DOCSLIB.ORG

Arrest by Police Computer the Controversy Over Bail and Extradition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

.. If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,r " National Criminal Justice Reference Service , I-------------~~--------------------------------------------------.nCJrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. LO ~ 11111i£ IIIII~ ~ ~I~ I 2.2 ..... I~ ...lit 1"0 I 2 .0 Lo .. -1.1 .... Lu... - == 111/11.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS·1963·A \ Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are 1 those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice 6-17-82 " United States Department of Justicle Washington, D. C. 20531 r h , . F ; 1" r " Arrest by Police Computer John J. -Murphy • f ---~~~" 1 I ~. ! I i 7 & \ Lexington Books po .... , r. ~.. Arrest by Police Computer f. I , 9' ~,• .~ I • ,. --. ",., '~ __ 4'~ _ ,~, \ I' '·1 ., , <"Ivt'l'}',it~'l>tl ',' • ",,' Arrest by Police Computer The Controversy over Bail and Extradition John J. Murphy University of Cincinnati U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced e)(actly as received from the person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated In this document are those of thel authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of , Jusllce. H , i" Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mi­ J' crofiche only has been granted by ~. I. Lexington BQQksl National Institute of of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice I to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~: Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ f sion of the copyright owner. I' LeXington Books I D.C. Heath and Company Lexington, Massachusetts Toronto London Preceding page blank .' .. ' , To Eileen, Johnny, Janey and Deirdre Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Murphy, John J 1937- Arrest by police computer. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Extradition-United States. 2. Bail-United States. 3. Electronic data process-Criminal investigation. I. Title. KF9635.M87 345'.73'05202854 75-81 S3 ISBN 0-669-00604-1 Copyright © 1975 by D.C. Heath and Company Reproduction in whole or in part permitted for any purpose of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be r.eproduced or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including \ photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, with· out permission in writing from the publisher. The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. Published simultaneously in Canada Printed in the Unh~d States of America International Standard Book Number: 0-669-00604-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-81 S3 iM~J" .. 1. .... '' ..____ 1-., __ .•.•.. _ "_"'''',.' '~_" __ , • Contents List of Tables ix Preface xi Acknowledgments xlii Chapter 1 The Computer and Official Retrieval of Fugitives 1 Introduction 1 Tlie Advent of Computerize« D1.ta Bases on Wanted Persons 1 Police Dependency on Computerized Files on Wanted Persons 4 Direct Access by Police Patrol to Computerized Wanted Persons Files 7 The Financial Midwife of Computerized Wanted Persons Files 10 Chapter 2 Police Computers and Fugitives: More Than a Matter of Equipment 13 Privacy and Automated Wanted Persons Files 14 Arrests Based on Stale Information in Wanted Persons Files 18 Inadequacy of Extradition Laws 21 Chapter 3 The Case for Revising State Extradition Law 23 Introduction 23 \ Centrality of the Extradition Act 24 Sanctions for Police Disregard of the Act 26 The Unconstitutional Taint in Waivers of Extradition 32 Chapter 4 Replacing Bondsmen with Police in Bail Retrievals 35 Introduction 3S Eliminating Bondsmen From the State Bail System 36 Absence of Accountability in the Private Retrieval System of Bondsmen 39 Conclusion 45 vii Preceding page blank _____________ I'!L.-----~--~---- f.. ~---- f.·d __ "~;;;;;;~~~~~~ ___.... _ ......------., viii CONTENTS Chapter 5 List of Tables Extradition of Fugitives: A Blending of Principles 47 .. Extraterritorial Application of State Criminal .Law 47 Involuntary Transfer of Persons Across State Lines in the Interest of State Criminul Law S1 Chapter 6 10 The Extradition Clause, State Power, and Constitutional Controls 5S 1-1 Mobile Digital Terminal Test and Operational Programs 1-2 Grants for the Development of Computerized Data Files, Including The Dampening Effect of Federal Extradition Law SS Files on Wanted Persons 12 Fugitives and Procedures Untouched by Federal Law S7 The Extradition Clause: Mandating Minimum State Cooperation 60 Repladng Executive Extradition with Judicial Extradition 63 Constitutional Controls over State Extradition Law 64 l Chapter 7 A Person Wanted by More Than One Sovereign 67 Government's Usc of Habeas Corpus 67 The Interstate Agreement on Detainers: Unsettling Prior Law 69 Chapter 8 Alternatives for Revising the Extradition Act 7S A Proposed Act 7S Necessity of an Arrest Warrant from Demanding State 77 A Two-Tier System of Extradition 78 Probable Cause to Support Extradition 82 The Governor of the Asylum State and Extradition 84 Conclusion 85 Appendix , PopUlation Centers Crossing State Borders 89 Notes 93 Bibliography 129 Index 137 - About the Author 141 ix .