|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
Louisville Lawyer Vol. XVI, No. 2 FALL, 1971 Moot Court Competition; Bob LaFramenta Heads Program 300 • Ill Three-hundred freshmen will make the 1971-'72 Moot Court competition the largest and most competitive in the history of he University of Louisville, School of Law. However, neither the true potential of the Moot Court Club nor that of the paricipating students can ever be realized without the support and cooperation of the downtown Bar and the local judiciary. This year's Moot Court program is headed by senior Robert D. LaFramenta, who, coupled with his duties as Moot Court President, is an editor of the Law Journal. In organizing the Moot Court Club for '71-'72 LaFramenta decided that to accommodate such a large group of freshmen the overall structure of the Club was in need of change. Instead of one competitive decision, as has been the practice in the past, there will be two competitive divisions. Each division will be responsible for preparing and briefing separate factuf;l.l situations. From each division will emerge a Moot Court champion. The limited library space available to the students has made this change imperative. Also new this year is the ResearchMentor system, whereby the Freshman class is divided into approximately thirty- 2 U of L 'Lex Fillies' Attend Duke Confab On October 1-3, the Southern Regional Conference of the National Conference of Law Women was held at Duke University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina. Representing the University of Louisville School of Law at the conference were two senior women law students, Louise Lancaster and Ellen Ewing. The conference evolved out of last spring's National Conference of Law Women in Chicago at which uke was the only southern school represented. As a result of this limited representation by southern law schools, the Southern Regional Conference was organized by the Duke women law students organization with financial support from the Russell Sage Foundation in New York Citty. Also instrumental in the realization of this conference was the support afforded the women students by the Duke Law School administration. The apathetic image presented by the southern schools at the National Conference was completely dispelled as the Southern Regional Conference attracted 105 women law students The theme of the conference, "Women from seventeen southern schools. sex-discrimination. In one of the cases, Reed v. Reed, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a state statute which, in the appointment of estate administrators, gives nificance of the Court's decision in the preference to men over women. The sigwho worked on the brief for the appelReed case, according to Ms. Ginsburg, lant, could be limited as Idaho has since changed this statute. In Alexander v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a state statute excluding all women from jury duty, except those who volunteer, and, in Stanley v. lllinois, will determine the right of a father of three offspring of an 18-year common law relationship to be considered for appointment as guardian upon the death of the mother. Other speakers included Elizabeth Dunst, Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and Nancy Stearns, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. Ms. Dunst and Ms. Stearns addressed themselves to the problems faced by a woman in the practice of law. Their anecdote ranged from humorous experiences to demeaning encounters including a woman attorney being called to the bench by a New York Federal District Court judge and told, in a tone sufficiently audible for those in the court room to hear, that he was a happily married man. five groups of eight students, each group being led by two mentors, both of whom are upperclassmen and previous Moot Court participants. The mentors will guide the freshmen through exhaustive research of their respective moot court problem and the specific issues involved therein. Each student will be responsible for a comprehensive memorandum of applicable law as to the problem, at the close of the first semester. All facets of the problem will be probed by the mentors and their student groups with the hope of providing each freshman with a complete grasp of the issues he will eventually argue. Beginning second semester the student groups will be divided into two four-man teams who will brief the problem and participate in oral elimination rounds. Students, professors, practicing attorneys and local judiciary will serve as judges for the elimination rounds. The goal of the mentor system is to upgrade the quality of student briefs and enrich the student's ability to understand the depth of the issues on oral argument. It will furher serve as an invaluable guide for research of future legal problems. NATIONAL MOOT COURT Students to represent the University of Louisville in National Moot Court Competition were chosen at the close of last year. Those students are John Southard, Richard Duerr and Edward Kagin. National competition will begin in the early part of November, 1971, in Raleigh, North Carolina. BI-STATE COMPETITION Tentative plans are being made for a bi-state, five school Moot Court competition between Memphis State University, Vanderbilt University, University of Tennessee, University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville. The logistics of this competition have not been worked out as of this date. It is the hopes of the schools tha his competition will take place in the early spring. As already stated, it is only with the continued cooperation of the downtown Bar that the University of Louisville Moot Court Club will be able to implement any of their plans or continue to function as a creative Law School force. We solicit and welcome any assistance which the practicing attorneys may give the Moot Court Club in the form of volunteering as judges for the Moot Court competition and offer a sincere thanks for all past help. James U. Smith, Vice-President, Moot Court Club In and Under the Law," was explored through addresses by women attorneys and numerous workshops conducted by women attorneys and law students. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor at Rutgers University School of Law on leave to Harvard Law School, in her keynote address covered a broad spectrum of problems confronting women under the law and revealed surpriSmg statistics on women in law. (The complete text of the address which appear in th Journal of Family Law, Vol. II, No. 2.) Law Students Needed Mrs. Ginsburg defined the plight of the educated women through graffitti observed scrawled on the wall of a study carrell: "Study hard; Get good grades; horrid kids; Die, and be buried." Since, Get your degree; Get married; Have three as Mrs. Ginsburg disclosed, 44 per cent of the freshman class at Rutgers School of Law and 50 per cent of the freshmen at Northeastern Law School in Boston are women, women's heretofore predestined role may be changing. Mrs. Ginsburg noted that the United States Supreme Court will hear three cases during the fall term dealing with For Juvenile Program Several law students are presently working as volunteer probation officers in a program sponsored by the Jefferson County Metropolitan Social Service Department. Volunteers participate in a concentrated training session, which is scheduled at convenient times to accommodate students. Training includes high delinquency neighborhood observation, panel discussions with trial commissioners, visits to juvenile centers, and various other discussions with qualified probation officers. Upon completion of training each volunteer is assigned one juvenile with whom he spends two or three hours a week. The time and place of these meetings is left to the discretion of the volunteer. There is an urgent need for volunteers since probation officers are currently handicapped by large caseloads. If you are interested in participating in this program contact either Bob LaFramenta or Bill Cooper at the Law School. Louisville, Kentucky The Student Bwr Association has rendered a great service to the students at the Law School. Working with an able staff David Broderick has accomplished s&'I'M new and maj01' achievements never bej01'e witnessed by the student body. SBA Seeks Grant For Black Students The co~picuous deficiency in the number of practicing black attorneys throughout Kentucky has prompted a freshman law student to initiate an effort directed Since courage is better than fear, and fund which would enable Black Kentucky residents who are qualified but financially unable to enter law school to attain a legal education at the University of Louisville. Noting the desperate need for more black attorneys in Kentucky, William Cooper has enlisted the support of a group of faculty members and students in this endeavor, and a committee, consisting of Cooper, Harold Adams and Gery Levy, with assistance from William B. Martin, Terrance Fitzgerald of the law faculty, has begun to explore the mechanics of the initiation, solicitation and administration of such a fund with the expectation that a student or students entering law school in the fall of 1972 may avail himself of its benefits. The necessary funding will be drawn from the contributions of students, faculty, alumni, the University community and the community as a whole, while the energy required to attract these gifts will be that of interested students and professors. Initial reactions indicate that a very substantial sum will be forthcoming as soon as the fun is initiated, and once it materializes, the fund will be entrusted to an attorney under an arrangement which will maximize the benefits of the contributions. Optimistically, the response during the next fifteen months may be sufficient to sustain the fund for a considerable length of time, whether from income or principal. At any rate, no scholarship will be awarded until a student is assured three years' tuition. The names of eligible students will bedrawn from information received from the undergraduate institutions in Kentucky and will be compiled early so as to allow students sufficient time to apply for admission to the law school. Once admitted, the student will be afforded any necessary assistance with housing and employment arrangements through the appropriate divisions of the University and any available external sources. Page 2 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971 U of L Law School Hosts 6th. Circuit On September 17-19 at Stouffer's Louisville Inn, the University of Louisville School of Law hosted the Sixth Circuit Student Bar Association Presidents Roundtable of the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association. Students from law schools of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky were represented. The purpose of the meeting was to serve many functions as an exchange of ideas related to student activities and programs such as Moot Court, Student Bar Association management, clinical programs, placement, etc. The weekend opened with an informal cocktail party for the early arrivals, sponsored by the University of Louisville jointly with the University of Toledo. The eveming served as a good opportunity to get to know other students on an informal basis and to set the tone for the meetings of the succeeding days. The function was greatly enhanced by the presence of Pi Beta Phi sorority, which graciously hosted the party. The meeting officially opened Saturday morning with Mayor Frank Burke welcoming the students to the city with some words about his own experiences and the role of the lawyer in today's society. The ] udge Ballantine Tells mayor presented lapel pins which symbolized the city's flag as a token of Louisville's hospitality. The first speaker of the day was Ernest S. Zavodnyik, the director of the Law · Student Division. The director addressed the group concerning the structure of the Division and the purpose of the Division. The discussion that followed lasted several hours, only to be interrupted by an excellent buffet luncheon. The Saturday afternoon session of the meeting was broken into three groups: Law Student Division representatives with Miss Laura Horton of Duquesne University, the National secretary-treasurer of the Division aiding the discussion; Student Bar Presidents, and Moot Court participants. 