Social Media As A Legal Tool

Social media platforms such as facebook and twitter boast worldwide appeal and usage and now are even being used as legal tools to track down criminals.  Since facebook is the largest social database in the world it can prove to be an invaluable resource when trying to track down suspected wrongdoers.  Most recently, many are hoping that facebook will prove to be successful in tracking down a woman and her male film accomplice that were filmed tossing live puppies into a river.  A facebook page dedicated to helping track down the duo has had more than 7,000 people sign up since the video was posted Monday.  The video has sparked outrage across the Internet and has led to an animal rights group offering a bounty for the arrest of the people behind it.  The tape was originally posted on YouTube, but was quickly pulled down.  It is still widely available online and has gone viral, with sites such as LiveLeak.com registering more than 1.3 million views of the footage.  Web users have banded together on sites like 4chan.org to help identify the woman and the off-camera man who filmed it. Animal rights officials maintain that clues in the video and the original post indicate that it may have been filmed near the Vrbas River in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Hopefully, the facebook community and other web users will be successful in their endeavor of identifying the perpetrators of such a heinous act of animal cruelty and then the law will be quick and harsh in punishing these individuals for their extreme acts of cowardliness and brutality.  Many have seen news clippings where wrongdoers have been apprehended because they blogged about their crime or posted information about their bad act on their facebook profile.  That being said I encourage everyone to be vigilant and aware of any insight that they might obtain via any social media outlet not only with respect to this heinous act but any unlawful acts. 

 Watch video on LiveLeak.com.  Please be aware that this video contains extremely offensive conduct.

Kagan Confirmed To The High Court

On August 7, 2010, following her confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Elena Kagan became the fourth female Justice in the Supreme Court’s history, and the third on the current bench, which represents the most presiding female Justices on the High Court ever.  Kagan is also the first Justice in nearly four decades without any prior experience as a judge.  However, blazing new trails is nothing new to the New York City native.  Despite never being a judge, Kagan has a first-rate resume.  After attending Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School, she clerked for civil rights patriarch and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, worked in the White House under former President Bill Clinton, served as the first female Dean at Harvard Law School and was selected in 2009 by President Obama to become the first female Solicitor General in the history of our country (to name a few of her accomplishments).

While Kagan’s story is undeniably a mantra to hard work and determination, she faced many challenges in securing her seat on the high court.  During her confirmation, Kagan maneuvered through a thicket of challenges, leading questions, attacks on her credibility and senatorial comments and also faced debate from the African-American community on her stance on affirmative action and other diversity initiatives.  However, amidst all of this, she conducted herself with poise, grace and humor and won praise from liberals and conservatives alike while successfully navigating through the confirmation process relatively unscathed.  As the newest member of the Court, Kagan has not really changed the court’s ideological makeup, since she replaced the liberal John Paul Stevens but she has definitely added relative youth to the liberal wing of the court, which became more conservative under President Bush.  While many questions remain unanswered and although time will determine Kagan’s views and ultimately her legacy on the Court, Kagan’s confirmation is truly remarkable.  It took almost 200 years to get the first woman on the Supreme Court, and now women make up 1/3 of the present presiding justices.  However, Kagan will certainly have to face many challenges but despite varied criticisms, the general consensus is that she is well poised to succeed.  She has a command of the law, an innate ability to build majorities and an empathetic disposition that will suit her well as she is tasked to serve as a supreme arbiter of justice.

