DOCSLIB.ORG

Crime and Punishment in New York: an Inquiry Into Sentencing and the Criminal Justice System •

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crime and Punishment in New York: an Inquiry Into Sentencing and the Criminal Justice System • If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. " , Crime and Punishment in New York: An Inquiry Into Sentencing And The Criminal Justice System • /.. PORT TO GOVERNOR HUGHL.· CAREV..; PREPARED BY • fTIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SENTENCING \ , • CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN NEW YORK: An Inquiry Into Sentencing And The Criminal Justice System NCJRS f 1'• DEC 5 1979 ., ACQUISITIONS Report to Governor Hugh L. Carey Prepared by The Executive Advisory Committee on Sentencing March,1979 • • '.1 • March 23, 1979 To the honorable HUGH L. CAREY, Governor of the State of New York It is with great pleasure that I submit to you the final report of your Executive Advisory Committee on Sentencing, containing a summary of its activities, and its recommendations and conclusions. Respectfully submitted, Robert M. Morgenthau Chairman • • New York State Executive Advisory Committee on Sentencing Members of the Committee Robert M. Morgenthau, Chairman Jorge L. Batista John F. Keenan Peggy C. Davis Arthur L. Liman Stanley Fink John F. O'Mara I. Leo Glasser Robert P. Patterson, Jr. Emanuel R. Gold Barbara Swartz Harry D. Goldman Harold R. Tyler, Jr. Charles J. Hynes S. Burns Weston Staff General Counsel Steven E. Landers Assistant Counsel David W. Beier Marsha Garrison Associate Counsel Harvey A. Feintuch Alton J. Landsman Research Director Colleen A. Cosgrove Researchers Karen Dempsey (Part-Time) Joel Harary Gerri Jacobs Denise Mullins Nancy Sallows Eric Thompson John R. Zebrowski Office Staff Mary Grady Valeria Hollins Carol Ann Petzoldt Consultants Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. Institute for Law and Social Research (lNSLAW) Leslie T. Wilkins, Professor at the School of Criminal Justice, State '. University of New York at Albany . • • Table of Contents Page • Preface The Committee's Inquiry Executive Summary vi Introduction The Sentencing Debate 3 • Part I: HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS Chapter I An Historical Look at Sentencing in New York 7 Chapter II What Happens Before Sentencing and Why 17 Chapter III The Sentencing Process and Its Results: How Judges and the Parole Board Sentence Offenders 33 Chapter IV Imprisonment 65 Chapter V Post-Release Supervision 81 Chapter VI Probation 93 Part II: A PROPOSAL FOR SENTENCING REFORM Chapter VII The Goals of Sentencing 109 Chapter VIII Alternative Sentencing Models 125 • Chapter IX A New Sentencing System for New York 135 Supplement Supplemental Recommendations for New York's Criminal Justice System 145 • Footnotes 158 • • Preface: The Committee's Inquiry • The New York State Executive Advisory Committee on Sentencing was established by Governor Hugh L. Carey in December, 1977. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, was appointed by the Governor to be Chairman of the Committee. The other members of the Committee were: -Jorge L. Batista, First Assistant Attorney General of the State • of New York; Regent of the State University of New York; and former President of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. ·-Peggy C. Davis, Deputy Coordinator for Criminal Justice, City of New York; former Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University, and Staff Counsel NAACP Legal Defense Fund. • -Slianley Fink, Speaker of the New York St8te Assembly. -I. Leo Glasser, Dean of the Brooklyn Law School; former Judge of the Family Court of New York State. -Emanuel R. Gold, Deputy Minority Leader of the New York State Senate. -Judge Harry D. Goldman, member of the law firm of Gold- • stein, Goldman, Kessler and Underberg, in Rochester; former Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, New York State Supreme Court. -Charles J. Hynes, Deputy Attorney General, Special Prose­ cutor for Nursing Homes, Health and Social Services; former First Assistant District Attorney, Kings County. -John F. Keenan, Deputy Attorney General, Special Prosecutor for Corruption in the New York City Criminal Justice System; former Chief Assistant District Attorney. New York County. -Arthur L. Liman, member of the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; former Chief Counsel, New York State Special Commission on Attica. • -Judge John F. O'Mara, member of the law firm of Burns & O'Mara, in Elmira; former District Attorney of Chemung County and Judge of the Court of Claims of the State of New York. -Robert P. Patterson, Jr., member of the law firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, and President of the New York State • Bar Association. -Barbara Swartz, Assistant Clinical Professor, New York Uni- versity Law School, and Director, Bedford Hills Women's Prison Project. • • ii -Judge Harold R. Tyler, Jr., member of the law firm of Patter­ son, Belknap, Webb & Tyler; former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and Judge of the United States