Fax: (916) 442-7759 Attorneys for Intervenors CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY– NO ON PROP. 62, YES ON PROP. 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of authorities. 4 I. Introduction. 10 II. There is no basis for enjoining the implementation of Proposition 66 as a whole. 12 A. Severability. 12 B. Single Subject. 14 1. Work and Victim Restitution.. 18 2. Execution Protocols and the APA. 19 3. Protection of Assisting Medical Professionals. 21 4. HCRC Governance. 22 5. Conclusion.. 24 III. The habeas corpus reforms are well within the people’s reserved legislative power.
    [Show full text]