'Each group concerned itself with the problems of the activities with which it is involved bringing forth a healthy exchange of ideas and programs. Saturday evening was quite eventful as the participants moved to Louisville Downs for a buffet dinner in the Clubhouse. The organization was honored by having a race named for it. Upon completion of the race, the national officers present went to the winner's circle to present the winning driver with a trophy inscribed as the Law Student Division Stakes. Student Bar Association began the 1971 school year with a dance in the Red Barn on the campus of UofL. Other SBA social functions are planned, including ·a function in November. After this delightful event, the students adjourned to Stouffer's for an "after-theraces" party, sponsored by the University of Louisville. All in all, the evening was very enjoyable and one of the most creative and entertaining in the Division's history. Returning to the work of the meeting, the Sunday morning session was highlighted by a discussion on membership led by National President, Jeffrey Wentworth of Lubbock, Texas. This session was very vocal, bringing to light many of the problems facing the Division. This meeting was highly successful for the Law Student Division as the national officers left with an understanding of the problems concerning law students of the Sixth Circuit. The law students went back to their respective schools with new ideas and new direction relating to Law Student Division activities. Special recognition shoul go out to Fred M. Dellapa, Jr., Governor of the Sixth Circuit for organizing the meeting, and to David F. Broderick, President of the Student Bar Association, University of Louisville, for his efforts in hosting the meeting. A One Time Deal • Ill the 'Realms of Academe' By Thomas Ballantine Jr. The thought of writing any article generally causes a severe drop in the temperature of my blood, but to be faced with an assignment for a professional publication such as this one is enough to course ice floes to form in my extremities. It was with some trepidation that I agreed to try my hand at this. It's no easy task to pick a topic. I consulted with my colleagues of the Bench and the realms of Academe. The general consensus seemed to be that I ought to choose a topic with which I was familiar. One of my more pragmatic judicial colleagues suppested that my topic should be "The Reversal and How to Accept it Gracefully." A faculty colleague suggested, with a degree of cynicism alarming in one so young, that I might explain why the University of Louisville School of Law had never had its accerditation questioned until I joined the faculty. Muttering my thanks for their Wellmeant suggestions, I retired to what are euphemistically known as my chambers. There, surrounded by files under submission, a copy of the Acts of the 1968 General Assembly, several back issues of the Kentucky Law Summary and a book of The Best Cartoons From Case and Comment, 1950-1960, I set forth upon my journalistic quest. My Holy Grail was to be that most elusive topij:!, Something Lawyers Don't Already Know. I finally hit upon an idea. None of my confreres at Fifth and Jefferson teach and contrariwise, none of the faculty do any judging. (If you don't count Judge Stephenson, who is lying fallow this semester, this statement is true.) Why not tell the reader about the adjustments that must be made. When Dean Merritt approached me about the prospect of teaching Torts, I responded, with commendable modesty, that I was supremely confident that I could handle the task. After all, I reasoned, don't I spend ninety per cent of my professional time pondering the intricacies of this most intricate subject. Armed with Seavey, Keaton and Keaton and a yellow pad, I strode into my first class. Eager young faces were turned ex-pectantly upward toward me. I could hardly wait to leap into the quagmire of Palsgraf, Sullivan, and I. de S. et nx. Flipping open the text, I proceeded to expound. Immediately a murmur arose in the back of the room which shortly swelled to a crescendo of protest as it rolled toward the front. There were cries of ''Not on the first day," and "For crying out loud, nobody expects nothing from us today." Tradition apparently becomes ingrained early in the academic process. Chastened, I closed my book and discussed in an off-hand manner, the matters which I felt should be brought to their attention. I discussed the fact that there were certain terms and phrases which every law student should know. I explained how the class would be conducted and laid down certain ground rules to be obserrvedno smoking, no eating or drinking in class, no snoring and above all restrained laughter at my little sallies of wit. A sullen silence greeted this portion of the services. Finally, it became apparent that nothing was to be gained from further involuntary confinement and class was dismissed. As the term progressed, the class and I reached what might be most charitably termed an armistice. We met twice a week at eight in the morning. By quarter of nine, I had usually gathered my wits sufficiently to field most of the questions which were directed to me. By the same time, most of the class was present. I found that the questions thrown from the class were in direct ratio to the degree of preparedness of the members thereof. As the year wore on, it became generally known among the segment of the Bar that appeared before me that I was teaching Torts. At first, there were muffled giggles that could be silenced by a stern look from the sheriff. I assumed that the Bar would be grateful to know that its future members were receiving an education from one who had been tempered in the cauldron. My assumption was proved baseless when a lawyer who shall remain nameless, in response to an unfavorable ruling, blurted out "Ye gods! Is that what you're teaching in Law School!" Another lawyer, upon being told of my moonlighting, was heard to say that it was indeed fortunate that I wasn't teaching Evidence. Let us return to Third and Eastern Parkway for a ro.oment. I must admit in all candor that I began to enjoy the class. The students gradually shed their uncommunicative attitudes and began to share in class discussion. Buttressed by hardwon prestige, I found that I had developed a tendency to pontificate. The class met on Tuesday and Thursday. The Court of Appeals met on Friday. On Thursday, February 19, 1970, I announced one of the few: concrete, absolute and unchangeable rules of law of this Commonwealth, to wit: The Wife Has No Cause Of Action For Loss Of Consortium By Reason Of Injury To Her Husband. On Friday, February 20, 1970, the Court of Appeals, speaking through Cullen, C., announced its decision in Kotsiris v. Ling, Ky., 451 S. W. 2nd 411. It wouldn't have been so bad if the newspaper hadn't seen fit to give the decision a prominence that I felt was undeserved. Nor would it have unbearable if the catcalls could have been confined to the classroom. However, when I arrived home on what I still prefer to call Black Friday, Nancy greeted me with a funny look. "I thought," she said, "that you had sixty students in your class." I owned that she was right. "Then, how come," she queried, "you've had either seventy-seven or seventy-eight phone calls from persons claimiflg to be in your class?" I replied, rather testily, that some of them must have called twice. I must say that one of the things I've learned from my experience is the value and importance of humility. As a candidate for governor of this state once said, "When it comes to humility, I don't take a back seat to nobody." The value of this trait was brought home to me during a stint as judge of the Moot Court in Trial Practice. Through some gross error in scheduling, the final trial was to be held on the same Satur-day as the N.C.A.A. basketball finals. A jury of engineering students had been summoned and the trial was progressing with all due dispatch. After a break for lunch, the foreman of the Jury rose and said, "Hey Judge, I want to tell you something. We're leaving in time to see the basketball game." Such a thing had never happened to me before. After all, I usually have the full majesty of the Law behind my rulings. I pointed this out to the Jury. The Jury pointed out to me that they didn't hold much with what I was saying and what was I going to do about it. A hasty search of the books showed that there has never been a case of similar character reported. By cutting a few corners, we managed to complete the trial in time to allow the sports fans to return to their TV sets. I have tired, in the foregoing paragraphs, to point out some of the adjustments that must be made when one moves from one sphere of activity with which he has at least a nodding acquaintance into another from which he fled almost eighteen years ago. I guess if there's any reward other than the material in part-time teaching, it's reading an exam paper that shows a woeful lack of understanding of the subject and upon reaching the end of the paper, finding that the student has written, "Oh well, I enjoyed the class and I hope you have a nice summer." I raised the grade to a C. For those presently in the class, that's a one time proposition. Congratulations December Law Graduates, and Good Luck on the Bar Exam! The Staff FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 3 EnvironTnental Law Unit Law. School Staff Increased II Begins First Year Here By Gary M. Smith The reasonable and prudent man has come to the realization that in previous years he has signed multitudes of adhesion contracts with such organizations as Detroits automobile manufacturers, strip mining companies, large petroleum companies, and others whose activities endanger· his well being. This realization has spawned an attitude of change which has brought exciting new interests to those fields of endeavor which can do most to bring about this change, and let the reasonable and prudent man have a voice in establishing the vital terms of any such contracts. The field of law offers a profession through which concrete results can be obtained, and nowhere can this spirit of change be felt more than in the area of environmental law. It was in this spirit of change that the Envorinmental Law Society was founded at the University of Louisville School of Law in the spring of 1971. Since its conception the Societies constant efforts have been to offer the law student a professional organization in which to learn and grow within an area of law that is itself just beginning. This presents the student with a unique opportunity of actually being instrumental in the expansion of the very subject in which he is learning. An asset well worth having in the seeking the solution of the problems confronting us in such a rapidly changing field as environmental pollution. Under the leadership of President Bette Pedigo, the fall semester produced the first organized program of activities conducted by the Environmental Law Society. The Environmental Law Societies initial speaker program offered the student body a larger selection of guest speakers than any other organization at the school of law. Beginning with Mr. Carl Schneider, chairman of Kentuckians for Environmental Planning, and ending with former governor Edward T. Breathitt, a total of nine speakers presented their expertise on a variety of environmental problems. From air pollution to urban planning, a broad range of topics were brought to the attention of Environmental Law So- Return To School PAD's UL Law By Dede Delaney P.A.D.s are returning. This is probably one of the most noteworthy changes taking place in the realm of legal fraternities at the University of Louisville. The high point this fall semester has been the "patrol car program" in which over seventy- five freshmen and actives took part. With the help of City and County police the P.A.D.s were able to ride in cruisers on Friday evenings during the month of October. Continuing the emphasis on professional programs, the fraternity is considering several tours of different jails and penitentiaries in early November. Putting even more emphasis on legal programs, Judge Edward J. Brockman, Jr., President of the local P.A.D. Alumni Association, has invited students to sit on the bench with him in Quarterly Court. The Vinson Chapter of Pho Alpha Delta feels that there has been an excellent response to both the professional programs and social events. ciety members in order to establish a basic understanding of the environmental problems facing Kentucky. The enthusiastic response of E.L.S. members as well as those who spoke instilled a confidence that the Environmental Law Society has found a place as a major organization within the framework of the school of law. Just as new precedents will be established in the area of environmental law, so too will the E.I.S. set new precedents as it continues to grow. Basic to growth and attainment of meaningful goals is an academic understanding of the subject matter. This is provided by the Environmental Law Seminar, organized last year by the Environmental Law Societies sponsor, Prof. William B. Martin. The seminar setting a precedent itself by being the first of its kind at the school of law. In moving forward and establishing new precedents as an organization it is hoped that the Society will take an active role in the area of environmental law. One major objective of the Environmental Law Society is to acquaint its membership with those actively involved in environmental control, thus providing an early relationship between those who will be working in the environmental field. Another avenue of endeavor to be developed is in the area of research. Working with public officials on legislation reforms and proposals in the environmental area would not only provide a vital public service but also would be invaluable as a learning tool for our members. Encouraged by its beginning, the Environmental Law Society of the University of Louisville School of Law stands ready to pursue a better understanding of the legal aspects of the environmental problems which face Kentucky, and a willingness to participate in helping to find a solution to these problems. The Unive1·sity of Louisville School of Law has enlarged its staff and they are preforming an excellent job in helping both students and faculty. Pictured are: Mrs. Ann R. Vick, Barbara E. Ayers, Joyce S. Carroll, and Phyllis M. Ohlemacher. Not pictured are: Mary An Mimsterl, Sondra Harroff, Mrs. Adah Lovesee, Ruth C. Meves, and Faye Welter. Ralph Nader Wants Law School Reform By Ralph Nader* In all the discussion recently at law schools about grading and curricular reform and student participation in faculty and administration decisions, it appears that one highly significant proposal could be adopted forthwti.th. I refer to the establishment of a year-long course given by Social events have included an opening day beer blast at Masterson's and the September cookout at the Brockman's. The Alumni Association continues to invite fraternity members to their monthly dinner meetings, which are held at various restaurants in the area. These meetings have included many distinguished speakers, among whom have been Dr. Carroll Witten, President of Aldermen; Chuck Kaplan, Legal Aid Society attorney; and Major Russell McDaniel, Jefferson County Acting Police Chief. This fraternity has endeavored to close the gap which exists between the law school and the profession. Too often, students find that they know few, if any, attorneys and thus are handicapped in finding both clerking and permanent positions. Certainly, being a member of Phi Alpha Delta is no guarantee of get-ting a job, but it may be of some help when the law student graduates. students for the benefit of the faculty. The case for such a course is compelling and the mechanics of conducting it fairly simple. Students have a great deal to convey to the faculty-their legal experience in clinical work, a greater