Federal Court Judge Overturns California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In a historic decision, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, struck down Proposition 8, thus allowing gays and lesbians in California the constitutional right to marry.  Proposition 8 was passed by voters in 2008 by a 52.3% margin, six-months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted.  That decision has led to a fire storm of controversy and debate on a national and international level.  Judge  Walker’s decision, at least for the moment, has provided the gay and lesbian community with some degree of resolution.  However, the ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.   In articulating his decision, Judge Walker said “Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice and created an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” 

During the 2 ½ week trial, 16 witnesses were called by opponents of Proposition 8 and only 2 were called by proponents of the measure.  In support of their contentions that Proposition 8 was rationale and justified, supporters of the provision argued that children fare best with both a father and a mother.  However, witnesses for the defense, quickly refuted this assertion citing to studies that showed children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

Many consider this human rights issue the predominant civil rights issue of our time.  Reminiscent to the 1960s when African-Americans picketed and boycotted to demand equal rights, the gay and lesbian community has united against similar injustices.  Just as the law evolved to incorporate and acknowledge equal rights for African-Americans, women and other marginalized groups throughout our country’s history,  it is now evolving to recognize the gay and lesbian community as equal members of our society.  It is important that we respect the law and understand that the common law system of jurisprudence, which is the system in place in our country, is a continuously evolving body of laws, which is tasked to adapt to the changing circumstances in American society.  That being said, we cannot simultaneously employ the law to adapt to the changes in society and then question why it is doing so.

$7 Million Settlement Reached in Sean Bell Killing

Does a big money settlement really provide some measure of closure for a family that is suffering from the inexcusable death of a loved one?  That is a question that Sean Bell’s family is now facing with the recent settlement in the lawsuit that arose from Bell’s 2006 shooting death at the hands of New York City police detectives.  Many of you will remember Sean Bell.  He was the unarmed 23-year old African-American man who was gunned downed by plainclothes detectives on the night before his wedding, following an altercation with detectives outside of a nightclub.  Bell was killed in the incident and two of his friends were wounded.  The exact circumstances that lead to the shooting are still contested.  However, what was most egregious  about the incident was that the officers fired over 50 shots in just a few seconds.  As a result of the incident the officers were indicted on multiple charges and Bell’s family brought a civil lawsuit against the city.  In considering the veracity and pure excessiveness of the incident, a settlement was reached on Tuesday which requires the City to pay more than $7 million to Bell’s and the other victims’ families.    

As a system, the law is tasked to punish wrongdoers and provide some type of restitution to those parties that have been injured.  And in situations where life is lost, often times monetary judgment payments are the only means to try to compensate a victim’s family for such a significant loss.   After years of fighting for justice in the courts, I am sure the Bell family is relieved to reach some type of resolution.  However, in a situation such as this, where the injury is so reprehensible and was committed by those that are employed to serve and protect, the law cannot rectify the situation and often times monetary payments cannot mitigate or repair the permanent damage done or relieve the pain caused.  However, at the very least, we can be hopeful that such an outcome will lead to greater checks and balances and serve as a measure to prevent senseless conduct like this from occurring again.

The Federal Government Moves to Block the Arizona Immigration Law from Taking Effect

How do you ask a federal judge to quash a state statute even before it goes into effect?  Perhaps you could ask the United States Justice Department because they have done just that.  With just one week before Arizona’s controversial immigration law is scheduled to take effect, the federal government is pushing for a block of the law, maintaining that the law is unconstitutional and furthering asserting that Arizona cannot establish its own immigration policy because it may interfere with federal enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.  This whole debate is really a question of division of power and more specifically the allocation of power between the state and federal government.  It would be an enormous assertion of federal power to have a federal judge overturn a state statute before it is even allowed to go into effect. 

As most are well aware of, the Arizona law requires the police to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.  With the recent news of the federal government’s attempted blockade, protests on both sides of the issue are really heating up.  Supporters of the policy maintain that Arizona has every right to take measures to prevent illegal immigration and that it is wholly inappropriate for the federal government to adopt a quasi-enforcement policy.  Supporters further maintain that the Arizona law simply reinforces the federal policy.  Although the law does have many similarities to the federal enforcement guidelines, it goes a step further and will undeniably lead to many problems, including clogging an overly saturated penal system with more arrests.  We would be better served by developing policies that would make it easier for folks who do not have a criminal record and have shown a benefit to society to stay, instead of jailing them and subsequently deporting them. 