• ~-... ~-.,.-- ,~. ''''''''''''''<·i!!·~•. II",""",,:;;;uI~ 1 I: ! I 1 I I Preface i i I A revolution in police patrol operations is quietly beginning. It has to do with police computers and fugitives. By the end of 1974, about 2,500 computer terminals were installed in police cars, and it is estimated that half of the nation's 75,000 police cars will be equipped with terminals by 1983. Competing with the vehicle-installed terminals will be hand-held terminals for patrol officers that are now in the developmental stages. These terminals will give police on patrol direct, electronic access to national computerized mes on wanted persons. The patrol officer will have a reply to a national search of wanted persons mes in as little as five to ten seconds. The revolution is the integration of fugitive retrieval in ordinary police patrol, and its beginning can be seen in the escalation of police dependency on computerized wanted persons mes to make decisions to arrest. Inquiries by local, state, and federal police to the national computerized file on wanted persons I ~. increased tenfold since 1968 to over nine and one-half million inquiries in 1973. I, The number of persons located after computer inquiry increased fivefold in the same period. There are dangers in this explosion in the technological capacity of police to know the wanted status of persons. Both the persons included in computerized fugitive files and the police acting upon those files could be harmed by the peU mell rush to technical refinement. The problem is not too much sophistication in police communication equipment or too tenuous a relationship between crime reduc­ tion and equipment, such as mobile terminals. It is the faint understanding of the social and legal implications in the enormous increase in the technological capability of police to know the wanted status of persons. There are potential privacy invasions to persons subject to arrest by officers with direct electronic access to computerized files on fugitives. In this type of arrest, the police are not \ relying upon accumulated perceptions of ('vents, but upon a system of storing and updating information. All discussion of privacy and police computers to date has centered on dissemination of arrest and conviction records. There has been silence on the privacy issues implicit in the expected reliance by police on national computerized files on wanted persons. Left unexplored is the right of persons to be relieved from harm due to arrest based on stale or inaccurate information in these computers. The police could also be harmed. The rules of law governing police in fugitive retrieval between states are intolerably inadequate to meet the growing xi Preceding page blank • I"'I":"~ .• ,,.}.,.,.. /' xii . :--. ----'--"- PREFACE capacity of pollce to acquire and exchange information on fugitives. Under I' I extradition law, nine separate state agencies must act before an out.of.state fugitive is available for the first step in the criminal process. In many cases the Acknowledgments legal procedure in retrieving a fUgitlve amounts to an antiquated catapult de. wouldsigned do.to protect interstate harmony and individual liberty When a slingshot Past toleration of this procedure was based on footings that have now be. come insecure. POlice disregard of extradItion la\\l wltich was once sanctionless, has been recently challenged SUccessfully in courts. These challenges have inclUded claims against officers personally and requests for dismissal of criminal charges because of illegal retrievals. Furthermore, it is no longer reasonable to avoid This book was written during a term as a Visiting Fellow with the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal JUstice. The reqUired acknowledg. extradition by demanding waivers of extradition as a quid qUO for parole, law pro ment of my association with the Institute is dUtifully stated below. The state­ probation, or other benefits in the criminal process. There is an UnConstitutional ment does not reflect, however, the freedom of inquiry that I enjoyed with the taint to a waiver of extradition law extracted from a defendant Who has no leverage to refuse the Waiver. Institute as a Fellow, nor does it suggest the support and helpful criticism that I received from Institute staff. For this, I express my gratitude.
Recommended publications
  • Not the King's Bench Edward A

