DOCSLIB.ORG

THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY AS a SAFETY VALVE Paul Mysliwiec

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY AS a SAFETY VALVE Paul Mysliwiec THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY AS A SAFETY VALVE Paul Mysliwiec ABSTRACT Fifteen states do not have a death penalty, and yet the federal government can federally prosecute capital cases on historically state- prosecuted violent crimes. This note discusses several problems related to the way non-death penalty states interact with the federal government, and seeks to offer resolutions where possible. For instance, what keeps the federal government from encroaching on a state’s ability to choose not to have a death penalty? Can a state or defendant stop the federal government in court? What stops federal prosecutors from unilaterally taking over cases to seek a death sentence? Finally, do state legislatures feel like they can have it both ways, saving the political capital it might require to reinstate a death penalty, and instead having federal prosecutors take the most egregious cases? Is the federal death penalty really a safety valve for the most heinous offenders in states with no death penalty? This note comes to several conclusions. First, there is generally no judicial remedy when federal prosecutors choose to seek charges without discrimination or invidious motive. Second, it is not the intent of the Justice Department to substitute their judgment for the state’s by replacing state death penalties with the federal death penalty. Third, the changes Attorney General Ashcroft made to the Death Penalty Protocol lead reasonable observers to the conclusion that the Justice Department does substitute their judgment for the state’s, and those changes should be undone. Fourth, while state legislatures may view the federal death penalty as a safety valve, there is not much the Justice Department can, or should, do about it. CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................. 257 I. Introduction ....................................................................................... 258 II. Constraints on the Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction ......................... 258 III. Federal Interest In Capital Cases .................................................... 262 A. United States v. Wilson ................................................................. 264 B. United States v. Sampson ............................................................. 266 C. United States Attorney’s Manual .................................................. 269 IV. Community Interest v. National Uniformity ................................... 274 V. Back to Sampson .............................................................................. 276 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 278 Assistant District Attorney, Kings County (Brooklyn, NY), Class of 2011, Clerk for Hon. Judge Maurice M. Paul, Northern District of Florida 2009-2010, University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. 2009. 258 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 17:2 I. INTRODUCTION Due to the broad reach of the ever-expanding federal criminal code,1 the federal government exercises concurrent jurisdiction (cases that could be prosecuted either federally or by the state) over an increasing number of criminal offenses. Federal regulation of firearms and narcotics especially grant the federal government jurisdiction over many serious crimes in state and local jurisdictions whose participants and/or victims do not cross state lines. There is one area, however, in which the differences between state and federal laws makes the choice of jurisdiction especially important, and that is the federal death penalty for crimes prosecuted in states that do not have a state death penalty. Some commentators decry federal death penalty prosecutions in states with no state death penalty as an encroachment on the right of the several states to choose their laws, while others welcome federal death penalty prosecutions as a safety valve when the most serious offenders would otherwise be spared the possibility of suffering the most serious penalty. Is it the right of the states to constrain the federal government‟s pursuit of crimes with valid (constitutional) federal jurisdiction? Does the federal interest in a prosecution increase in relation to the gravity of the crime? Should the federal government take into account available state penalties when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case federally? This note will show why states are not at liberty to halt federal death penalty prosecutions valid under federal law, and why the seriousness of individual crimes may increase the federal interest in prosecuting those crimes. It will also show why the lack of a state death penalty should not cause the federal government to exercise jurisdiction more often to prosecute capital cases. II. CONSTRAINTS ON THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION The majority of federal criminal jurisdiction is restricted constitutionally by the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to make laws necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce.2 However, Congress has used the Commerce Clause to expand federal criminal jurisdiction not only to crimes crossing state boundaries, such as the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes,3 but also to crimes which use systems capable of crossing state boundaries such as 1 The American Bar Association‟s Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law reported in 1999 that “more than forty percent of the federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil War have been enacted since 1970.” James E. Strazella, The Report of the ABA Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law, 1998 A.B.A. SEC. CRIM. JUST. 5 (1998) (reprinted in 11 FED. SENT‟G REP. 194 (1999). 