Although the federal government has wide support, it will be difficult to get a federal judge to block a state statute before it even goes into effect.  With that being said, this issue is unlikely to die quickly no matter how things are decided.  Whatever outcome the Court decides will certainly be contested and appealed.  And because this issue is very compelling and has garnered a lot of attention, I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court is called upon to ultimately make a final determination.

A Community Outraged By Oscar Grant Murder Verdict

Police brutality is a topic that I have addressed on this blog on numerous occasions and this reoccurring theme has presented itself again with the uproar that has resulted from the recent sentencing of Johannes Mehserle, the former Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer, charged with the New Year’s Day shooting of 22-year old, unarmed Oscar Grant.   Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The conviction carries a maximum sentence of four years; however, the additional guilty gun charge may enhance the sentence by as much as four more years.

Many in the Bay area community and across the country are outraged over the lenient sentencing claiming that justice has not been served and further maintaining that the system places no value on the lives of African-American males.  This tragedy and the many I have examined on previous post dealing with this topic present a broader endemic and systemic problem that needs to be addressed.  Everyone recognizes the inherently valuable function of the law and law enforcement in maintaining order in society.  However, many will also recognize that over the history of our country, the conflict between race and society has been a reoccurring theme especially the historical relationship between law enforcement and the African-American community.  Such a relationship is undoubtedly complex and many have suggested that the contentious history has led to a mutual distrust which has resulted in a lack of accountability on both sides.  However, I employ both law enforcement and the African-American community not to allow these historical biases to continue to influence and dictate present conditions but rather use our collective history as a catalyst to encourage proper intervention and collective action in order to promote fair enforcement of the law, positive interactions and accountability.  I encourage everyone to utilize the freedoms provided to them under the First Amendment and speak out against police brutality.  The application of our laws is tasked to our law enforcement agencies and we must hold them accountable for their misconduct; however, it is very clear that distrust breads distrust and as a society we will continue to face these challenges if we do not leave our biases at the door and engage in an active dialogue to confront this topic head on.

LeBron James Sued By Man Claiming to Be His Father

On the eve of NBA superstar LeBron James’ highly anticipated announcement on ESPN of who the free agent will sign with, Leicester Stovell has filed a lawsuit, on his own behalf in federal court, claiming he is the father of the basketball star.  In his Complaint filed June 23, Stovell alleges that the athlete and his family made misrepresentations and fraudulently orchestrated a scheme, since James was in high school, to suppress the identity of Stovell as James’ father. 

It cannot be construed as a coincidence that days prior to James announcing which team he has chosen to play for next season, a deal worth perhaps tens of millions of dollars or more, that Stovell has come out of the woodwork to contest paternity.  In fact, although not exactly specified, Stovell is seeking millions of dollars in damages.  However, what is even more ridiculous about Stovell’s claim is that he is suing his own purported son on the basis that he didn’t acknowledge Stovell as his father.  Legally speaking, I don’t think Stovell has a leg to stand on as he cannot set forth how James’ alleged snub injured him, especially to the tune of millions of dollars.    While this recent lawsuit has not garnered much public attention, in the wake of the superstar’s big decision, it surely is an unfortunate stress for the 25- year-old to deal with.

Largest Russia-U.S. Spy Swap Since the Cold War in Motion

Reminiscent to the Cold War era, ten suspected Russian spies are scheduled to appear in federal court in New York today and are likely to face immediate deportation.  Sources say that the suspected spies will plead guilty and will be sentenced to time served and not face any penalties in the United States.  The purported leniency is based upon reports that suggest that the U.S. and Russia have reached an agreement to exchange accused Russian spies in the United States for convicted American spies in Russia.  Court documents indicate that the suspected spies have been accused of conducting private wireless computer connections to communicate with a Russian government official about U.S. government activities as well as other improper conduct.  An 11th suspect was also detained in Cyprus and released on bail. However, his whereabouts are unknown. 

Spy and prisoner swaps are nothing new.  At the height of the Cold War, exchanges took place regularly.  However, if this swap is facilitated, such could be the largest Russia-U.S. spy swap since the Cold War.  Nonetheless, such would have significant consequences on the strained relations between the two countries whose continued suspicions of each other are well noted.