District • Court, Southern District of New York. -So Burns Weston, Attorney-at-Law, Keene, New York; former President of the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland. The Committee's Mandate • In the Executive Order creating the Committee, the Governor noted that "at the center of the controversy [over sentencing] is the question whether indeterminate sentences, such as those provided for under the New York Penal Law, are preferable to a system of definite senten­ cing, or whether some option between the two approaches should lie with the sentencing judge." Accordingly, the Governor directed the • Committee to "evaluate the effectiveness of the existing laws relating to imprisonment, probation and parole in achieving legitimate senten­ cing goals," and study and evaluate alternatives for change. By the spring of 1978, the Committee had assembled a small in­ dependent staff and commenced its investigation. • Defining the Scope of the Inquiry An immediate and difficult problem was to define the boundaries of the Committee's study. From the outset it was clear that the inquiry must of necessity encompass more than a theoretical study of New York's sentencing laws. Events which occur both before and after sen­ tence is imposed are inextricably entwined with the sentencing process itself, and must be considered for a true picture of present sentencing practices to emerge. Thus, this study has attempted to describe and analyze presentencing stages of the criminal justice system, as well as the practical results of sentencing - what happens to those who are imprisoned, placed on probation, or subject to parole supervision. • The Committee made two other fundamental chokes. It decided to concentrate its efforts on felony, rather than misdemeanor, sentencing - in part because of the dearth of data relating to the sentencing of misdemeants in New York. The Committee also concluded that its inquiry would focus exclusively on the sentencing of adult, rather than juvenile, offenders, since the juvenile justice system was felt to present • unique problems which could more properly be addressed in a separate study. • • iii How the Study was Conducted • The Committee's investigation encompassed a wide variety of ac­ tivities. 1. Review of the literature: The Committee staff conducted an exhaustive review of the relevant literature relating to the history of sentencing in New York; alternative • sentencing models proposed or adopted in other jurisdictions; prosecutorial discretion and plea-bargaining; sentencing disparity; parole; probation; corrections; non-incarcerative community-based sanctions; and the moral and criminological implications of alter­ native sentencing policies. In addition, the Committee commissioned a study by the Institute for Law and Social Research (INSLA W) • relating to deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and their link to sentencing, which accompanies this report as Appendix E. 2. Interviews: The Committee and Committee staff spoke with many individuals • in New York State who are both knowledgeable and experienced in matters relating to sentencing, probation, parole, and corrections. These include members of the judiciary; officials of the New York State Office of Court Administration; high-ranking officials of the State Department of Probation and the New York City Department of Probation, and probation officers employed by several local • probation departments; top-level management of the Division of Parole, individual parole officers, the Chairman of the Board of Parole and several members of the Parole Board; the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, aides to the Commissioner, and corrections officers; members of the Com­ mission of Correction; officials of the New York State Division of • Criminal Justice Services; the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department; assistant district attorneys; defense attorneys; representatives of pretrial services agencies; inmates and represen­ tatives of inmate organizations; academicians; criminologists; legislators; and officials of various professional associations represen­ ting employees in the criminal justice system. • In addition, Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. conducted lengthy interviews, on behalf of the Committee, with fifty Supreme and County Court judges, fifty assistant district attorneys, and fifty • • iv defense attorneys, selected by stratified random sampling and located across New York State. The results of this survey are contained in Ap­ pendix D to this report. Professor Leslie T. Wilkins, of the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany, assisted in • the development of the questionnaires used in these interviews. 3. Sentencing simulation study: In order to shed further light on the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Club Proposal Rappea