    Not the King's Bench Edward A

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Not the King's Bench Edward A. Hartnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hartnett, Edward A., "Not the King's Bench" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 303. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/303 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT THE KING'S BENCH Edward A. Hartnett* Speaking at a public birthday party for an icon, even if the honoree is one or two hundred years old, can be a surprisingly tricky business. Short of turning the party into a roast, it seems rude to criticize the birthday boy too harshly. On the other hand, it is at least as important to avoid unwarranted and exaggerated praise.1 The difficult task, then, is to try to say something re­ motely new or interesting while navigating that strait. The conference organizers did make it easier for me in one respect: My assignment does not involve those ideas for which Marbury is invoked as an icon. It is for others to wrestle in well­ worn trenches with exalted arguments about judicial review and its overgrown descendent judicial supremacy, while trying to avoid unseemly criticism or fawning praise. I, on the other hand, am to address more technical issues involving section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its provision granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States

    Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States

    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 3 1998 Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States Lis Wiehl University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Lis Wiehl, Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 729 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol19/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXTRADITION LAW AT THE CROSSROADS: THE TREND TOWARD EXTENDING GREATER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS TO FUGITIVES FIGHTING EXTRADITION FROM THE UNITED STATES Lis Wiehl* PROLOGUE ............................................................................................. 730 INTRODUCrION ................... ....................... 730 I. BACKGROUND: THE LIMITED NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION
  • Commandeering Under the Treaty Power

    Commandeering Under the Treaty Power

    NOTES COMMANDEERING UNDER THE TREATY POWER JANET R. CARTER* In this Note, Janet Carter argues that the anticommandeeringprinciple announced in Printz v. United States should not constrain congressional implementation of treaty obligations. The Printz Court struck the balance between federal goals and states' rights knowing that Congress had alternative means of achieving its ends: the spending power and the threat of conditionalpreemption. Carter argues that those alternative means are largely unavailable,or at least less likely to work, when Congress is seeking to implement a treaty obligation. Therefore, the Printz Court's federal/state compromise will weigh too heavily againstfederal interests if applied to treaty-implementingprograms, suggesting that an absolute prohibitionon federal commandeeringpursuant to the treaty power is inappropriate. INTRODUCTION The powers of Congress, limited to those enumerated in the Con- stitution, are constrained further by the Tenth Amendment' and the general principles of federalism it embodies.2 However, in Missouri v. Holland,3 the Supreme Court held that federalism does not constrain * I would like to thank Professor Christopher Eisgruber for his generous guidance and advice, and Professors Barry Friedman and David Golove for their helpful comments. Thanks also to my wonderful editor Maggie Lemos, and to Paul Hayes, Alex Reid, Sally Kesh, and David Karp. 1 U.S. Const. amend. X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). 2 According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, that is. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (holding that federal government may not commandeer state executive); New York v.
  • Revised Speed Limits Selected District(S): 05 Ohio Department of Transportation Selected County(Ies): LICKING

    Revised Speed Limits Selected District(S): 05 Ohio Department of Transportation Selected County(Ies): LICKING

    Revised Speed Limits Selected District(s): 05 Ohio Department of Transportation Selected County(ies): LICKING Revision Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Route Name Begin End Mile Length Speed County Approved Install Number Name Type Posts Limits Date Date 4499 ETNA Twp 1ST AVE SW UNION ST CEDAR PARK 0 to .38 0.38 25 LIC 08/10/1971 08/01/1974 BLVD SW 4499 ETNA Twp 3RD AVE UNION ST CEDAR PARK 0 to .37 0.37 25 LIC 08/10/1971 08/01/1974 BLVD SW 4499 ETNA Twp 5TH AVE SW UNION ST CEDAR PARK .08 to .28 0.20 25 LIC 08/10/1971 08/01/1974 BLVD SW 4499 ETNA Twp 7TH AVE SW UNION ST CEDAR PARK 0 to .27 0.27 25 LIC 08/10/1971 08/01/1974 BLVD SW 5289 HARRISON Twp AGILE RD CARRY BACK NORTHERN 0 to .07 0.07 25 LIC 06/05/1974 08/30/1974 DR TERM 2937 HARRISON Twp ALLEN AVE BLACK RD SOUTH .06 to 0 0.06 25 LIC 07/31/1964 09/01/1964 TERMINUS 5290 HARRISON Twp ALSAB DR FORWARD NORTHERN 0 to .04 0.04 25 LIC 06/05/1974 08/30/1974 PASS TERM 5594 GRANVILLE Twp AMBERLY DR KNOLL DR EAST .03 to .1 0.07 25 LIC 05/01/1975 TERMINUS 5291 HARRISON Twp APOLLO CT TWENTY EAST 0 to .12 0.12 25 LIC 06/05/1974 08/30/1974 GRAND RD TERMINUS 5443 HARRISON Twp APPLE BLOSSOM SR 310 EAST 0 to .52 0.52 25 LIC 11/12/1974 12/31/1974 TERMINUS 30243 LICKING County APPLETON RD 0.32S COOPER 0.19 N 11.34 to 0.53 40 LIC 10/26/2006 12/20/2006 RD COOPER RD 11.87 5444 HARRISON Twp ASH AL CR 34 WALNUT ST .17 to 0 0.17 25 LIC 11/12/1974 12/31/1974 5443 HARRISON Twp ASH GROVE CR RIVER FOREST WEST .09 to 0 0.09 25 LIC 11/12/1974 12/31/1974 RD TERMINUS 6579 HARRISON Twp ASHCRAFT DR SR 16 SOUTH .31 to 0 0.31 25 LIC 10/30/1978 11/21/1978 TERMINUS 5443 HARRISON Twp ASPEN LN RIVER FOREST WEST .11 to 0 0.11 25 LIC 11/12/1974 12/31/1974 RD TERMINUS 7301 LICKING County AVONDALE RD W.JCT CR 596 0.60E.W.JCT.
  • Owners, Kentucky Derby (1875-2017)