2 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. 3 Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–24 (2006). Winter 2010] Death Penalty As A Safety Valve 259 the mails,4 or involving property that has at any time travelled in interstate commerce,5 or that deprives people of money they could otherwise use in interstate commerce.6 Congress may even regulate categories of items by prohibiting possession entirely, even possession when the specific substance possessed has never moved in interstate commerce, on the theory that the possessed substance is fungible and therefore never more than one step away from interstate commerce.7 It seems the only impermissible theory is the “cost of crime” theory, by which any crime always has an effect on the victim‟s ability to spend money in interstate commerce, and the effect on all such victims aggregates to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.8 Modern commerce clause jurisprudence therefore gives the federal criminal code very broad reach to prosecute crimes that until recently were prosecuted only by the states (such as carjacking), as well as to prosecute activity that the several states may not consider criminal (such as “medical” marijuana possession).9 Because the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause allows the United States Congress to criminalize such a broad range of conduct, the most common constraint on federal prosecution is resource-based rather than jurisdiction-based, i.e. the available number of investigators and prosecutors compared to the amount of conduct that might possibly be charged federally. The two main aspects the United States Attorneys (the chief federal prosecutors in each federal district) use to manage their resources are coordination with local and state prosecuting attorneys, and the United States Attorney‟s Manual (“USAM”), which has extensive guidelines on, among other things, when to prosecute federally when there is concurrent jurisdiction with local and state governments.10 4 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006). 5 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2006). 6 Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006). 7 Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 22 (2005) (upholding the Controlled Substances Act, which granted Federal law enforcement agents power to enforce federal drug laws against people whose drug use was in compliance with their state‟s laws). 8 See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617 (2000) (striking down the civil provision of the Violence Against Women Act, which did not require interstate transport as the criminal provision did, relying instead on the “cost of crime” theory for federal jurisdiction). 9 See infra, Part III. 10 See U.S. Department of Justice, Initiating and Declining Charges – Substantial Federal Interest, United States Attorney’s Manual (1997) 9-27.230 available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/t itle9.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2009) [hereinafter USAM]; Initiating and Declining Charges – Prosecution in Another Jurisdiction, USAM 9-27.240. 260 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 17:2 Interestingly, one of the factors the USAM explicitly requires U.S. Attorneys to consider when deciding whether to prosecute an offense federally is the probable sentence upon conviction.11 It reads: The ultimate measure of the potential for effective prosecution in another jurisdiction is the sentence . In considering this factor, the attorney . should bear in mind not only the statutory penalties . but also, the particular characteristics of the offense or, of the offender that might be relevant to sentencing.12 Thus, some offenders may be prosecuted by the state for a given offense, and others may, under the USAM guidelines, be prosecuted federally in order to achieve a more substantial sentence, based on characteristics of the particular crime or criminal. The guidelines do not offer much detail on how these determinations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES of AMERICA Cr. No. 01-10384-MLW GARY LEE SAMPSON MEMORAND
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Cr. No. 01-10384-MLW ) GARY LEE SAMPSON ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING REASSIGNMENT WOLF, D.J. January 6, 2016 I. SUMMARY This capital case was randomly assigned to me in 2001. After extensive pretrial litigation, in 2003 defendant Gary Sampson pled guilty to two charges of carjacking resulting in murder. At a trial that year to determine Sampson's sentence, the jury decided that the death penalty was justified. After denying Sampson's post-trial motions, in 2004 I sentenced him to death. In 2007, the First Circuit affirmed that sentence. In 2008, as required by law, I appointed new counsel to represent Sampson in post-conviction proceedings. In 2011, it was proven that perjury by a juror who should not have been allowed to serve had deprived Sampson of a fair trial in 2003. Therefore, I ordered a new trial to determine Sampson's sentence and, over Sampson IS obj ection, authorized an appeal by the government of that order. In 2013, the First Circuit agreed that the juror's misconduct required a retrial and returned this case to the District Court for another trial to determine Sampson's sentence. Since then, I have given the highest priority to preparing this case for what reportedly would have been the fastest retrial of a federal capital case in history if it had commenced, as scheduled, in September 2015. I had arranged to dedicate from August 2015 through January 2016 to preparing for and completing that retrial. The government's unmeritorious July 2015 motion for my recusal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:01-Cr-10384-LTS Document 2073 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 114