sense of the urgencies of the times that are straining the legal system, their frequently greater familiarity with new techniques or bodies of knowledge of relevance to developing legal systems and their considered critiques of formal course work that makes up the law school's teaching pattern. There is substantial evidence that many professors are developing a keen appreciation that law students have much to teach as well as to learn. This recognition is bound to increase as law students, organized in investigating teams, begin producing first rate empirical studies of legal institutions. But even for those members of the faculty who resist the obvious, a student course for the faculty can be justified as a steady feedback process that is bound to enrich the professor's response to his classes. Once the principle of a student course is accepted, the mechanics could be worked out to maximize participation and efficiency. Law schools have always been good at mechanics. By way of suggestion, a steering committee of students, chosen by their peers, could organize the course content, decide whether to inict an "eye for an eye" and adopt the Socratic method or develop another less time-consuming procedure, determine the kinds of demonstrative evidence to be utilized, the field trips to be taken and the spinoff benefits to be conveyed to other law schools and in journals of legal education. I am sure that many exciting innovations and benefits can be derived once such a course is adopted. What the faculty may be realizing is that the breakdown in the last few years or its presumed or actual arrogance toward the students--whether ingrained or merely a teaching technique--is a wonderful experience. The rewards reaped are increasing displays of foresight-a quality of which the law schools in the past could rarely be accused-and a greater infusion of impirical and normative content in course and extra-curricular work. Some ground rules for such a course would obtain near unanimous support. There should be no grading and no compulsory attendance. I expect that the newspaper would welcome reactions and suggestions relating to such a proposal. Let us hear them. *Editor's Note: Reprinted by permission of Public Interest Research Group, Washing, D.C. Page 4 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971 The Louisville Lawyer Editor-inChief ................ ................ .... ............. ... ....... ..... ........ ....................... ......... Cecil A. Blye Assistant Editor .................... ....................................... .... ............ ......... Gillard B. Johnson III Copy Editor ....... .......................................................... ................................ ............. Gerald Henry Chief Photographer ......... ............................. .................................................... Dennis Hummell Staff ................... ............. Clyde Wills, Elaine Johnson, James Smith, and David Broderick An Editorial A New Objective With this issue, the Louisville Lawyer seeks to embark upon a new course--that of regular publication. As is evident, publication in recent times has been spotty, but we believe the rudder will bear the sudden stress of new direction. It is anticipated that the paper will be uublished once this fall, and two or three times during the spring semester. This depends upon money, printing experience and student and other interest. Should interest prove high enough, perhaps a way can be found to publish monthly. An obstacle to past publication has been the uncertain hands of the university- system printing operation, which seemed so swamped with other business that ours was put off. But now, a contract has been obtained with another printer. What will the Louisville Lawyer be? For a start, it will be a channel for students, faculty, the school administration, the local and even state legal communities to express their views and ask their questions. Perhaps this issue's article by Judge Ballantine, a respected circuit court judge here and a part-time member of the faculty, can be the first in a regular column by members of the local judici-ary. We hope so. There'll be room for other regular features, from law fraternity news to faculty views. There will be room for thoughtful articles. The Louisville Lawyer could be a paper of record for student activities. If there is any interest, why not print in these pages, for all the students to read, all the resolutions passed or considered by the SBA executive committee; the decisions of the student court; texts of important speeches made at the school (such as the recent talk by Sen. Ervin). These are some of the things which are possible, and Which would complement the various other items which will be published in the also-invigorated SBA Newsletter. As that publication noted, however, one of the big questions to success is interest of the law school community. The Louisville Lawyer has no writing staff, as such, but is pretty much held together by a patchwork of two or three editors. Writers or commentator sare welcome. So are letters to the editor, which we hape can be published in a regular letters column. Since the Louisville Lawyer has no office, either, the SBA has agreed to let its office in the annex be a drop-off point for letters, articles and suggestions. The Dean's Forum By Dean James Merritt According to figures recently released by the American Bar Association, law schqol enrollments increased by more than 30% from 1966 to 1970. What is even more striking is that two-thirds of the growth took place in 1970. Law school enrollments have been doubling every decade but the astonishing growth in 1970 might cause us to ask ourselves where these law students came from and more significantly where are they going? Part of the increase is due to a rise in population but a good deal of it appears to be a manifestation of a new preference for students graduating from college. One remarkable fact is that while the overall enrollment was increasing by about 30% the number of women students rose by 159%, having grown from 2,600 to 6,900. Several studies are underway to try to explain the influx of women into law schools. One researcher concluded that he knew no more about women law students than he did about women in general. In answer to a direct question by the American Bar Association only 16 of 140 law schools reported that they could have enrolled additional students in the first year class. The 16 law schools reported vacancies for only 353 day students and 306 evening students. These figures represent only 2% of the first year enrollment. It would appear that law schools are very nearly filled to capacity. During the past year very little in additional facilities have been added. An interesting complaint among law school administrators last year was that more students showed up to register than prior experience would have lead anyone to expect. Last year there were about 75,000 applicants for 35,000 places. This year it appears that there will be about 110,000 applicants for the 35,000 places. At the University of Louisville the enrollment picture is just as bleak as that at the national level. With one more set of LSAT scores yet to be received, we have three times as many applicants as we can accommodate. It would appear that now is the time when law schools can become increasingly selective and upgrade the general quality of the student body but that is scant comfort for prospective students who would have been accepted at any other time in history. This is a time when law students who are enrolled in law schools may ask about opportunities upon graduation. The market for Ph.D's has been saturated in many fields. Although there is some discussion about overcrowding the bar, the requirements of universal representation in criminal matters and the representation of juveniles are only beginning to be filled. With the increasing complexities of law and society, many positions previously being filled by laymen may now become attractive to lawyers. Prof. Alford F. Conard of the University of Michigan, President of the Association of American Law Schools, has warned that insufficient legal education facilities could result in a lawyer shortage. Studies by the staff of United States News and World Report indicate that about the right number of lawyers are being produced to keep with present demands. There seems to be no reason to expect anything other than an increasing opportunity for lawyers. II The Student Bar II By Robert W. Keats The Student Bar Association oegan the 1971-72 administration by providing the Law School and its students with new equipment and services of a magnitude never before offered. The following major services have already been provided to stimulate and aid the legal education. SERVICES TO THE STUDENT 1). In order to improve the quality of communications directed to the student boody from both the S.B.A. and Law School administration, the S.B.A. has purchased a large metal SIGNBOARD which is located in the foyer of the main law building. Only S.B.A. announcements of events and important administrative announcements of interest to the students will be placed on this board. Students are encouraged to note these announcements every day. 2). The Student Bar LOUNGE located on the ground floor of the Law School Annex was completed this summer. The lounge was provided by a special fund donated by Ben Washer. Students are encouraged to use this lounge. 3) After negotiations resulting in excessive bids from over seven Chicago and Louisville electronics companies the S.B.A. decided to undertake on its own installation of a long overdue SOUND SYSTEM for the Allen Court Room. 4). In order to offer another long overdue reliable service, the S.B.A. has completed negotiations and is providing a XEROX COPY MACHINE. The copier, which is located in the hallway outside the Law Library journal room, will provide copies for a nickel (5c) per copy. Those students who receive bad copies on the copier are encouraged to return the bad copies to the librarian for a full refund. 5). The SIB.A. has presented several recommendations and QUESTIONS TO THE DEAN of the Law School. Questions and complaints most often asked by students this term have been answered by return letter which is posted on the S.BA. bulletin board located on the lower level of the Law School building. (The S.B.A. makes every effort to arbitrate student complaints and keep the student informed. The S.B.A. has found the Dean and the Law School factulty receptive and timely in returning an answer or opinion to the students.) 6). At the beginning of the fall semester all law students were notified by mail of the S.B.A. BOOK EXCHANGE. The book exchange provided law students with the opportunity to sell their books for a greatcampus book store. It also offered the er amount than offered for return by the buyer the best deal on used books that could not be matched by the campus store. The S.B.A. is opening negotiations with the leading law publishing com-panies in order to determine the feasibility of purchasing new books at a lower cost than now offered by the campus store. Early results of this investigation are encouraging, and it may be possible in the future for the S.B.A. to provide new books to law students at a reduced price. 7). The S.B.A. PHONE DIRECTORY is again offered this year. It is a compilation of accurate addresses and phone numbers of law students which will provide greater ease in calling for that class assignment. In order not to discriminate, the night students will be included with the day students in one mass phone directory. 8). Those students who type their notes, outlines, and examinations will be pleased to note that six new Royal TYPEWRITERS have been provided by the S.B.A. The machines are located in the Law Library journal room. These new typewriters will relieve the frustrations of those wjho had to type on our old W.W.II rejects. Students who type are asked to exercise ordinary care in order that unnecessary service and expense will be prevented. 9). Another first in S.B.A. history is the offering of a PHOTO SERVICE to seniors. In conjunctoion with the University of Louisville Yearbook and the Shillito photo service the senior law student will be able to (a) include his photo in the U of L Yearbook, (b) obtain smaller photos for himself, and (c) be included in a law school composite, all for only $5.00. This service to students is recommended by the S.B.A. since it provides the senior with a much needed recent photo for his resume and also provides the school with a composite which it will hang on the bare walls of the Ben Washer Lounge. Complete details of this service are located on the S.B.A. bulletin board. 10). A periodic S.B.A. NEWSLETTER will be offered this year. After several non-productive years, the Newsletter has been revived by editor Ed Kagan (72). First copies of the newsletter will be posted on the S.B.A. bulletin board. The Newsletter is intended to keep the law student knowledgeable of his organizations affairs. Students who wish to include articles are encouraged to notify the editor. 11). The BRANDEIS LECTURE SERIES in honor of Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis is sponsored by the S.B.A. and is under the leadership of Chairman Julius Steiner (72). The lecture series has already proved successful with its early speakers: Senator Samuel J. Ervin, Jr. the Senate's foremost constitutional authority who spoke to an over flowing courtroom September 24th; and Alan N. Palasky who spoke October 15th on the policy and practice of tax law. Other notable lecturers who are expected to appear in the series are Senator Marlow W. Cook of Kentucky for November, and Senator John Sherman Cooper, also of Kentucky, for January 1972. Tentative lectures for the spring semester include Senator Edward M. Kennedy, John E. Mitchell, and Justice William 0. Douglas. 