    Owners, Kentucky Derby (1875-2017)

    OWNERS, KENTUCKY DERBY (1875-2017) Most Wins Owner Derby Span Sts. 1st 2nd 3rd Kentucky Derby Wins Calumet Farm 1935-2017 25 8 4 1 Whirlaway (1941), Pensive (’44), Citation (’48), Ponder (’49), Hill Gail (’52), Iron Liege (’57), Tim Tam (’58) & Forward Pass (’68) Col. E.R. Bradley 1920-1945 28 4 4 1 Behave Yourself (1921), Bubbling Over (’26), Burgoo King (’32) & Brokers Tip (’33) Belair Stud 1930-1955 8 3 1 0 Gallant Fox (1930), Omaha (’35) & Johnstown (’39) Bashford Manor Stable 1891-1912 11 2 2 1 Azra (1892) & Sir Huon (1906) Harry Payne Whitney 1915-1927 19 2 1 1 Regret (1915) & Whiskery (’27) Greentree Stable 1922-1981 19 2 2 1 Twenty Grand (1931) & Shut Out (’42) Mrs. John D. Hertz 1923-1943 3 2 0 0 Reigh Count (1928) & Count Fleet (’43) King Ranch 1941-1951 5 2 0 0 Assault (1946) & Middleground (’50) Darby Dan Farm 1963-1985 7 2 0 1 Chateaugay (1963) & Proud Clarion (’67) Meadow Stable 1950-1973 4 2 1 1 Riva Ridge (1972) & Secretariat (’73) Arthur B. Hancock III 1981-1999 6 2 2 0 Gato Del Sol (1982) & Sunday Silence (’89) William J. “Bill” Condren 1991-1995 4 2 0 0 Strike the Gold (1991) & Go for Gin (’94) Joseph M. “Joe” Cornacchia 1991-1996 3 2 0 0 Strike the Gold (1991) & Go for Gin (’94) Robert & Beverly Lewis 1995-2006 9 2 0 1 Silver Charm (1997) & Charismatic (’99) J. Paul Reddam 2003-2017 7 2 0 0 I’ll Have Another (2012) & Nyquist (’16) Most Starts Owner Derby Span Sts.
  • The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 Depaul L

    The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 Depaul L

    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1989 The onsC titutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment Gerard V. Bradley Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Gerard V. Bradley, The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 DePaul L. Rev. 817 (1988-1989). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/773 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Gerard V. Bradley* INTRODUCTION We presently inhabit a "judicialized" regime of search and seizure. The "reasonableness clause" of the fourth amendment is universally understood to require a "common law of search and seizure," 1 yet one of constitutional stature. That is, it binds the states and cannot be undone by ordinary legislation. The purpose of this Article is to demonstrate that this near universal interpretation of the fourth amendment is unfounded. Indeed, it will be argued that the current view is contrary to the plain meaning of the fourth amendment, as historically recovered, and is inconsistent with the basic constitutional structure. Instead, the reasonableness clause, properly understood, does not authorize courts to do anything, but exists to affirm legislative supremacy over the law of search and seizure. Accordingly, the only judicially operative portion of the amendment is the "warrant clause." This interpretation can and should be installed as the operative premise of the fourth amendment.
  • 2018 Media Guide NYRA.Com 1 FIRST RUNNING the First Running of the Belmont Stakes in 1867 at Jerome Park Took Place on a Thursday