    Case 1:01-cr-10384-LTS Document 2073 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Cr. No. 01-10384-MLW GARY LEE SAMPSON MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING RECUSAL WOLF, D.J. September 8, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . SUMMARY .................................................. .. 2 II. THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS 17 III. THE FACTS 25 A. The Pretrial Proceedings, Trial, and Sentencing 25 B. The §2255 Proceedings 28 C. The Proceedings to Prepare for a Second Sentencing Hearing 33 D. The July 27, 2014 Program 41 E. The Matters Following the July 27, 2014 Panel 54 I V. ANAL YSIS ............................................... .. 63 A. My Recusal is Not Required 64 1. My Role Concerning the DeFriest Panel Could Not Cause a Reasonable Person to Question My Impartiality 64 2. The Added Fact that Dr. Gilligan Had Submitted an Affidavit in 2010 Could Not Cause a Reasonable Person to Question My Impartiality_ 79 3. The Added Fact that Dr. Gilligan is a Prospective Witness at the Retrial Could Not Cause a Reasonable Person to Question My Impartiality 84 B. Comparison with Other Cases 90 C. The Interest of Heightened Reliability in a Capital Case Does Not Make Recusal Necessary or Appropriate 101 D. Recusal Could Encourage the Reasonable Public Perception that the System Can Be Manipulated to Obtain a Preferable Judge . 104 V. CONCLUSION 113 VI. ORDER 114 Case 1:01-cr-10384-LTS Document 2073 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 114 I. SUMMARY The government has moved for my recusal because, on July 27, 2014, I moderated a panel that included Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Government's Argument to Reverse Court Order Vacating Death
    Nos. 12-1643, 12-8019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _______________ GARY LEE SAMPSON, PETITIONER-APPELLEE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT ____________ IN RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER _______________ ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §2255 ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS VACATING A DEATH SENTENCE AND GRANTING A NEW CAPITAL PENALTY PHASE TRIAL; PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; AND PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS _______________ GOVERNMENT’S OPENING BRIEF AND PETITION _______________ CARMEN M. ORTIZ UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MARK T. QUINLIVAN ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY U.S. COURTHOUSE 1 COURTHOUSE WAY SUITE 9200 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... v STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...........................................2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................5 A. The Offenses of Conviction ................................5 B. Proceedings in Sampson’s Criminal Case .....................8 C. Sampson’s Amended §2255 Motion ..........................9 D. The Evidentiary Hearings .................................11 1. The first evidentiary hearing ....................11 2. The second evidentiary hearing ..................15 3. The third evidentiary hearing ....................17 E. The District Court’s Memorandum and Order on Jury Claim ..................................... 18 F. The May 10, 2012 Memorandum and Order ............. 24 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................... 27 ARGUMENT..................................................... 33 -i- I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE GOVERNMENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER VACATING SAMPSON’S DEATH SENTENCE AND GRANTING HIM A NEW PENALTY PHASE TRIAL ..............33 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Law Program Fall 2014-Spring 2015 Course Offerings*
    CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM FALL 2014-SPRING 2015 COURSE OFFERINGS* JACOB D. FUCHSBERG CLINICAL LAW CENTER TH 245 SULLIVAN STREET, 5 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10012 212-998-6430 *AS OF APRIL 1, 2014 CONSULT WEBSITE FOR UPDATES: http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/clinics/ Table of Contents Applications Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Guidelines for Clinical Courses ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Clinic Matching and Selection Process .................................................................................................................................... 4 Submitting Clinic Preferences ........................................................................................................................................ 4 How Clinic Matching is Conducted ................................................................................................................................ 4 Acceptance Notification and Registration ..................................................................................................................... 4 Permission to Register ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Issue 9V9-Corrections