12). The S.B.A. SOCIAL PROGRAM began the year with much to be desired. However, a more complete effort is being made on the part of the social committee headed by Diane Donoghoe (72) to provide improved social affairs. The S.B.A. is proposing a cocktail party every month and also intends to promote the gala Barristers' Ball in honor of retiring A. C. Russell, former ean and istinguished Professor of Law. 13). The University of Louisville S.B.A. was host on September 17th and 18th to the LAW SCHOOL DIVISION of the American Bar Association. Representatives from law schools in the 6th circuit were present at Stouffers for two days of concentrated discussion on problems confronting law students and the LSD-ABA organization. The S.B.A. hopes this convention stimulated thought among the delegates in order to form a stronger national organization of law students. 1). The S.B.A. under the direction of Wesley Gersh recently compiled the FACULTY EVALUATION which was conducted during the spring 1971 semester. The results of this student effort was not intended to harass the faculty. FALL, 1971 THE LOmSVILLE LAWYER Page 5 At LaGrange Reformatory Dodd Tells Effects of Criminal Conviction Editor's Note: The following paper was presented to the Inmate Chapter of the Jaycees at Lagrange Reformatory by Christopher J. Dodd. Society has provided numerous criminal sanctions for persons found guilty of violating the law: death, incarceration, fines, and various forms of conditional release. However, the sanctioning process actually begins prior to conviction and, in most cases, continues long after the ex convict has served his sentence. These other sanctions are normally referred to as Civil Disabilities, but in reality they are nothing more than what social scientists call stigmas. In many ways the stigma of a prior conviction is much more devastating than the actual sentence prescribed by law. Not only may a person face a prison sentence, he may also permanently lose his right to vote, to hold office or public or private trust, to serve as a juror or witness in a court of law, to pursue professional occupations, to enter contracts, to obtain insurance and to even manage his own property. I am sure there are many inmates who, if they accepted guilty please, were uninformed of the civil rights they would forfeit as incident to their convictions. The cruel and hard fact is that in the United States today when an ex-convict walks away from prison he will be certain to suffer civil disabilities which cannot be overcome by good works or the passage of time. Many of the official stigmas which exist today are the result of ancient law based on archaic principles of human justice. In the Greek and Roman civilizations a civil disability resulting from a crime wlas called "infamy." Any person pronounced "infamous" lost, among other things, his right to appear in court, to vote, to make speeches, to attend assemblies, an dto serve in the army. With the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Germanic tribes of Europe and England, civil disabilities became much more primitive in practice. Pr1or to the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Anglo- Saxons imposed civil disabilities called "outlawry.'~ The practice of "outlawry'' was based on the premise that a convict had "declared war on the community," therefore the community had a right to retaliate by whatever means thought reasonable. So severe was this retaliation that a man convicted of a srime rarely escaped death. Between 1066 and 1870, a new procedure of civil disabilities appeared called "attainder." Any person convicted of treason or a felony was declared "attained." The consequences of attainder were forfeiture of all property, corruption of blood and loss of all civil rights. Since the principle goals of English criminal jurisprudence were retribution and deterence, punishments were often extremely harsh-death being the usual sentence. In the reign of Henry vm 72,000 persons were hanged, and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth vagabonds wfere hanged in groups of three and four hundred. Yet not only was the sentence severe, but the manner of execution laws frequently brutal. A death sentence could be carried out by hanging, beheading, burning at the stake, boiling alive, or mutilation of the convicted man's body. Inherant in the concept of deterence was the belief in social degredation. The use of stigmatic mutilations such as branding, and deforming the hands, ears, tongue and other parts of the body made the convicted person more easily identifiable in society long after he had paid his debt. The history of early American Criminal Jurisprudence was very similar to the English concept. However, after gaining our independence, the gravity of penal sanction was reduced, yet the practice of imposing civil disabilities continued to play an important role in the treatment of convicts. Despite the claim of many that the penal system in this country has become too lenient--everry state has civil disability laws on its books. These civil disability laws can be divided into two categories: civil death statutes and specific disability statutes. Civil death statutes are all encompassing provisions that deprive a convict of rights while he is serving a prison sentence. Specific disability statutes stipulate particular disabilities that become operative at the time of conviction and continue throughout an ex-convicts' life unless the right is rested by state procedure. Underlying these laws is the judicial and legislative conclusion that once a person is convicted of a crime he is permanently corrupt. It is indisputable that people who are untrustworthy should be prevented from holding positions that demand public or private confidence, but it is entirely fallacious to conclude that a prior felony conviction conclusively and permanently indicates such untrustworthiness, and any civil disability statutes w\hich are based on this premise would appear to be constitutionally defective. KENTUCKY Following the majority of jurisdiction in the United States, Kentucky provides civil disabilities resulting from criminal conviction. In particular, a felony conviction in Kentucky excludes an ex-convict from voting, and holding public office. In addition an ex-felon may be prohibited from entering professional schools such as law, medicine, or engineering. He may not be able to testify in a court of law or serve as a juror and may find it difficult to obtain work. These disabilities are statutory and for the most part continue after a sentence has expied unless a pardon or restoration of civil rights is procurred from the governor. Prior to the deprivation of a man's civil rights in Kentucky two essentials must be present: (1) there must be a conviction, and (2) the conviction must be for a felony. Kentucky adheres to the rule that a conviction occurs only after there has been a determination of kuilt and a pronouncement of judgment and sentence. Thus, if a court adjudicates a defendant guilty and imposes a sentence, but suspends execution of the sentence and places the offender on probationthere is still a conviction. However, if the court suspends imposition of the judgment and the sentence and puts the defendent on probation-there is no conviction and civil disabilities cannot be inflicted. In Kentucky a felony is defined as any offense which is punishable by death or confinement in the state penintentiary. Unlike the majority of states, Kentucky seemingly follows the policy that specific disability statutes are only applicable to convictions by Kentucky (Wood vs. Wood, 264 S.W. 2d 260-Ky. 1954-) Courts. The rationale for adhering to such a policy is based on the principle of common law rather than on legislative intent. The imposition of a civil disability on the basis of a conviction in a foreign court would constitute a penalty in Kentucky for the commission of a crime elsewhere, thus contravening the common law doctrine. This rule is not without exemptions. In 1957 a Kentucky court held that a conviction in a competent court of another jurisdiction bars a person from voting in Kentucky unless an execution pardon from the governor restores his civil rights. A felony conviction in a federal court however. has the same effect on a convict's civil rights as does a Kentucky conviction. CIVIL DISABILITIES IN KENTUCKY RESULTING FROM A FELONY CONVICTION RIGHT TO VOTE Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution sttes that: 1. Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the general assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage. But persons excluded may be restored by executive pardon. 2. Persons wjho at the time of election, are in confinement under the judgment of the court for some penal offense . . . (shall be denied the right to vote). Thus not only may a person incarcerated be denied voting rights, but once his sentence expires the civil disability will continue unless he petitions for restoration of his civil rights. RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE Under section 150 of the Kentucky Constitution a convicted felon is prohibited from holding private or public offices of trust unless his civil rights are restored. All persons shall be excluded from office who have been, or shall hereafter be, convicted of a felony, or of such high misdemeanor as may be perscribed by law, but such disability may be removed by pardon of the governor. Persons who are convicted of bribery, forgery, perjury or any felony while in office shall be removed, and a subsequent pardon by the governor will not reinstate them to their former position. K.R.S. 61. 040 Although of little significance in this day and age, the state constitution also prohibits those persons who are involved in a duel from holding public office. K.R.S. Section 239 EMPLOYMENT OF EX-CONVICTS Of all the collateral effects that an ex-convict suffers as a result of his felony conviction, the most serious is the problem of obtaining employment after release from prison. Until recently, an ex-felon found it all but impossible to get a job. Employers, like the majority of people, were hesitant to trust anyone who had a previous criminal record. The sigmas of prior convictions are still present, but recent legislation has improved an ex-felons' chances of meaningful employment. The federal government has provided funds to bond any ex-convict for as much as $10,000 as an incentive to employers to hire ex-convicts. Missouri, Illilois and California, are states which have enacted legislation prohibit~ employers from inquiring as to an applicants criminal record. Generally, there are no limitations on the kind of employment an ex-felon can obtain. However, as a practical matter conviction for certain crimes will preclude an ex-felon from some kinds of employment. For example, a person convicted of -arson would probably not be employed at a munitions plant. Former convicts can find employment with the post office, the military and most federal, state and local agencies. In Kentucky, an ex-convict is prohibited from being employed by the police or fire departments. However, in some jurisdictions ex-felons are actively recruited by the police. The Kentucky State Employment Service has special programs to assist exfelons procure work by "matching'' the applicant to the job, taking into consideration the ex-con's skills, background and record. Ultimately, however, it is the employer's choice. There are no specific lawt> which force employers to hire ex-felons, or prohibit employers from denying work to former convicts due to their criminal records. EXECUTIVE PARONS AND RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS The Kentucky Constitution provides two procedures by which an ex-convict can regain his full rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. The first way is by obtaining an executive pardon. The executive pardon is a directive issued by (Continued on page 6) SenatQ'/' Sam Ervin began the 1971-72 Brandeis Lecture Series discussing the issue of "FEAR OF FREEDOM" dealing with such topics as civil rights, religious liberties, and the D.C. crime bill. Other lectures for the first semester include Alan N. Polasky and Senator Marlow W. Cook. Page6 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 19'71 Dodd at LaGrange (Continued from page 5) the governor returning a pernon to society. RIGHT TO TESTIFY According to Kentucky Revised Statutes 421.090 any person who has been convicted of perjury or making false statements is precluded from testifying in a court of law. Specifically the statute declares that A person convicted of any of the offenses described in K.R.S. 432.160 to K.R.S. 432.180 (perjury and false statements) shall ever afterward be disqualified from giving evidence in any judicial proceeding, or from being a witness in any case whatever except that he may testify in his own behalf in a criminal prosecution. Unlike other civil disability statutes, disqualification of a witness due to a prior conviction of perjury or false statements is permanent, and a restoration of civil rights will not restore this privilege. This law, however, only applies to perjury or false statement convictions. A person convicted of any other felony is competent to testify, and there is no prerequisite of pardon or restoration of civil rights. RIGHT TO SERVE AS JUROR The privilege of sitting in judgment of one's peers is also denied to a former felon unless he has been pardoned by the governor. No person shall be qualifieod as a juror for service on a grand or petit jury unless he is a citizen and for the preceding year has been a resident of the country wherein called to serve, at least 21 years of age, sober, temperate, discreet, and of good demeanor, not under indictment, and, if convicted of a felony has been pardoned. K.R.S. 29.025. Although there is no law which explicitly excludes former felons from entering professional schools such as law or medicine, a record of previous conviction for a felony will in many instances preclude an applicant from acceptance. At the University of Louisville Law School if an applicant has a previous conviction-the dean will inquire of the state bar association if the conviction would prohibit the person from receiving a license to practice law and make his decision accordingly. Medical schools follow 'the same procedure. However, in the field of engineering and land surveying former felons are prohibited from receiving a license. No person shall be eligible for a license unless he is of good character and reputation, nor shall any person be eligible if he has been convicted of any felony ..... K.R.S. 322.050 Normally, any professional person who is convicted of a felony will have his license revoked, and any subsequent pardon or· reinstatement of civil rights will not reinstore him to his former position. The executive pardon can be given to persons presently incarcerated, but examples of this have been rare in recent years. An illustration of one case was the recent decision by the governor to pardon a man who was suffering from terminal cancer. The man was permitted to return home to be with his family for his final days. He died one month after his release from prison. A misconception held by many is that an executive pardon erases a person"s record of criminal conviction. This is not the case. The second way by which an ex-con viet can recover his lost privileges is through an executive order restoring his civil rights. Although much more readily obtained than the executive pardon, the restoration of civil rights has the same effect as an executive pardon. The only significant difference between the twb procedures is that the executive pardon is awarded under exceptional circumstances. Restoration of civil rights is a rather simple procedure that is rarely denied provided the applicant meets the minimum standards and requirements. 