    2018 Media Guide NYRA.Com 1 FIRST RUNNING the First Running of the Belmont Stakes in 1867 at Jerome Park Took Place on a Thursday

    2018 Media Guide NYRA.com 1 FIRST RUNNING The first running of the Belmont Stakes in 1867 at Jerome Park took place on a Thursday. The race was 1 5/8 miles long and the conditions included “$200 each; half forfeit, and $1,500-added. The second to receive $300, and an English racing saddle, made by Merry, of St. James TABLE OF Street, London, to be presented by Mr. Duncan.” OLDEST TRIPLE CROWN EVENT CONTENTS The Belmont Stakes, first run in 1867, is the oldest of the Triple Crown events. It predates the Preakness Stakes (first run in 1873) by six years and the Kentucky Derby (first run in 1875) by eight. Aristides, the winner of the first Kentucky Derby, ran second in the 1875 Belmont behind winner Calvin. RECORDS AND TRADITIONS . 4 Preakness-Belmont Double . 9 FOURTH OLDEST IN NORTH AMERICA Oldest Triple Crown Race and Other Historical Events. 4 Belmont Stakes Tripped Up 19 Who Tried for Triple Crown . 9 The Belmont Stakes, first run in 1867, is one of the oldest stakes races in North America. The Phoenix Stakes at Keeneland was Lowest/Highest Purses . .4 How Kentucky Derby/Preakness Winners Ran in the Belmont. .10 first run in 1831, the Queens Plate in Canada had its inaugural in 1860, and the Travers started at Saratoga in 1864. However, the Belmont, Smallest Winning Margins . 5 RUNNERS . .11 which will be run for the 150th time in 2018, is third to the Phoenix (166th running in 2018) and Queen’s Plate (159th running in 2018) in Largest Winning Margins .
  • The Triple Crown (1867-2019)

    The Triple Crown (1867-2019)

    The Triple Crown (1867-2019) Kentucky Derby Winner Preakness Stakes Winner Belmont Stakes Winner Horse of the Year Jockey Jockey Jockey Champion 3yo Trainer Trainer Trainer Year Owner Owner Owner 2019 Country House War of Will Sir Winston Bricks and Mortar Flavien Prat Tyler Gaffalione Joel Rosario Maximum Security Bill Mott Mark Casse Mark Casse Mrs. J.V. Shields Jr., E.J.M. McFadden Jr. & LNJ Foxwoods Gary Barber Tracy Farmer 2018 Justify Justify Justify Justify Mike Smith Mike Smith Mike Smith Justify Bob Baffert Bob Baffert Bob Baffert WinStar Farm LLC, China Horse Club, Starlight Racing & Head of Plains Partners LLC WinStar Farm LLC, China Horse Club, Starlight Racing & Head of Plains Partners LLC WinStar Farm LLC, China Horse Club, Starlight Racing & Head of Plains Partners LLC 2017 Always Dreaming Cloud Computing Tapwrit Gun Runner John Velazquez Javier Castellano Joel Ortiz West Coast Todd Pletcher Chad Brown Todd Pletcher MeB Racing, Brooklyn Boyz, Teresa Viola, St. Elias, Siena Farm & West Point Thoroughbreds Bridlewood Farm, Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners & Robert V. LaPenta Klaravich Stables Inc. & William H. Lawrence 2016 Nyquist Exaggerator Creator California Chrome Mario Gutierrez Kent Desormeaux Irad Ortiz Jr. Arrogate Doug O’Neill Keith Desormeaux Steve Asmussen Big Chief Racing, Head of Plains Partners, Rocker O Ranch, Keith Desormeaux Reddam Racing LLC (J. Paul Reddam) WinStar Farm LLC & Bobby Flay 2015 American Pharoah American Pharoah American Pharoah American Pharoah Victor Espinoza Victor Espinoza Victor Espinoza American Pharoah Bob Baffert Bob Baffert Bob Baffert Zayat Stables LLC (Ahmed Zayat) Zayat Stables LLC (Ahmed Zayat) Zayat Stables LLC (Ahmed Zayat) 2014 California Chrome California Chrome Tonalist California Chrome Victor Espinoza Victor Espinoza Joel Rosario California Chrome Art Sherman Art Sherman Christophe Clement Steve Coburn & Perry Martin Steve Coburn & Perry Martin Robert S.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R. Day. William H. Moody and Horace R. Lurton served briefly at the end of Fuller's term, and another mas- sive turnover accompanied Fuller's death in 1910. Thus the per- sonnel of Fuller's twenty-one-year tenure is well separated from that of the preceding and following periods. Moreover, although twenty Justices sat during this time, eleven did the lion's share of the work: Harlan, Gray, Fuller, Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I thank Karla Kraus and Richard Levy for valuable research assistance, Mitchell Daffner for taming the computer, Richard Helmholz, Richard Posner, and Cass R. Sunstein for helpful comments, and the Jerome S.
  • Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump

    Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump

    IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Jay Alan Sekulow Pat A. Cipollone Stuart Roth Counsel to the President Andrew Ekonomou Patrick F. Philbin Jordan Sekulow Michael M. Purpura Mark Goldfeder Devin A. DeBacker Benjamin Sisney Trent J. Benishek Eric J. Hamilton Counsel to President Donald J. Trump Office of White House Counsel January 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 STANDARDS............................................................................................................................... 13 A. The Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact. .................................... 13 B. An Impeachable Offense Requires a Violation of Established Law that Inflicts Sufficiently Egregious Harm on the Government that It Threatens to Subvert the Constitution. .................................................................. 13 1. Text and Drafting History of the Impeachment Clause ............................ 14 2. The President’s Unique Role in Our Constitutional Structure .................. 17 3. Practice Under the Impeachment Clause .................................................. 18 C. The Senate Cannot Convict Unless It Finds that the House Managers Have Proved an Impeachable Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. .................. 20 D. The Senate May Not Consider Allegations Not Charged in the Articles of Impeachment. ..................................................................................................
  • Read the Full PDF

    Read the Full PDF

    Job Name:2251342 Date:15-05-19 PDF Page:2251342pbc.p1.pdf Color: Cyan Magenta Yellow Black front fold of spine---- The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, established in 1943, is a publicly supported, nonpartisan, research and educational organization. Its purpose is to assist policy makers, scholars, businessmen, the press, and the public by providing objective analysis of national and international issues. Views expressed in the institute's publications are those of the authors and do not neces­ sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Council of Academic Advisers Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Edmund Ezra Day University Professor of Busi­ ness Administration, University of Michigan Robert H. Bork, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale Law School Kenneth W. Dam, Harold J. and Marion F. Green Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School Donald C. Hellmann, Professor of Political Science and International Studies, University of Washington D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and Provost, University of Chicago Robert A. Nisbet, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Herbert Stein, A. Willis Robertson Professor of Economics, University of Virginia James Q. Wilson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University Executive Committee Richard B. Madden, Chairman of the Board Richard J. Farrell William J. Baroody, Jr., President Charles T. Fisher III Herman J. Schmidt Richard D. Wood Edward Styles, Director of Publications Program Directors Periodicals Russell Chapin, Legislative Analyses AEI Economist, Herbert Stein, Editor Robert B. Helms, Health Policy Studies AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Thomas F.
  • Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction

    Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 27 Issue 2 Article 9 Winter 1952 Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation (1952) "Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 27 : Iss. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol27/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL right to exact any conditions it sees fit, seems preferable. If the United States were exempt from the rules of contract, considerations in support of or opposition to a claimed concession would become irrelevant. Con- versely, such considerations are determinative of controversies resolved under existing contract law. Blanket endorsement of such an exemption would invite extreme business practices with ramifications affecting a sizeable percentage of commercial transactions. Such a license, mani- festly impinging 'upon the security of government contractors, should be vindicated only upon a showing of positive necessity.' Contractors' familiarity with existing commercial practice and aversion to uncertain change might necessitate a substitute for security in the form of 'increased cost of goods and services to Government. It should not be prematurely assumed that contract doctrine lacks the flexibility to adapt itself to the changing position of Government in our economy.