    sneaonaacricaEe^s o County JLeadet Newspapers o U) VOL.58NO.02 I " " SPRINGFIELD, M\J.,THURSDAY,OCTOBER 23,1984-2* '"i Two sections in * 1 .si" in Club proposal rappea By-MARK YABLONSKY outrageous. I don't know 'what Bill shouldn't be considered. I am in A recent proposal from the Boys Cieri couldJiave been thinking of shock." . and Girls Club of Union that would when he proposed this idea. Now, it's Cieri, who originally introduced bring a "satellite'^ branch of. the the idea to Triolo several months national organization to Springfield ago, soys the club's offering was not has drawn sharp criticism from necessarilyiinal. " ••I leading—township recreation-of- LWV plans I4!ij jvll] ^l^^v^^o^^^^m "That doesn't mean we're going to - ficials, who have berated the plan as . ''outrageous." ; . : ,' • two forums accept their proposal,"-Says Cieri, Township Commltteewoman Jo- adding "that (he governing body . Ann Pieper and Recreation Director ' The Springfield League of would meet with the Boys and Girls Mark Silance have charged that the Women .Voters will hold its an- Club qdmmiltee in order to deter- proposal submitted to Mayor nual candidates' night on Oct.'27 mine what services the organization William Cieri by the Union club - at 8 p.m. in- the 'cafeteria of would provide. which is one of niore than 1,100 Gaudineer School. The public is nationwide — will cost the town too invited to hear the candidates' , "Their terms are not necessarily - much hioney and will usurp the platforms and to ask questions of- the final terms!-As far as I'm con- authority and need of the township's The candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Gender and Relationship in Reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws
    THE ROLE OF GENDER AND RELATIONSHIP IN REFORMING THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS EDA KATHARINE TINTO* In recent years, New York's drug sentencing laws-the Rockefeller Drug Laws- have come under attack due to their failure to reduce drug use despite the growing prisonpopulation. The political and academic communities now are debating how best to reform these laws. In this Note, Eda Tinto highlights the absence of a much- needed discussion regarding the sentencing of certain women drug offenders. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that an underlying context of many women's drug crimes is their involvement in an intimate relationship with a partner who uses or sells drugs. Tinto argues that these women drug offenders are often less blame- worthy than other offenders and that therefore the sentences for their crimes are often unjust. Tinto concludes that the context of an intimate relationshipshould be acknowledged in sentencing and proposes reforms of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. INTRODUCTION In 1973, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller successfully urged the passage of the most punitive drug laws in the country.1 The "Rockefeller Drug Laws" (the Laws) removed the discretion tradi- tionally afforded to judges in sentencing individual offenders and forced judges to sentence drug offenders to extremely long prison terms. 2 While the enactment of the Laws signaled the beginning of * I would like to thank Professor Anthony Thompson, my family, and my friends for their continual guidance and support for this Note and, more importantly, in life. I also would like to thank the staff of the New York University Law Review, especially Dave McTaggart, Maggie Lemos, Janet Carter, and Michael Kasdan.
    [Show full text]
  • Carey Easily Beats Durye a GOP Takes Comptroller; Drops Attny
    Carey Easily Beats Durye a GOP Takes Comptroller; Drops Attny. Gen. New York (AP)- by 56 percent to 44 Governor Hugh Carey percent. won a big re-election Republican Edward victory over challenger Regan, the Erie County Perry Duryea, the Montauk executive, appeared to have Assemblyman, yesterday, upset New York City defeating Republican efforts comptroller Harrison to turn the balloting into a Goldin in the race for state referendum over the death comptroller. Goldin led in penalty. New York City but trailed He hailed the large voter badly in the rest of the turnout across the state, state. and said that "this goes (See stories, page 7) against all the experts, who On the slate with Carey said there would be as the Democratic indifference, apathy and a candidate for lieutenant low vote." governor was Secretary of Duryea conceded just State Mario Cuomo; before midnight and said he Duryea's running mate on had sent a telegram to the Republican ticket was Carey, "I wish you well." United States With 42 percent of the Representative Bruce state's election districts Caputo of Yonkers. counted, it was Carey 56 Carey, a liberal by percent and Duryea 44 instinct, made fiscal 3 b ull kpv!rcAnnp nf hlr prlcnllt. otU.L)LercentD t AJLyLJ,,, oXV0uy l ·rpetr.int. county, Suffolk, opted for administration and his him by an overwhelming campaign stance. In the past 43,000 vote margin. two years he signed into law The voting produced the the first significant state tax ouster of one major figure cuts in 20 years, and he in state politics - Assembly boasted about a rate of Speaker Stanley Steingut, a growth in the state's budget Democrat, who lost in his which he said was well Brooklyn district.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws?