1) The applicant must have either served his complete sentence, or be on probation or parole. 2) If the applicant petitions immediately when released from prison or released on probation or parole, he need only submit his request for restoration of civil rights through the ivision of Probation and Parole of the epartment of Corrections. 3) If the applicant delays petitioning for six months after being placed on probation or released on parole, or six months after his sentence has expired; he must submit three letters of recommendation from officials in the county where he resides. 4) The letters of recommendation must be sent along with his application form to the Division of Probation and Parole. 5) The Division of Probation and Parole will then verify the information on the application, check the petitioner's parole record, check the court records and the letters of recommendation and finally forward the applicant to the governor for final appr?val. 6) In addition to a $200.00 fee, the applicant must have his petition for restoratiton of civil rights notarized and signed by his parole officer. The principle of executive pardons and restoration of civil rights goes back to the old common law theory that a person who violates a law of society forfeits his right as a citizen, thus only through executive pardons can a man regain his rights as a citizen. As a completely gratuitous act by the chief executive, a pardon hardly seems a cure for the statutory deprivations of important rights. Does it not seem unfair that once a man has paid his . so called debt to society, society should still penalize him further? Should we not indulge in the presumption that once a man has been allowed to regain his felloW1 citizens, he should have the rights of any other citizen? Although it appears petitions to restore one's civil rights are rarely if ever denied, who can say that one day a governor may not abuse his discretion and deny ex-convicts their right to participate in society as full citizens? Unfortunately, the civil disability laws run counter to the philosophy of rehabilitation and belong more appropriately with the discarded idea that convicts should be punished and then banished from society. In reality these laws frustrate the rehabilitative process by increasing the liklihood of recividism. As one commentator has said, "It will be appreciated that these disprivileges can so handicap an individual as to make it difficult for him to live honestly after release." In Kentucky the civil disability laws operate rather simply. The prosecutor proves his case and the jury signs away a possible military career, a professional practice, position of responsibility and in some instances the right to participate in the electoral process. The effects of the juries' decision is not erased by time; and the heedless acts of a youth tend to conclusively establish the bad character of a reformed and wiser man. Senator Ervin Addresses Brandeis Lecture Group (Remarks Prepared by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina, for delivery to the School of Law of the University of Louisville, in connection with the Brandeis Lecture Series at Louisville, Kentucky on Friday, September 4, 1971. FEAR OF FREEDOM Freedom of the Individual Freedom for the individual was bought for us long ago by the blood, sweat, tears, and prayers of multitudes of men and women, great and small. The Founding Fathers esteemed it life's supreme value. They so testified by declaring in the preamble to the Constitution that they ordained and established that instrument to preserve the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. Freedom is hard to win or preserve, but easy to lose. The price of its keeping is eternal vigilance, and this vigilance will be exercised only by those stouthearts who love freedom above all things and are always ready to do battle for it against its enemies, doubt and fear. Doubt lacks faith in freedom and fear is afraid of freedom. When doubt and fear prevail, government becomes tyrannous, and people become tolerant of tyranny. Tbe Bill of Rights The Founding Fathers apprehended these truths. Moreover, they were aware that history repeats itself. For these reasons, they knew that the tyrannies of the past would be attempted in the future in the land for which they were creating a government; that the government they were creating would undert11-ke in time of doubt and fear to suppress by sharp measures exercises of freedom displeasing to it; and that freedom itself would thereby be put in peril unless it was protected by irrepealable constitutional law. And so the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to place freedom beyond the reach of any President or any Congress who might doubt the wisdom of America's commitment to freedom or fear its exercise by Americans. The aim of the Bill of Rights is aptly described in these words in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certtain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." A Time of Doubt and Fear Ours is a time of doubt and fear. So~e nations threaten the peace of the world and the security of our coun-try. Violent crime stalks our land. In the recent past, riotous mobs have burned and looted in some of our cities; and disquieting agitators have staged violent, and hence unlawful demonstrations on public streets and college campuses. These things have frightened many Americans, including some in high offices. These Americans have lostt faith in America's commitment to freedom. They demand the abridgment of historic freedoms of our people, and attempt to justify their dem;and by the plea that there is no other way to obtain security for our land. Let us reject this plea with words uttered by William Pitts, the younger, in the House of Commons in 1783: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." And let us remind ourselves of the admonition given to Americans by Benjamin Franklin in even more troublous times: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I am not among those who doubt and fear. I hasten to affirm, however, that I do not view the threat from abroad or the crime at home with complacency. They present problems of the gravest nature. There are, however forthright and rational ways to confront these problems without abridging basic freedoms. America W'ill remain the land of the free only if it remains the home of the brave. Free men can confront the threat to our national security by keeping their hearts in courage and patience and being prepared to lift up their hands in strength; and a free society can combat crime effectively only by affording speedy and fair trials to those charged with criminal acts and imposing appropriate sentences on the ones adjudged guilty. Targets of Abridgm,ent Americans of little faith and much fear have adopted as targets of abridgment the historic right of persons arrested for non-capital federal offenses to be free on bail while awaiting trial, the ancient right of the people to regard their homes as their castles and to be secure against unjustifiable intrusions by government on their privacy, their personal liberty, and their private property, and the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly of those individuals and groups whose thoughts and words are displeasing to government. Let us consider these matters in the order of their statement. The Right to Pretrial Release on Bail The Bastille is history's most accursed prison. Within its walls, the Kings of France imprisoned without trial for periods determinable by their wills men and women who criticized the government or those in power. The Kings justified their tyranny by asserting that they detained these men and women to prevent them from committing future crimes. French revolutionaries stormed and razed the Bastille while the Bill of Rights and the Judiciary Act of 1789 were being formulated. The drafters of these instruments were determined that there should be no Bastilles in America. To this end, they provided in the Judiciary Act that all persons arrested for noncapital federal offenses shall have an absolute right to release on bail while awaiting trial, and they decreed in the Eighth Amendment that excessive bail shall not be required of them. When Congress conferred on it power to prescribe rules of criminal procedure for federal courts, the Supreme Court continued the absolute right to pretrial release originally embodied in the Judiciary Act of 1789 by expressly stipulating in Rule 46 that a "person arrested for an offense not punishable by death shall be admitted to bail." The Bail Reform Act of -966, which I authored, expanded this right by establishing alternative ways for persons arrested for non-capital federal crimes to obtain release from custody pending trial (Continued on page 7) FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 7 Senator Ervin at UL (Continued from page 6) if their poverty disables them to give monetary bond. I omit discussion of the controversial question whether the somewhat enigmatic Eighth Amendment guarantees to every person arrested for a noncapital federal offense a constitutional right to release on bail pendi-\lg trial. I do assert, however, that the rule established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and preserved in Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Eighth Amendment itself reflect the sound philosophy that a free society must take certain risks in order to remain free, and that among such risks is the risk that a person arrested for a non-capital federal crime may flee or commit crime if he is released on bail while awaiting trial. When campaigning for the Presidency, President Nixon stressed the law-andpotency for several reasons. The Amerorder issue, which had much vote-getting ican people had naturally become apprehensive for the safety of their persons and properties because of the increase in crime. They had become appalled by the interminable delays in the administration of criminal justice in trial and appellate courts. They had become dismayed, moreover, by Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who had apparently forgotten that society and the victims of crim,e are as much entitled to justice as the accused, and who had fashioned new rules compelling trial courts to permit convicted criminals to relitigate repeatedly the validity of their convictions, and limiting the admissibility in tril courts of the most convincthe voluntary confession of an accused ing testimony known to mankind, namely, that he perpetrated the crime alleged, and the testimony of an eye witness that he saw the accused commit the crime charged. After his inauguration, President Nixon made some sound recommendations for congressional legislation in respect to the administration of criminal justice. Unforttunately, however, he obscured these recommendations and delayed their enactment and implementation by insisting that Congress forsake the traditions of our land and enact preventive detention laws, 'no-knock" laws, and other repressive measures. He specifically urged Congress to enact a nation-wide preventive detention law. Under his proposal, a federal judge will be empowered to deny immediate release on bail or its equivalent to any person arrested for a dangerous or violent noncapital federal offense and to imprison him for 60 days without trial on the merits if the judge finds in a preliminary hearing where the rules of evidence do not obtain that such person will present some undefined danger to another person or the community if he is granted pretrial release from custody. The provision requiring a preliminary hearing as a condition precedent to the entry of an order of preventive detention and limiting the period of preventive detention to 60 days were included inPresident Nixon's proposal in deference to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Wlhich undoubtedly places severe restrictions on the power of the federal government to deprive a person of his liberty because it fears he may commit a crime in the future if he is not detained. President Nixon has been unable thus far to persuade Congress to adopt his nation-wide proposal, but he has managed to induce it to impose a similar proposal on the crime-riden District of Columbia. Unfortunately, this even occurred before a study made by the National Bureau of Standards was made public. The Bu-reau studied the subsequent records during a protracted period of time of persons arrested in the District of Columbia for dangerous or violent crimes and released on bail or its equivalent during four selected weeks in the first six months of 1968, and found that