Texting While Driving Bans Go Into Effect

Have you ever been driving behind someone who is weaving in and out of a lane or driving well below the speed limit while texting on their mobile phone (or have you been guilty of this conduct)? If you have, then you are aware of the road hazards of such practices. To combat these dangers, six new texting-while-driving bans go into effect this month as state officials try to reduce the number of car crashes. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that in 2008, nearly 6,000 people died in accidents related to distracted driving and 500,000 others were injured.

One of those states with a new ban is Georgia. The newly enacted penalty in Georgia for distracted driving is a $150 fine and 1 point assessed against your driver’s license. Other states have lower fines or no points and many proponents of higher penalties have argued that there is no compliance in these jurisdictions because of the low penalty. To ensure compliance, officials in Georgia went with a more stringent fine to ensure that the law was effective. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, fines across the country range from as little as $20 to as much as $750 for a violation.

I commend Georgia for approaching this issue seriously and aggressively. For many of us, it takes something terrible to happen for us to realize the implications of distracted driving. I think that as laws begin being implemented in more jurisdictions; we will see a decline in distracted driving related incidents. However, because texting while driving is so prevalent, wide spread enforcement of any policy will be very arduous if not impossible because law enforcement agencies do not have the man power to combat what has now become a nation-wide cultural phenomenon. Nonetheless, I think it is important that citizens heed these warnings and not wait for a law to be enacted to dictate their driving habits, but instead practice responsible driving to ensure that unnecessary accidents are avoided.

Did the Supreme Court Weaken Miranda?

Did the Supreme Court weaken the protections afforded under Miranda?  In what many are calling a controversial move, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices are contending turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”

The case that served as the catalyst for this change involved a criminal suspect named Van Chester Thompkins who remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. He neither acknowledged that he was willing to talk, nor indicated that he wanted any questioning to stop.  But detectives persisted until asking Thompkins if he believed in God. When asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins looked away and answered, “Yes.” The statement was used against him, and he was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Michigan.

The recent decision has received much backlash and the concerns are well noted.  Many have contended that suspects will not be aware of the fact that they have to overtly invoke the right to remain silent.  Opponents have further maintained that requiring criminal suspects to now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent is counterintuitive because it requires them to speak.  Although those concerns are valid, I do believe that mechanisms have to be put in place that prevent suspects from recanting on a statement and finding refuge under safeguards provided for under Miranda.  In this case, if Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to the detective’s questions, or he could have asserted his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation.  The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning shows that he understood the Miranda warning and then effectively waived his right to remain silent by making a statement thereafter.

BP Begins Jostling For Legal Position As Oil Continues To Leak

Unless you have been living under a rock, then you have heard of what has now been determined to be the worst oil spill in American History. As the oil continues to flow out of the breached underwater oil main, the lawsuits and related disputes also continue to mount. BP, the entity deemed responsible for the massive leak, has been hit with over 100 lawsuits and they have recently requested that the courts place every pre-trial issue in the hands of U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes in Houston.  Hughes is versed in oil affairs and has traveled the world giving lectures for the American Association of Petroleum and has close ties with many oil companies.  In fact, Hughes has collected royalties from several energy companies from his investments in mineral rights. 

At first blush, one would speculate as to whether BP is seeking to gain an edge by requesting that Hughes oversee the proceeding or are they simply seeking a judge who is well-versed in the company’s issues.  In court filings, BP said Hughes should handle the cases because he is already hearing one class-action case filed by a group of Vietnamese-American fishermen after the spill, and has presided over complex, multi-jurisdictional cases in the past.  Although a request for a single judge is not unprecedented, it is unusual because in both state and federal courts, cases are typically assigned to judges randomly.  No one has suggested that Hughes would rule a certain way before hearing the evidence.  In fact, records show the Hughes has ruled both for and against the industry.  However, I am sure that BP probably studied Hughes’ past rulings and his caseload and probably inferred that he would at the very least understand their point of view or maybe even potentially sympathize with their arguments.