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by St. John's University School of Law Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 13 Issue 3 Volume 13, Spring 1999, Issue 3 Article 6 March 1999 Is it Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws? Spiros A. Tsimbinos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred Recommended Citation Tsimbinos, Spiros A. (1999) "Is it Time to Change the Rockefeller Drug Laws?," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol13/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS IT TIME TO CHANGE THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS? SPIROS A. TSIMBINOS* I. INTRODUCTION When the current New York State Penal Law1 went into effect in 1965, the provisions dealing with drug offenses were brief and sim- ple. The penalties for these crimes were moderate sentences, in keeping with the general philosophy that non-violent crimes should be treated less severely than those involving violent conduct.2 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, however, as our cities became plagued by the scourge of drug abuse, the public clamored for an- swers to the problem. In New York State, Governor Rockefeller and the Legislature responded by enacting the toughest drug laws in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sing Sing Revolt the Incarceration Crisis and Criminal Justice Liberalism in the 1980S
    The Sing Sing Revolt The Incarceration Crisis and Criminal Justice Liberalism in the 1980s Lee Bernstein As 1983 began, New York’s prisons reached a chokepoint: in the past decade the inmate population went from 12,444 to 27,943. Mario Cuomo, who would become the nation’s most prominent liberal politician after delivering the keynote address at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, prepared to take the oath of office to become the state’s fifty-second governor.1 Corrections officials scrambled to find beds for four hundred new people each week in crumbling facilities and repurposed public buildings. This overcrowding occurred, to different degrees, throughout the system—city and county jails, juvenile facilities, and in state-run facilities variously classified minimum, medium, and maximum security. Multi- ple factors converged to create this overcrowding, including the war on drugs, the victims’ rights movement, and new “truth in sentencing” laws.2 In addition, declining tax revenues and the economic struggles of the state’s voters limited the state’s ability to fund new prison construction and to accommodate the educational, therapeutic, and social needs of its bur- geoning prison population. Access to basic needs like warm clothing, blankets, and mail became constrained. The Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) was character- ized by laughably inadequate grievance procedures, insufficiently staffed facilities, anemic responses to ongoing labor-management disputes, rifts between uniformed and civilian employees, and failure to address racist and sexist barriers to fair treatment for employees and the incarcerated population. Recent memory generated a foreboding sense of where all this would lead.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockefeller Drug Law Reform
    NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM & DRUG ABUSE Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, Chair Assessing the Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Treatment Under Rockefeller Drug Law Reform February 2012 Introduction On April 2, 2009, the State Legislature passed ground-breaking legislation that effectively swept away an entire era of notoriously harsh drug sentencing schemes known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The 2009 reform caused a major change in New York’s drug policy, shifting it away from mass incarceration and toward a public health model. The two most fundamental pieces included in the legislation were an elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, and restoration of judicial discretion to order treatment and rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Two years have passed since these reforms were implemented, and the questions that need to be answered are: have they been successful? Are drug offenders truly being given the treatment they need, and is this treatment producing better outcomes than incarceration as the reforms intended? In order to determine the effectiveness of the 2009 Drug Law Reform (DLR), Senator Jeffrey Klein, Chair of the Senate Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Committee, gathered first-hand information from treatment providers across the State. In collaboration with the New York Association of Substance Abuse Providers (ASAP), an online survey was circulated to ASAP’s membership of 250+ alcoholism and drug treatment providers. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether treatment providers were seeing an increase in the number of patients referred from the criminal justice system, and if so, whether these providers have the capacity and resources to support all clients coming into their program for treatment to overcome their dependency and lead healthy and productive lives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rockefeller Drug Laws: Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective
    The Rockefeller Drug Laws: Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective A Call for a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 212.607.3300 www.nyclu.org CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: NEW YORK’S JIM CROW LAWS ........3 II. THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS: UNJUST, IRRATIONAL, INEFFECTIVE ...................5 III. THE HARMS ...................................11 IV. MAPPING OF INJUSTICE .........................17 V. PARADIGM SHIFT ...............................30 VI. MOVING TOWARDS A PUBLIC HEALTH MODEL: RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................36 THE NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION The Rockefeller Drug Laws │ Unjust, Irrational, Ineffective 2 I. INTRODUCTION: NEW YORK’S JIM CROW LAWS here has emerged over the last decade a broad consensus among policy experts, criminal justice scholars and lawmakers that the War on Drugs, with its singular emphasis on incarceration, has failed. In 1993, on the 20th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, New York State Corrections Commis- T 1 sioner Thomas Coughlin, III, said the state was “lock[ing] up the wrong people … for the wrong reasons.” Former Republican state senator John Dunne was a sponsor of the state’s mandatory sentencing scheme for drug offenses. He subsequently organized a coalition that has advocated for fundamental reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. In 2004 he observed, in a television spot, “the Rockefeller Drug Laws have been a well-documented failure.”2 Yet, as the 36th anniversary of these laws approaches, the state continues locking up the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This report presents and marshals the empirical evidence that demonstrates New York’s mandatory-min- imum drug sentencing scheme has failed, utterly, to accomplish its stated objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Reasons to Re-Evaluate the Rockefeller Drug Laws Susan Herman
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2000 Measuring Culpability by Measuring Drugs? Three Reasons to Re-evaluate the Rockefeller Drug Laws Susan Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 63 Alb. L. Rev. 777 (2000) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. MEASURING CULPABILITY BY MEASURING DRUGS? THREE REASONS TO REEVALUATE THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS Susan N. Herman* The so-called Rockefeller drug laws,1 enacted in 1973, have been New York's principal weapon in the war against drugs for the past three decades. The statutory design, like the reasoning upon which it rests, is simple and straightforward. The legislature chose to impose lengthy and frequently mandatory sentences for possession and distribution of controlled substances, on the assumption that harsh and certain punishment would deter and reduce drug abuse and related crime. 2 Under this system, drug offenses are graded according to the dangerousness and the quantity of the drug involved. 3 Dangerousness of a drug is determined by consulting * Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. B.A., Barnard College, 1968; J.D., New York University, 1974. The author would like to thank Paul Gangsei and David Yassky for their helpful comments, Chris Fowler for his excellent research assistance, Jim Peluso for his extraordinary efforts in coordinating this symposium, and Brooklyn Law School for the continuing support of its research stipend program.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Effect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex
    Syracuse University SURFACE Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects Projects Spring 5-1-2010 The Commodification of the Modern Black Man: Examining the Effect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex Alexis Kinney Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone Part of the Human Geography Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Other Geography Commons Recommended Citation Kinney, Alexis, "The Commodification of the Modern Black Man: Examining the ffE ect of Drug Law on the New York State Prison Industrial Complex" (2010). Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. 404. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/404 This Honors Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract This Capstone project examines the effect of New York State’s prison industrial complex on local economies. The prison industrial complex is a system of imprisonment that, through various methods, transforms prisoners into commodities. The complex involves endorsing legislation to create more crimes and longer sentences for those crimes, thus increasing the number, and term length, of incarcerated citizens. In New York, the creation of the Rockefeller drug laws resulted in a revitalized diligence in the war against drugs, leading to the promotion of prisoner- based upstate economies. Through engagement with United States drugs laws, historical accounts of drug use and addiction, and statistical analysis and research in regards to race, wealth, gender, and drug use this Capstone provides original maps that illustrate the racist nature of the Rockefeller drug laws, New York’s main drug law set, and the spatial organization of the prison system itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Schwartz Collection [Finding Aid]. Library Of