the facts refute the basic asumptions which underlie the demand for preventive detention laws, -,anamely, that persons arrested for dangerous or violent crimes have a high propensity to be rearrested for subsequent offenses of a serious nature, and that judges can accurately predict those who wil be dangerous if released. The study revealed that only 5 percent of the persons arrested for dangerous or violent crim,es were rearrested for subsequent serious crimes during the protracted period covered by it; and that virtually all of the rearrests occurred more than four months after the original arrests. While the advocacy of preventive detention may have political value as a symbol of devotion to law-and-order, the study of the National Bureau of Standards and experience under the Districtt of Columbia preventive detention law demonstrate that preventive detention is worthless as a weapon against crime. Indeed, it will prove worse than worthless if employed on a substantial scale. By adding the preliminary hearings on the detention issue to the dockets, it will actually delay courts in trying criminal cases on the merits and thus impede the prompt administration of criminal justice. Besides, it will inevitably result in the imprisonment of m.any innocent persons because judges do not possess the predictive power to select out of 100 persons the 5 who will prove to be dangerous to others or the community if granted pretrial release. Because of these things and the difficulty of reconciling it with the "ordered liberty" which due process of law commands, preventive detention has no rational or rightful place in our land. Consequently, Congress ought to repeal the shameful District of Columbia preventive detention law, spurn the President's request for a similar nation-wide law, and cling to the tradition which had its origin in the first year of our Republic's existence. By adhering to the historic right of persons arrested for noncapital federal offense to be released on bail or its equivalent while awaiting trial, America will continue to administer criminal justice in a way which commends itself to free men. Such a course of action promotes the fair and just administration of justice. This is true because it makes the presum; ption of innocence a realitty; enables the accused to assist his laWYer in preparing his defense; permits the accused to retain his job, support his family, and live in his own home pending trial; saves the taxpayers the expense of maintaining the accused in jailed idleness and suporting his family on relief pending his trial; minimizes the overcrowding of inadequate and already crowded jails; insures that no innocent accused will be stigmatized by imprisonment for a crime he did not commit; and honors the dream of the Founding Fathers that there shall be no Bastiles in America. Every Man's Home Is His Castle The deepest hunger of the human heart is for a home in which one ffilll.Y have privacy, exercise personal liberty, and enjoy safety free from unjustifiable intrusions by government or law-breakers. Ages ago the Prophet Micah pictured this hunger with eloquence by describing the mountain of the Lord as a place where "they shal sit every man under his vine SEA's first dance of the year showed some encoumging signs and it is hopeful that future parties wil draw la1·ger student participation. He?·e Pete McDonald seems to be asking his wife when the next dance is scheduld. It wiU be in January and Broderick is hopeful that Pete and the rest of the student body will attend. and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid." When it was emerging from the mists of history, the common law of England undertook to satisfy this hunger by declaring that every man's home is his castle, and that every man may resist to the utmost unidentified persons who undertake to enter his home against his will. This principle of the common law was judicially recognized and applied in Semayne's Case, which was decided in 1603 and which declares: "The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose." This principle of law is not absolute as against government. It must yield on rare occasions if an overriding public purpose demands that government make an entry into a home. But even on those rare occasions, government may enter only if it uses means which insure that its power to enter is not abused. In recognition of this the Court further declared in Semayne's Case: "In all cases where the King is party, the Sheriff 'if the doors be not open' may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King's process, if otherwise he canot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make requests to open doors." In opposing a proposal to collect an excise on cider by methods which abridged the concept embodied in the maxim every man's home is his castle, William Pitt, the elder, expressed the veneration of Englishmen for the principle of law embodied in such concept by this statement in the House of Commons: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter. Al his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." When they migraed from England to America, the colonists brought with them a proud attachment to this principle of the common law. Hence, it is not surprising that the people of Boston rebelled when officers of the British Crown entered and ransacked their homes and places of business under general warrants to collect taxes imposed upon them by Parliament. This outrage was one of the tyranies which provoked the American Revolution. After Independence was won, the Founding Fathers incorporated this principle of the common law in the Fourth Amendment, which reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment protects the occupant of a house from an unannounced entry by an officer of the law. Even though he has a legal right to enter a house to ~ake a lawful arest or execute a lawful search warrant, an officer is prohibited by the Amendment from attempting to do so unless he first announces his identity and purpose to the occupant and is refused admittance by him. This requirement has this two-fold objective: (1) To protect the privacy, personal liberty, and safety of the occupant; and () to protect the officer from the danger of violent injury or death at the hands of the occupant, who might otherwise mistake him for a burglar. The requirement of prior announcement of identity and purpose is subject to limited exceptions, which are stated in Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 48. The opinion rightly asserts that the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unannounced entry of officers into a house, "except (1) where the persons within already know of the officers' authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justified in the belief that persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or (3) where those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door) are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers in the belief that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted. Manifestly the facts which call any of these exceptions into play cannot be known to an officer until he arrives at the house where the arrest or search is to be made. Crime and dangerous drugs present hard problems. Hard problems are the quicksands of sound legislation. In 1970, Congress enacted two "noknock" laws. One of these is embodied in the District of Columbia CoCurt Reform Act (P.L. 91-358), and regulates arrests and search warrants for all purposes in the District of Columbia; and the other is incorporated in the Drug Control Act (P.L. 91-513) and regulates search warrants for discovery of dangerous drugs or controlled substances as defined in the Act throughout the country. The District of Columbia Act contains two unprecedented provisions. One of them empowers a judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcem\ent officer ex- (Contlnued on page 8) W4t 1Jlnutnutllt 1Jlawytr FORM 3547 REQUESTED Senator Ervin (Continued fTcnn page 7) press authority to break and enter any dwelling house or other building in the District to execute an arrest warrant without giving the occupants notice of his identity and purpose if the judicial officer finds that "such notice is likely to enable the party to be arrested to escape" and the other empowers a judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcement officer express authority to break and enter any dwelling house or other building in the District to execute a search warrant without giving the occupants notice of his identity and purpose if the judicial officer finds (A) that "such notice is likely to result i:h the evidence subject to seizure being easily and quickly destroyed or disposed of'; or (B) that 'such notice is likely to endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person", or (C) that "such notice would be a useless gesture." The Drug Control Act empowers a federal judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcement officer express authority to break and enter any building to execute a search warrant for the discovery of dangerous drugs or controlled substances without giving the occupants notice of his authority and purpose if the judicial officer finds (A) that "the property sought may and, if such notice is given, wil be easily and quickly destroyed or d1sposed of," or (B) that "the giving of such notice will immediately endanger the life or safety of the executing officer or another person." In attempting thus to abrogate the constitutional obligation of an officer to give notice of his identity and purpose before he undertakes to break and enter a house to make an arrest or search, these noknock statutes offend the letter, the spirit, and the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Neither Congress nor any official acting under its authority can nulify a constittutional requirement o nthe ground that obedience to it "would be a useless gesture." The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be made to hang on such an arbitrary and brittle thread. Moreover, these no-knock laws do not bring the unprecedented powers they attempt to create within any of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement of prior notice of identity and purpose. To be sure, they pay lip service to the Fourth Amendment by stating that the extraordinary warrants cannot be issued except upon probable cause. Probable cause can only be established by facts which exists and are made known to a judician officer at the time he acts on an application for an arrest or search warrant. It cannot be predicated upon prophesies or suspicions or fears as to what the conduct of the occupants of a distant house may be at some future time when an officer of the law reached the premises to make an arrest or search. Hence, there can really be no probable cause for the issuance of the extraordinary warants the no-knock laws undertake to sanction. Apart from constitutional considerations, no-knock laws are bad. If its people are to have respect for law, a nation must have respectable laws, and no law is respectable if its authorizes officers to act like burglars, and robs the people of the only means they have for determining whether those who seek to invade their habitations violently or by sealth are officers or burglars. When the Drug Control Act was under Senate consideration, I moved to strike the no-knock provision from it. I predicted at that time that its implementation would result in the deaths of both law enforcement officers and householders. Unfortunately, this unhappy prediction has materialized on a number of occasions. I do not condemn no-knock laws in ignorance of the terrible toll which crime and daugerous drugs exact from society. Dangerous drugs doom those who become addicted to them, shatter the happiness of the families of the addicts, and provoke much of the crime that haunts our land. The evil and selfish men who traffic in dangerous drugs for filthy lucre and bring these tragedies to pass deserve the harshest punishment the law sanctions. Despite these things, I cling to an abiding conviction that it is beter for lawmakers to permit some wrongdoers to escape than it is for them to sacrifice upon the altar of fear and doubt the ageold boast of Anglo-American law that every man's home is his castle. A freedom sacrificed is seldom resurrected. First Amendment Freedoms Time precludes detailed comment on recent efforts to abridge the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly of individuals or groups whose thoughts and words offend government or a majority of our citizens. These efforts find graphic illustrations in President Johnson's use of the Army to spy on civilians who exercised their freedoms of speech, association, and assembly to express their disapproval of administration policies, and President Nixon's attempt to bolster the power of the Supersive Activities Control Board to harass and stigiD\atize unhappy and foolish people, who have committed no crime. Conclusion The tides of fear are rising, and the anchors of faith are dragging. It is in such a time frightened humanity needs freedom most. Since courage is beter than fear, and faith is better than doubt, let us spurn fear, cherish faith, and dedicate ourselves to this proposition: Freedom is life's supreme value and must be preserved for ourselves and our prosterity, cost what it may. Henry Clay Senate Lauded By Ronald Bogle Reference is often made to quantity detracting from quality. Clearly, such is not the case with the Henry Clay Senate of the Delta Theta Phi Law Fraternity. Rather, the quantity has greatly added to the quality of our Senate. At the present time, our Senate boasts of 130 active members, and all contribute to make our Senate what it is. Further, this figure does not reflect the addition of our fall pledge class. Thus, it is easy to understand why the Henry Clay Senate is the largest student senate in the nation. Aside from being the largest student senate in the nation, our fraternity was honored last year by being named the Outstanding National Student Senate, and was named this past summer as the Outstanding Regional