A special panel of judges will decide in July if the BP suits should be consolidated in a single court — and if Hughes should handle the cases.  Although I would never impugn the integrity of Hughes, I would question the tactics and actions of BP.  At a time when you have an unprecedented ecological catastrophe, loss of lives and irreparable devastation, many people would perceive that it is fundamentally wrong that the entity purportedly responsible for the damage would begin jostling for legal position.  This is especially true as the leak continues to spill oil and outrage against BP and devastation of the gulf’s ecosystems and economy worsen.

Supreme Court Rejects the NFL’s Request to be Considered One Entity

Did the Supreme Court err in judgment by preventing the NFL from collectively marketing team trademarks? Although the NFL is not happy with the decision, the High Court’s determination is vital in order to promote competition in the merchandising market and it is consistent with the policies followed by a majority of professional sports leagues (with the exception of Major League Baseball) that require each team within their respective organizations to independently market their own trademarks.

In the case captioned American Needle v. NFL (Case No. 08-661), the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that every NFL team is treated separately (and not collectively) when selling branded items like jerseys and caps. The rationale behind this conclusion seeks to promote competition and to eliminate artificial barriers to entry into the merchandising/ team apparel market. The decision came out of the fact that the NFL was collectively marketing all league trademarks, despite the fact that the each team was independently owned. This conduct allowed the NFL to control the merchandising market by simply granting team licensing rights to one vendor and effectively stone-walling other vendors’ entry. For instance, currently all NFL uniforms are branded and sold by Reebok. The Supreme Court concluded that such conduct was a direct antitrust violation as it stifled competition. After this decision, it will be possible for one team’s uniforms to be branded and sold by Nike and another to be branded and sold by Under Armor.

I agree with the Court’s decision in this case. It is a known fact that NFL teams not only compete with each other on the field but off it as well for potential new fans to the exclusion of the other teams in the NFL. Likewise, competition is also apparent in the world of merchandise sales. To a firm that makes tee shirts, each NFL franchise is a competing supplier of valuable trademarks. Therefore, each team is a separate entity whose business and trademark licensing interest might not always coincide. Allowing these separate entities to act independently when it comes to licensing their trademarks, promotes competition as a greater volume of vendors are allowed to enter the market. Competition is essential in any market but it especially resonates in the world of sports. If the NFL was granted the broad authority to act collectively and grant trademark licensing rights to one vendor, then consumers would be directly harmed as it could potentially lead to increase in prices, less variety and lower access. Competition is a key part of consumer protection and I commend the Supreme Court for advocating on behalf of the consumer at large in rejecting the NFL’s request to gain a greater stronghold on the licensing/apparel market.

Black Farmers Still Seeking Justice For Over A Decade

Tens of thousands of black farmers, who were denied access to government farm loans because of their race, are demanding that the 11-year-old settlement funds promised to them finally be released. 

Pigford v. Glickman, the 1997 case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was settled out of court and provided for compensation to black farmers who were denied farm loans and support from federal programs because of the color of their skin.  Under the terms of the agreement, qualified farmers could receive $50,000 each to settle their claims of racial bias.   Although the decision was rendered in 1999, tens of thousands of farmers missed the filing deadline to submit their claims; therefore, they were denied access to any compensation.  However, in order to rectify the situation, then senator Barack Obama sponsored a measure in the 2008 Farm Bill that reopened the case and subsequently the Obama Administration brokered a $1.25 billion settlement.  However, Congress missed a March 31 deadline to fund it. Another deadline, May 31, is quickly approaching and many farmers are concerned that inactivity on the part of Congress might lead to another missed deadline which is especially concerning considering a number of the farmers are older and some have even passed away over the 10-plus years they have been waiting. 