    Tony Schwartz Collection Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2012 Revised March 2014 Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mbrsrs/mbrsrs.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mbrsrs/eadmbrs.rs011002 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/2012618550 Authors: Carla Arton, Harrison Behl, Callie Holmes, David Jackson, Maya Lerman, Marsha Maguire, Adam Thaxter, Celeste Welch Collection Summary Title: Tony Schwartz collection Inclusive Dates: 1912-2008 Bulk Dates: 1950-2008 Creator: Schwartz, Tony Textual materials: 90.5 linear feet (230 boxes, 1 map case folder, approximately 76,345 items) Language: Collection materials are in English Location: Recorded Sound Reference Center, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: The Tony Schwartz Collection consists of multiple formats of material documenting Schwartz's work as a media consultant, audio documentarian, author, radio producer, media theorist, and educator. Location: RPA 00856-01055 (boxes 1-200); RPB 00112-00122 (oversize boxes 213-223); RPC 00084-00087 (oversize boxes 224-227); RPD 00038-00040 (oversize boxes 228-230); RPU 00002 (box 201), RPU 00021-00023 (boxes 202-204), RPU 00024 (box OSU 1), RPU 00025-00032 (boxes 205-212) Map case: RPM 00013 (map folder 1) Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein. People Bemporad, Jack. Bleviss, Alan. Bredesen, Phil, 1943- Carey, John, 1946- Carter, Jimmy, 1924- Cherner, Joe.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PATENT BATTLE THAT CREATED HOLLYWOOD by David Krell 10
    NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 VOL. 87 | NO. 9 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Also in this Issue The Patent Battle Eight “Chiefs” That Created Criminal Justice Update Medical Malpractice Hollywood Proving a Joint Account By David Krell Simplify your everything. Your time is precious. That’s why Clio®’s intuitive design and powerful functionality will smooth out your processes and uncomplicate your overly-complex life. When your business systems are easy-to-use, intelligent and uncomplicated, you can put yourself first and prioritize your day accordingly. Simplify with Clio – the most complete and streamlined legal management solution around. We save you time. It’s up to you what you do with it. We’re the most comprehensive, yet easy-to-use cloud-based law practice management software. Join tens of thousands of legal professionals who trust Clio to manage and grow their firms. Start your free trial today at clio.com Simplify your everything. Clio® and the Clio Checkmark Logo™ are Trademarks or registered Trademarks of Themis Solutions Inc. ©2015 Themis Solutions Inc. All rights reserved. BESTSELLERS FROM THE NYSBA BOOKSTORE November/December 2015 Best Practices in Legal Management Entertainment Law, 4th Ed. NYSBA Practice Forms on CD 2014–2015 The most complete treatment of the business of Completely revised, Entertainment Law, More than 500 of the forms from Deskbook running a law firm. With forms on CD. 4th Edition covers the principal areas of enter- and Formbook used by experienced practitio- PN: 4131 / Member $139 / List $179 / tainment law. ners in their daily practice. 498 pages PN: 40862 / Member $150 / List $175 / Practice of Criminal Law Under the CPLR and 986 pages/loose-leaf Criminal and Civil Contempt, 2nd Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1969 Journal
    : II STATISTICS Miscella- Original Appellate neous Total Vumber of cases on dockets. _ __ — 15 1, 758 2, 429 4, 202 ?ases disposed of_ _ 5 1, 433 1, 971 3, 409 Remaining on dockets. __ 10 325 458 793 Cases disposed of—Appellate Docket: By written opinions 105 By per curiam opinions or orders , 206 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation (merit cases) 1 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,121 Cases disposed of—Miscellaneous Docket By written opinions , 0 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,759 By denial or withdrawal of other applications 121 By granting of other applications , 3 By per curiam dismissal of appeals 36 By other per curiam opinions or orders 22 By transfer to Appellate Docket 30 dumber of written opinions 88 Number of printed per curiam opinions 21 Number of petitions for certiorari granted ( Appellate ) 73 Number of appeals in which jurisdiction was noted or post- poned (Appellate) 46 Number of admissions to bar 3,965 GENERAL: Page Court convened October 6, 1969, and adjourned June 29, 1970 1 and 510 Court recessed to attend President's State of Union Message 211 Justice Hugo L. Black's Birthday, noted. Comments by the Chief Justice 252 Reed, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Claims. 295 : : ; in GENERAL—Continued Page Clark, J. Designated and assigned to USCA-7 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-2 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-9 , 485 Designated and assigned to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 485 Retirement of John F.
    [Show full text]