    Deaths Prompt Affordable Long Island Proposed iPod Ban Rail Road Tickets A c t By Joe Rios One SBU student commented, “People are By Jamie Freiermuth fellow student brought up the unaff o r d a b i l- ___________ just idiots. At a crosswalk, they don't do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ity of LIRR tickets for students, A n t o n e l l i the simple things, like looking both ways had the bill on the floor. “As a representa- The news rapidly crossed the globe, before crossing. They automatically think Students coming back to Stony Brook tive of the undergraduate student body it is from New York to London to Australia. that just because they are at a crosswalk, met with a surprising expense relief this my obligation and duty to do my best to Just a few days ago, a New York state sen- they are completely safe. There is no spring semester. The USG’s A ff o r d a b l e accommodate their concerns,” he said. ator proposed legislation to make the use excuse for not being aware of your sur- Long Island Rail Road Tickets Act (ALIR- “This was the first time I had actually heard of any technological device in a crosswalk roundings.” This holds especially true on a RT) is now in effect, allowing students to a student complaint as an elected official so subject to a fine similar to jaywalking. campus like Stony Brook, where some stu- purchase their LIRR tickets at a discounted it was extremely important to make sure State Senator Carl Kruger is the man dents don’t even look to see if the road is rate, half off the ticket price to both city something was done.” The USG has behind the legislation, inspired after two clear before stepping out into traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court Eastern District of New York
    Case 1:04-cr-01016-NGG Document 293 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM & ORDER v. 04-CR-1016 (NGG) RONELL WILSON, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X GARAUFIS, District Judge. A jury has found Ronell Wilson (“Wilson”) guilty of two counts of murder in aid of racketeering, two counts of robbery conspiracy, one count of attempted robbery, one count of carjacking, two counts of causing death through use of a firearm, and two counts of using a firearm in furtherance of crimes of violence. These charges were based on, inter alia, Wilson’s March 10, 2003 execution of undercover New York City Police Department Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin, whom he was attempting to rob of the $1,200 they planned to use to purchase a firearm from Wilson and his fellow members of the Stapleton Crew street gang. (See Order dated January 9, 2007 at 3-7.) The Government will seek the death penalty against Wilson in a penalty phase that will begin on January 16, 2007. During the penalty phase, at the conclusion of which the jury will make a binding recommendation as to Wilson’s sentence, “information may be presented as to any matter relevant to the sentence, including any mitigating or aggravating factor permitted or required to be considered under [18 U.S.C.] section 3592.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Section 3592(a) lists seven mitigating factors and permits a defendant to introduce proof of “[o]ther factors in the 1 Case 1:04-cr-01016-NGG Document 293 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID> defendant’s background, record, or character or any other circumstances of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence.” 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court Eastern District of New York
    Case 1:04-cr-01016-NGG Document 294 Filed 01/15/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM & ORDER v. 04-CR-1016 (NGG) RONELL WILSON, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X GARAUFIS, District Judge. A jury has found Ronell Wilson (“Wilson”) guilty of two counts of murder in aid of racketeering, two counts of robbery conspiracy, one count of attempted robbery, one count of carjacking, two counts of causing death through use of a firearm, and two counts of using a firearm in furtherance of crimes of violence. These charges were based on, inter alia, Wilson’s execution of undercover New York City Police Department Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin, whom he was attempting to rob of the $1,200 they planned to use to purchase a firearm from Wilson and his fellow members of the Stapleton Crew street gang. (See Order dated January 9, 2007 at 3-7.) The Government will seek the death penalty against Wilson in a penalty phase that will begin on January 16, 2007. Wilson has moved this court to preclude the Government from presenting, during the penalty phase, (1) a mental-condition expert witness to rebut evidence that Wilson may offer regarding his mental condition and (2) evidence that Wilson committed five adjudicated crimes, three unadjudicated crimes, and, while incarcerated, approximately fifteen disciplinary violations. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED. The motion regarding 1 Case 1:04-cr-01016-NGG Document 294 Filed 01/15/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID> the Government’s mental-condition expert may be re-filed at the conclusion of Wilson’s mitigation case.