If Congress misses the May 31 deadline it is likely that some farmers may withdraw from the class-action and pursue independent litigation against the government.  However, litigation is very expensive and some farmers do not have the funds to pay attorneys’ fees.  Those individuals would be forced to continue to wait or give up their claims altogether.  Accordingly, it is very important that Congress act immediately to ensure that the deadline is met.  However, judging from Congresses previous dilatory conduct, they might need a little nudging to finish the job.  It is imperative that the President encourage Congress to diligently move forward with this issue and to make good on his promise to ensure that black farmers finally get justice.

Public Outrage Over the Police Shooting Death of 7-Year-Old Aiyana Jones

Unspeakable tragedy erupted Tuesday night, when 7-year-old Aiyana Jones was killed by an officer’s bullet during a raid in Detroit.  The family is now suing the police department in both state and federal court alleging gross negligence, a violation of civil rights and a conspiracy to cover up the violation of civil rights. 

Any act of this magnitude, especially when allegedly perpetrated by the police is unacceptable.  However, what is equally if not more unacceptable is the suspected cover-up that allegedly occurred in this matter.  Preliminary disclosures by the Detroit police indicated that officers approached the house with a search warrant for the girl’s uncle and while executing the warrant, one of the officer’s gun discharged accidentally inside the home after a purported physical altercation with the girl’s grandmother, Mertilla Jones.  However, witnesses as well as Mertilla Jones claim no such altercation occurred and further maintain that the shot was fired from outside of the home and not from inside as the police stated. In addition, the lawyer for the family, Geoffrey Fieger, claims that he has seen videotape of the incident and the video also indicates that the shot was fired from outside the home.  A camera crew was filming the raid for the A&E network’s show, “The First 48.”  At this time, the Detroit police department is contending that the shooting was purely accidental.    

Although the police are employed with the task of enforcing our laws and are often times placed in great peril, they must be accountable for their actions and incidents such as this are truly unacceptable.  While I greatly appreciate their service and am eternally indebted for their sacrifice, I believe the loss of a life cannot simply be chalked up to human error.  Especially when the victim is a child, the defense of accident or mistake is much harder to swallow.  It is premature to presume that the officers were doing something unethical or illegal.  However, I am hopeful that the Detroit police will be diligent in reviewing their procedures to find better ways to protect children and citizens, when they are confronted with dangerous situations, and also assess punishments accordingly for any wrongdoing in this matter.  It is of vital importance that steps are taken to ensure incidents like this never occur again. 

The funeral service for Aiyana Jones will be this Saturday, May 22, 2010

Kagan’s Potential Impact on the African-American Community

Is Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s record on diversity likely to affect her position on affirmative action and other diversity issues that affect the African-American community?  I contend that it is way too early to speculate but it definitely is an issue that will resonate with African-Americans.  Although she has been noted for being a consensus builder, her record for diverse hires while serving as the Dean at Harvard Law School is concerning.  During her six-year tenure as Dean, Kagan had an abysmal record on recruiting and hiring minority professors.  Her records indicate that there were 29-new hires (23 white men, five white women and one Asian American woman).  However, not one black or Latino professor was employed.  

Considering her predecessor, Justice John Paul Stevens, is a supporter of affirmative action (he voted to uphold the affirmative action program at the University of Michigan Law School challenged in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger), Kagan’s lack of diverse hires and the uncertainty that provides is concerning.  However, it must be noted that many factors are examined when making hiring decisions, especially at an educational institution of the caliber of Harvard Law School.  Therefore, it would be premature to suggest that diversity and diversity initiatives are not of importance to Kagan.  Mention must also be made to the fact that Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice and civil rights patriarch Thurgood Marshall.  As many of us know, Marshall served as chief counsel for the NAACP for many years (he argued the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case) and fought for inclusion and integration.  I would be hard pressed to believe that Kagan, who maintains that Marshall was her hero and who she credits with providing her with a greater understanding of the law, would not be supportive of diversity initiatives and policies. 

Although it is common for speculation to run wild during this period leading up to confirmation, I would caution people to not draw conclusions from her bleak record on diversity while serving as Dean and assume that is reflective of her position with respect to diversity policies.