Senate. Such high honors are not easily achieved or lightly taken in view of the high degree of competition from the 74 student senates across the nation. Rather, they are prestigious awards granted on the basis of high scholastic achievement, law school activities, campus-wide activities, fraternity projects, individual achievements, and activities with alumni and other student senates. Clearly, the Henry Clay Senate is a proven leader in all of these categories. However, the greatest achievement of our Senate would appear to be in the category of scholastic achievement, and law school activities. We are especially proud of the contributions of our Senate in scholastic achievements and activities. To begin with, the student with the highest scholastic average in each class is a Delt. At the present time, five of the six editorial positions on the Journal of Family LaLw, including the Editor-in-Chief, are held by Delts. At Awards Day last spring, all four awards granted to the students making the most significant contribution to overall legal scholarship went to mem- Lex Fillies (Continued ff'cnn page l) Professor Ann Scott, author of The Southern Lady and Professor of History at Duke University, discussed the history of the woman in America. Professor Scott revealed that although 17th century American women performed the same physical work as men, 19th century industrialization resulted in removing hard work from the home and women "allowed themselves to be transformed from part of the economy to status symbols." According to Professor Scott, notable exceptions to this raditionally defined role for women existed but awareness of women's contributions is limited due to the fact that they have been overlooked by historians. The workshops conducted included in part Placements Problems, Women in the hers of the Henry Clay Senate. Of the 93 Book Awards, i.e. awards presented to those students with the highest grade in designated courses, 47 were presented to Delts. Also, the ODK Award to the Outstanding Senior Male(s) went to two brothers. In addition, four brothers were elected to Phi Kappa Phi. Needless to say, we are proud of our scholastic achievements. But we are also proud of our accomplishments and participation in law school activities. The present and past Presidents of the Student Bar Association are members of our Senate, and Delts hold 6 of the 11 positions open to them on the SBA Executive Committee. Further, the present and past Presidents of the Moot CoCurt Club are Delts, as are 5 of the 8 members of the Moot Court Executive Board. The winner of last spring's Moot Court Competitio nis a Delt, as are two of the three members of our National Moot Court team. Clearly, these are impressive feats, but our fraternity is not all work. Social activities play a major role in our fraternity, and they assist in keeping our fraternity a close and unified body. This includes not only activities within the student senate, but, also, with our alumni senate. Intramural athletics play a role in our activities. Not only are we the only law school fraternity, but we are the only fraternity from any graduate school to participate in the graduate school intramural activities. Certainly, we are proud of our fraternity. The brothers of the Henry Clay Senate of Delta Theta Phi have contributed much to the University of Louisville School of Law, and later to the Louisville and Kentucky Bar Associations. With the quality of our brotherhood, it is easy to understand why we have contributed much, and easier to understand why we will contribute more. Criminal Justice System, Recruitment and Admission of Women to Law Schools, Women in Politics, Women and Welfare, Minority Women, The Professional Woman and her Role in the Family Structure, Abortion, and Radical Women. The workshop on Placement Problems was conducted by Karla Harbin, a Legal Aid attorney in Durham, N.C. Ms. Harbin indicated safeguards against sex discrimination in employment included Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. s 200(e)) and President Nixon's executive order forbidding sex discrimination within the federal government, as the federal government is exempt from Title VII. Ms. Harbin attempted to forewarn women law students about some of the problems they will face in seeking employment as lawyers by presenting interview questions to anticipate.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Louisville Lawyer 16.2(2), Fall 1971 |
Alternative Title | Law Student Publications |
Contributors | University of Louisville. School of Law |
Description | The Louisville Lawyer (1955-1974) was the first of three official University of Louisville School of Law student publications. This is the second of two issues numbered as Volume 16, Number 2. |
Searchable Text | Louisville Lawyer Vol. XVI, No. 2 FALL, 1971 Moot Court Competition; Bob LaFramenta Heads Program 300 • Ill Three-hundred freshmen will make the 1971-'72 Moot Court competition the largest and most competitive in the history of he University of Louisville, School of Law. However, neither the true potential of the Moot Court Club nor that of the paricipating students can ever be realized without the support and cooperation of the downtown Bar and the local judiciary. This year's Moot Court program is headed by senior Robert D. LaFramenta, who, coupled with his duties as Moot Court President, is an editor of the Law Journal. In organizing the Moot Court Club for '71-'72 LaFramenta decided that to accommodate such a large group of freshmen the overall structure of the Club was in need of change. Instead of one competitive decision, as has been the practice in the past, there will be two competitive divisions. Each division will be responsible for preparing and briefing separate factuf;l.l situations. From each division will emerge a Moot Court champion. The limited library space available to the students has made this change imperative. Also new this year is the ResearchMentor system, whereby the Freshman class is divided into approximately thirty- 2 U of L 'Lex Fillies' Attend Duke Confab On October 1-3, the Southern Regional Conference of the National Conference of Law Women was held at Duke University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina. Representing the University of Louisville School of Law at the conference were two senior women law students, Louise Lancaster and Ellen Ewing. The conference evolved out of last spring's National Conference of Law Women in Chicago at which uke was the only southern school represented. As a result of this limited representation by southern law schools, the Southern Regional Conference was organized by the Duke women law students organization with financial support from the Russell Sage Foundation in New York Citty. Also instrumental in the realization of this conference was the support afforded the women students by the Duke Law School administration. The apathetic image presented by the southern schools at the National Conference was completely dispelled as the Southern Regional Conference attracted 105 women law students The theme of the conference, "Women from seventeen southern schools. sex-discrimination. In one of the cases, Reed v. Reed, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a state statute which, in the appointment of estate administrators, gives nificance of the Court's decision in the preference to men over women. The sigwho worked on the brief for the appelReed case, according to Ms. Ginsburg, lant, could be limited as Idaho has since changed this statute. In Alexander v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a state statute excluding all women from jury duty, except those who volunteer, and, in Stanley v. lllinois, will determine the right of a father of three offspring of an 18-year common law relationship to be considered for appointment as guardian upon the death of the mother. Other speakers included Elizabeth Dunst, Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and Nancy Stearns, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. Ms. Dunst and Ms. Stearns addressed themselves to the problems faced by a woman in the practice of law. Their anecdote ranged from humorous experiences to demeaning encounters including a woman attorney being called to the bench by a New York Federal District Court judge and told, in a tone sufficiently audible for those in the court room to hear, that he was a happily married man. five groups of eight students, each group being led by two mentors, both of whom are upperclassmen and previous Moot Court participants. The mentors will guide the freshmen through exhaustive research of their respective moot court problem and the specific issues involved therein. Each student will be responsible for a comprehensive memorandum of applicable law as to the problem, at the close of the first semester. All facets of the problem will be probed by the mentors and their student groups with the hope of providing each freshman with a complete grasp of the issues he will eventually argue. Beginning second semester the student groups will be divided into two four-man teams who will brief the problem and participate in oral elimination rounds. Students, professors, practicing attorneys and local judiciary will serve as judges for the elimination rounds. The goal of the mentor system is to upgrade the quality of student briefs and enrich the student's ability to understand the depth of the issues on oral argument. It will furher serve as an invaluable guide for research of future legal problems. NATIONAL MOOT COURT Students to represent the University of Louisville in National Moot Court Competition were chosen at the close of last year. Those students are John Southard, Richard Duerr and Edward Kagin. National competition will begin in the early part of November, 1971, in Raleigh, North Carolina. BI-STATE COMPETITION Tentative plans are being made for a bi-state, five school Moot Court competition between Memphis State University, Vanderbilt University, University of Tennessee, University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville. The logistics of this competition have not been worked out as of this date. It is the hopes of the schools tha his competition will take place in the early spring. As already stated, it is only with the continued cooperation of the downtown Bar that the University of Louisville Moot Court Club will be able to implement any of their plans or continue to function as a creative Law School force. We solicit and welcome any assistance which the practicing attorneys may give the Moot Court Club in the form of volunteering as judges for the Moot Court competition and offer a sincere thanks for all past help. James U. Smith, Vice-President, Moot Court Club In and Under the Law," was explored through addresses by women attorneys and numerous workshops conducted by women attorneys and law students. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor at Rutgers University School of Law on leave to Harvard Law School, in her keynote address covered a broad spectrum of problems confronting women under the law and revealed surpriSmg statistics on women in law. (The complete text of the address which appear in th Journal of Family Law, Vol. II, No. 2.) Law Students Needed Mrs. Ginsburg defined the plight of the educated women through graffitti observed scrawled on the wall of a study carrell: "Study hard; Get good grades; horrid kids; Die, and be buried." Since, Get your degree; Get married; Have three as Mrs. Ginsburg disclosed, 44 per cent of the freshman class at Rutgers School of Law and 50 per cent of the freshmen at Northeastern Law School in Boston are women, women's heretofore predestined role may be changing. Mrs. Ginsburg noted that the United States Supreme Court will hear three cases during the fall term dealing with For Juvenile Program Several law students are presently working as volunteer probation officers in a program sponsored by the Jefferson County Metropolitan Social Service Department. Volunteers participate in a concentrated training session, which is scheduled at convenient times to accommodate students. Training includes high delinquency neighborhood observation, panel discussions with trial commissioners, visits to juvenile centers, and various other discussions with qualified probation officers. Upon completion of training each volunteer is assigned one juvenile with whom he spends two or three hours a week. The time and place of these meetings is left to the discretion of the volunteer. There is an urgent need for volunteers since probation officers are currently handicapped by large caseloads. If you are interested in participating in this program contact either Bob LaFramenta or Bill Cooper at the Law School. Louisville, Kentucky The Student Bwr Association has rendered a great service to the students at the Law School. Working with an able staff David Broderick has accomplished s&'I'M new and maj01' achievements never bej01'e witnessed by the student body. SBA Seeks Grant For Black Students The co~picuous deficiency in the number of practicing black attorneys throughout Kentucky has prompted a freshman law student to initiate an effort directed Since courage is better than fear, and fund which would enable Black Kentucky residents who are qualified but financially unable to enter law school to attain a legal education at the University of Louisville. Noting the desperate need for more black attorneys in Kentucky, William Cooper has enlisted the support of a group of faculty members and students in this endeavor, and a committee, consisting of Cooper, Harold Adams and Gery Levy, with assistance from William B. Martin, Terrance Fitzgerald of the law faculty, has begun to explore the mechanics of the initiation, solicitation and administration of such a fund with the expectation that a student or students entering law school in the fall of 1972 may avail himself of its benefits. The necessary funding will be drawn from the contributions of students, faculty, alumni, the University community and the community as a whole, while the energy required to attract these gifts will be that of interested students