James Kent knew that there was something wrong with his computer. He had only recently acquired the computer — not through a purchase of his own, but through his employer. Kent taught public administration at a college in upstate New York and the computer had been installed in his office as a replacement for an older one. When the IT department had put the new one in they simply moved Professor Kent’s files onto the new computer’s hard drive.
Legal matters are in a constant state of flux. The status of cases may change from day to day and even when a decision is reached in a case, subsequent appeals can quickly change the outcome. It is a good time, therefore, to take a look back at some of the issues that have appeared in Case Study over the past few months.
Appellate cases in the criminal arena frequently focus on the rights of those accused of crimes. It is only logical that this would be the case. The accused has an attorney and is a party to the proceedings. The system strives to ensure that those who are charged with crimes are treated fairly and that their Constitutional rights are protected.
Based solely on what you hear about high profile cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be easy to believe that a large percentage, if not nearly all of the Court’s decisions were decided 5–4 along ideological lines. Recent headlines have upped the ante with stories on the web in the last few days claiming that this is the “most conservative Supreme Court ever” (Washington University) and that the Supreme Court is “at stake” in this year’s Presidential election (Michelle Obama).
How better to get settlers to move into uncharted and untamed lands than to promise them the sustainability and wealth that comes from the ownership of land? Give them the land for free on the promise that they will go and settle that land, turning it from wilderness to useable farmland, timberland or pasture. The policy worked for America, it worked for the Spanish in Florida and it worked for Mexico in parts of what is now the American Southwest.
The 1996 Summer Olympics were about half over on July 27. Spectators, athletes and reporters were enjoying a night out and reviewing the days’ events, congregating on the 21-acre Centennial Olympic Park and listening to a free concert there. Sometime after midnight, a security guard noticed a suspicious bag and began to move people away from the area. The bomb squad was alerted. At 1:20 a.m., the largest pipe bomb in U.S. history exploded, showering the area with shrapnel. One woman was killed by the blast and a cameraman rushing to cover the explosion died of a heart attack. One hundred and eleven people were injured.
Openness is a foundational cornerstone of representative government. Transparency leads to greater understanding, deters corruption and improves efficiency. But nowhere is the lack of transparency more prevalent than in the administration of justice. Police and prosecutor investigatory files cannot be obtained by newspaper and television reporters. Courts put gag orders on lawyers in cases. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has a rule preventing television cameras from recording its proceedings. This is particularly true when it comes to proceedings in juvenile and family courts, and this has been brought to fore recently by the case of T.J. Lane, charged with murder for the killing of three Chardon High School students.
March Madness is unde rway. Baseball season begins in two weeks. Clearly, it must be time for a column about the law of … football? Indeed, football is the sport making legal news right now both for the penalties it has just imposed on teams for violations of a non-existent salary cap in 2010 and, even more so, for the penalties that it is about to impose on teams for running a “bounty” system. The latter is more critical, and, though law enforcement officials in cities like New Orleans, Buffalo and Washington have already declined to become involved, it is the latter that also likely crossed the line into being criminal.