    [Show full text]
  • Will New York's Defeated Death Penalty Be Resurrected? Diana N
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 35 | Number 5 Article 4 2008 To Act Or Not To Act: Will New York's Defeated Death Penalty Be Resurrected? Diana N. Huffman Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Diana N. Huffman, To Act Or Not To Act: Will New York's Defeated Death Penalty Be Resurrected? , 35 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1139 (2008). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol35/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\server05\productn\F\FUJ\35-5\FUJ504.txt unknown Seq: 1 4-NOV-08 13:25 TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT: WILL NEW YORK’S DEFEATED DEATH PENALTY BE RESURRECTED? Diana N. Huffman Introduction...................................................1140 R I. The Rise and Fall of New York’s Death Penalty Statute .................................................1141 R A. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Capital Punishment ........................................1142 R B. New York’s 1995 Statute in Light of Supreme Court Mandates ...................................1144 R C. The Jury’s Role In New York Capital Trials ......1146 R D. The Anticipatory Deadlock Provision .............1147 R E. New York’s Death Penalty Found Unconstitutional ...................................1149 R 1. People v. LaValle ..............................1149 R 2. People v. Taylor ...............................1150 R F. Legislative Action Post-LaValle ...................1153 R II.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Initial Indictment, Four Co-Defendants, Michael Whitten
    Case 1:04-cr-01016-NGG Document 113 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 54 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 04-CR-1016 (NGG) v. RONELL WILSON, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X GARAUFIS, District Judge. Defendant Ronell Wilson (“Defendant” or “Wilson”) is charged in a twenty-three count indictment with, inter alia, murdering undercover New York Police Department (“NYPD”) Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin on March 10, 2003.1 Specifically, in connection with his alleged membership in the street gang known as the “Stapleton Crew,” the criminal enterprise alleged in the Indictment, Wilson is charged with the following: engaging in and conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity; committing obstruction of justice murder, murder in aid of racketeering, carjacking; use of a firearm and causing death through the use of a firearm; robbery and robbery conspiracy; narcotics distribution and narcotics conspiracy; use of a firearm in connection with narcotics trafficking; conspiring to murder rival gang 1 In the initial Indictment, four co-defendants, Michael Whitten, Paris Bullock, Angel Rodriguez, and Jamal Brown, were indicted with Wilson in a thirty-count indictment. These four co-defendants have since pleaded guilty to racketeering and narcotics-related charges and are awaiting sentencing before this court. On June 9, 2006, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment (S-1) in this case, which removes Wilson’s four co-defendants from the Indictment. (See Docket Entry No. 109). As the Superseding Indictment was filed after briefing on these motions, so as not to confuse the subject matter contained in the parties’ submissions, citations to the Indictment in this M&O are to the original thirty-count Indictment, and not to the Superseding Indictment, unless specifically noted as a citation to S-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Yasser Payne (May 27, 2016)
    PAYNE, YASSER Page 1 YASSER ARAFAT PAYNE, Ph. D. 337 Smith Hall Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19716 302-831-4383 [email protected] EDUCATION: HUNTER COLLEGE-CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, New York City CENTER FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY HEALTH NIH/NIDA Post-Doctoral Fellow, April, 2005–April, 2006 GRADUATE CENTER-CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Ph. D, May, 2005 Social-Personality Psychology GRADUATE CENTER-CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Master of Philosophy, October 2003 Social-Personality Psychology HUNTER COLLEGE-CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, New York City En-Route Master of Arts Degree, February 2002 Social-Personality Psychology SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, South Orange, New Jersey Master of Arts Degree, May 1999 Psychological Studies WAGNER COLLEGE, Staten Island, New York City Bachelor of Arts Degree, May 1997 Major: Psychology Minor: English ACADEMIC POSITIONS: 9/16–present Associate Professor; Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice Joint Appointment: Department of Africana Studies & Women’s Studies University of Delaware 9/12–present Departmental Affiliation, Education Department (Sociocultural and Community Approaches to Education Ph. D. Program), University of Delaware 9/11–9/16 Associate Professor; Department of Africana Studies 9/11–9/16 Secondary Appointment; Sociology Department University of Delaware 9/06–9/11 Tenure Track Assistant Professor; Department of Africana Studies Secondary Appointment; Sociology Department University of Delaware FACULTY ASSOCIATE: 9/11–present Center for the Study of Diversity, University of Delaware 9/17-present Center for Drug & Health Studies, Dept. of Sociology & Criminal Justice, UD 9/17-present Center for Interprofessional Development, Education, & Research, Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 1B (Boston Globe Log and Articles)
    Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 686-3 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 369 Exhibit 1b (Boston Globe log and articles) Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 686-3 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 369 Boston Globe Articles Log & Breakdown 7/26/2014 – 11/15/2014 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Index # Date Headline Page Type # of Short Pictures Side Section printed (S) bars pages 1 7/26/2014 Tsarnaev lawyers demand investigation 2 Boston of news leaks Globe 2 7/27/2014 Ted, Big Papi, and Yaz: That's now the A1 Commentary 3 S 1 Boston order of greatness in the Sox pantheon -- Globe so says Yaz 3 7/31/2014 Wondering where the time went C1 Commentary 3 S Boston Globe 4 8/1/2014 Activists say city's Trust Act falls short: 2 Boston Fear exemptions weaken measure Globe 5 8/1/2014 State's judiciary is a key piece of Patrick's 3 S Boston legacy Globe 6 8/2/2014 Sox fan since '60s has advice: Sit back, Letter to the 1 S Boston relax, enjoy Editor Globe 7 8/3/2014 Statisticians return to Boston, where the B1 3 S 1 Boston discipline took shape Globe 8 8/5/2014 Few preparations in event of Ebola in US: A1 3 2 Boston Unclear how to allot drugs, equipment Globe 9 8/5/2014 Shear enthusiasm B1 2 Boston Globe 10 8/7/2014 Tsarnaev friend in court in drug case 2 Boston Globe 11 8/8/2014 Tsarnaev lawyers target media 2 Boston Globe 12 8/8/2014 Satire & brimstone: 'God Hates Musicals' 4 1 Boston skewers the Westboro Baptist Church -- Globe with show tunes 13 8/10/2014 For this Kennedy, all politics is (for now) A1 7 1 Boston local: Late senator's son Ted finally Globe makes his move 14 8/13/2014 Patriots take the Ice Bucket Challenge 1 Boston Globe 15 8/15/2014 Tsarnaev defense seeking D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective (1990-2014)
    The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: A Retrospective (1990-2014) The New York County Lawyers Association Committee on the Federal Courts May 2015 Copyright May 2015 New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10007 phone: (212) 267-6646; fax: (212) 406-9252 Additional copies may be obtained on-line at the NYCLA website: www.nycla.org TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT (1865-1990)............................................................ 3 Founding: 1865 ........................................................................................................... 3 The Early Era: 1866-1965 ........................................................................................... 3 The Modern Era: 1965-1990 ....................................................................................... 5 1990-2014: A NEW ERA ...................................................................................................... 6 An Increasing Docket .................................................................................................. 6 Two New Courthouses for a New Era ........................................................................ 7 The Vital Role of the Eastern District’s Senior Judges............................................. 10 The Eastern District’s Magistrate Judges: An Indispensable Resource ................... 11 The Bankruptcy
    [Show full text]