and professors. Initial reactions indicate that a very substantial sum will be forthcoming as soon as the fun is initiated, and once it materializes, the fund will be entrusted to an attorney under an arrangement which will maximize the benefits of the contributions. Optimistically, the response during the next fifteen months may be sufficient to sustain the fund for a considerable length of time, whether from income or principal. At any rate, no scholarship will be awarded until a student is assured three years' tuition. The names of eligible students will bedrawn from information received from the undergraduate institutions in Kentucky and will be compiled early so as to allow students sufficient time to apply for admission to the law school. Once admitted, the student will be afforded any necessary assistance with housing and employment arrangements through the appropriate divisions of the University and any available external sources. Page 2 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971 U of L Law School Hosts 6th. Circuit On September 17-19 at Stouffer's Louisville Inn, the University of Louisville School of Law hosted the Sixth Circuit Student Bar Association Presidents Roundtable of the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association. Students from law schools of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky were represented. The purpose of the meeting was to serve many functions as an exchange of ideas related to student activities and programs such as Moot Court, Student Bar Association management, clinical programs, placement, etc. The weekend opened with an informal cocktail party for the early arrivals, sponsored by the University of Louisville jointly with the University of Toledo. The eveming served as a good opportunity to get to know other students on an informal basis and to set the tone for the meetings of the succeeding days. The function was greatly enhanced by the presence of Pi Beta Phi sorority, which graciously hosted the party. The meeting officially opened Saturday morning with Mayor Frank Burke welcoming the students to the city with some words about his own experiences and the role of the lawyer in today's society. The ] udge Ballantine Tells mayor presented lapel pins which symbolized the city's flag as a token of Louisville's hospitality. The first speaker of the day was Ernest S. Zavodnyik, the director of the Law · Student Division. The director addressed the group concerning the structure of the Division and the purpose of the Division. The discussion that followed lasted several hours, only to be interrupted by an excellent buffet luncheon. The Saturday afternoon session of the meeting was broken into three groups: Law Student Division representatives with Miss Laura Horton of Duquesne University, the National secretary-treasurer of the Division aiding the discussion; Student Bar Presidents, and Moot Court participants. 'Each group concerned itself with the problems of the activities with which it is involved bringing forth a healthy exchange of ideas and programs. Saturday evening was quite eventful as the participants moved to Louisville Downs for a buffet dinner in the Clubhouse. The organization was honored by having a race named for it. Upon completion of the race, the national officers present went to the winner's circle to present the winning driver with a trophy inscribed as the Law Student Division Stakes. Student Bar Association began the 1971 school year with a dance in the Red Barn on the campus of UofL. Other SBA social functions are planned, including ·a function in November. After this delightful event, the students adjourned to Stouffer's for an "after-theraces" party, sponsored by the University of Louisville. All in all, the evening was very enjoyable and one of the most creative and entertaining in the Division's history. Returning to the work of the meeting, the Sunday morning session was highlighted by a discussion on membership led by National President, Jeffrey Wentworth of Lubbock, Texas. This session was very vocal, bringing to light many of the problems facing the Division. This meeting was highly successful for the Law Student Division as the national officers left with an understanding of the problems concerning law students of the Sixth Circuit. The law students went back to their respective schools with new ideas and new direction relating to Law Student Division activities. Special recognition shoul go out to Fred M. Dellapa, Jr., Governor of the Sixth Circuit for organizing the meeting, and to David F. Broderick, President of the Student Bar Association, University of Louisville, for his efforts in hosting the meeting. A One Time Deal • Ill the 'Realms of Academe' By Thomas Ballantine Jr. The thought of writing any article generally causes a severe drop in the temperature of my blood, but to be faced with an assignment for a professional publication such as this one is enough to course ice floes to form in my extremities. It was with some trepidation that I agreed to try my hand at this. It's no easy task to pick a topic. I consulted with my colleagues of the Bench and the realms of Academe. The general consensus seemed to be that I ought to choose a topic with which I was familiar. One of my more pragmatic judicial colleagues suppested that my topic should be "The Reversal and How to Accept it Gracefully." A faculty colleague suggested, with a degree of cynicism alarming in one so young, that I might explain why the University of Louisville School of Law had never had its accerditation questioned until I joined the faculty. Muttering my thanks for their Wellmeant suggestions, I retired to what are euphemistically known as my chambers. There, surrounded by files under submission, a copy of the Acts of the 1968 General Assembly, several back issues of the Kentucky Law Summary and a book of The Best Cartoons From Case and Comment, 1950-1960, I set forth upon my journalistic quest. My Holy Grail was to be that most elusive topij:!, Something Lawyers Don't Already Know. I finally hit upon an idea. None of my confreres at Fifth and Jefferson teach and contrariwise, none of the faculty do any judging. (If you don't count Judge Stephenson, who is lying fallow this semester, this statement is true.) Why not tell the reader about the adjustments that must be made. When Dean Merritt approached me about the prospect of teaching Torts, I responded, with commendable modesty, that I was supremely confident that I could handle the task. After all, I reasoned, don't I spend ninety per cent of my professional time pondering the intricacies of this most intricate subject. Armed with Seavey, Keaton and Keaton and a yellow pad, I strode into my first class. Eager young faces were turned ex-pectantly upward toward me. I could hardly wait to leap into the quagmire of Palsgraf, Sullivan, and I. de S. et nx. Flipping open the text, I proceeded to expound. Immediately a murmur arose in the back of the room which shortly swelled to a crescendo of protest as it rolled toward the front. There were cries of ''Not on the first day," and "For crying out loud, nobody expects nothing from us today." Tradition apparently becomes ingrained early in the academic process. Chastened, I closed my book and discussed in an off-hand manner, the matters which I felt should be brought to their attention. I discussed the fact that there were certain terms and phrases which every law student should know. I explained how the class would be conducted and laid down certain ground rules to be obserrvedno smoking, no eating or drinking in class, no snoring and above all restrained laughter at my little sallies of wit. A sullen silence greeted this portion of the services. Finally, it became apparent that nothing was to be gained from further involuntary confinement and class was dismissed. As the term progressed, the class and I reached what might be most charitably termed an armistice. We met twice a week at eight in the morning. By quarter of nine, I had usually gathered my wits sufficiently to field most of the questions which were directed to me. By the same time, most of the class was present. I found that the questions thrown from the class were in direct ratio to the degree of preparedness of the members thereof. As the year wore on, it became generally known among the segment of the Bar that appeared before me that I was teaching Torts. At first, there were muffled giggles that could be silenced by a stern look from the sheriff. I assumed that the Bar would be grateful to know that its future members were receiving an education from one who had been tempered in the cauldron. My assumption was proved baseless when a lawyer who shall remain nameless, in response to an unfavorable ruling, blurted out "Ye gods! Is that what you're teaching in Law School!" Another lawyer, upon being told of my moonlighting, was heard to say that it was indeed fortunate that I wasn't teaching Evidence. Let us return to Third and Eastern Parkway for a ro.oment. I must admit in all candor that I began to enjoy the class. The students gradually shed their uncommunicative attitudes and began to share in class discussion. Buttressed by hardwon prestige, I found that I had developed a tendency to pontificate. The class met on Tuesday and Thursday. The Court of Appeals met on Friday. On Thursday, February 19, 1970, I announced one of the few: concrete, absolute and unchangeable rules of law of this Commonwealth, to wit: The Wife Has No Cause Of Action For Loss Of Consortium By Reason Of Injury To Her Husband. On Friday, February 20, 1970, the Court of Appeals, speaking through Cullen, C., announced its decision in Kotsiris v. Ling, Ky., 451 S. W. 2nd 411. It wouldn't have been so bad if the newspaper hadn't seen fit to give the decision a prominence that I felt was undeserved. Nor would it have unbearable if the catcalls could have been confined to the classroom. However, when I arrived home on what I still prefer to call Black Friday, Nancy greeted me with a funny look. "I thought," she said, "that you had sixty students in your class." I owned that she was right. "Then, how come," she queried, "you've had either seventy-seven or seventy-eight phone calls from persons claimiflg to be in your class?" I replied, rather testily, that some of them must have called twice. I must say that one of the things I've learned from my experience is the value and importance of humility. As a candidate for governor of this state once said, "When it comes to humility, I don't take a back seat to nobody." The value of this trait was brought home to me during a stint as judge of the Moot Court in Trial Practice. Through some gross error in scheduling, the final trial was to be held on the same Satur-day as the N.C.A.A. basketball finals. A jury of engineering students had been summoned and the trial was progressing with all due dispatch. After a break for lunch, the foreman of the Jury rose and said, "Hey Judge, I want to tell you something. We're leaving in time to see the basketball game." Such a thing had never happened to me before. After all, I usually have the full majesty of the Law behind my rulings. I pointed this out to the Jury. The Jury pointed out to me that they didn't hold much with what I was saying and what was I going to do about it. A hasty search of the books showed that there has never been a case of similar character reported. By cutting a few corners, we managed to complete the trial in time to allow the sports fans to return to their TV sets. I have tired, in the foregoing paragraphs, to point out some of the adjustments that must be made when one moves from one sphere of activity with which he has at least a nodding acquaintance into another from which he fled almost eighteen years ago. I guess if there's any reward other than the material in part-time teaching, it's reading an exam paper that shows a woeful lack of understanding of the subject and upon reaching the end of the paper, finding that the student has written, "Oh well, I enjoyed the class and I hope you have a nice summer." I raised the grade to a C. For those presently in the class, that's a one time proposition. Congratulations December Law Graduates, and Good Luck on the Bar Exam! The Staff FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 3 EnvironTnental Law Unit Law. School Staff Increased II Begins First Year Here By Gary M. Smith The reasonable and prudent man has come to the realization that in previous years he has signed multitudes of adhesion contracts with such organizations as Detroits automobile manufacturers, strip mining companies, large petroleum companies, and others whose activities endanger· his well being. This realization has spawned an attitude of change which has brought exciting new interests to those fields of endeavor which can do most to bring about this change, and let the reasonable and prudent man have a voice in establishing the vital terms of any such contracts. The field of law offers a profession through which concrete results can be obtained, and nowhere can this spirit of change be felt more than in the area of environmental law. It was in this spirit of change that the Envorinmental Law Society was founded at the University of Louisville School of Law in the spring of 1971. Since its conception the Societies constant efforts have been to offer the law student a professional organization in which to learn and grow within an area of law that is itself just beginning. This presents the student with a unique opportunity of actually being instrumental in the expansion of the very subject in which he is learning. An asset well worth having in the seeking the solution of the problems confronting us in such a rapidly changing field as environmental pollution. Under the leadership of President Bette Pedigo, the fall semester produced the first organized program of activities conducted by the Environmental Law Society. The Environmental Law Societies initial speaker program offered the student body a larger selection of guest speakers than any other organization at the school of law. Beginning with Mr. Carl Schneider, chairman of Kentuckians for Environmental Planning, and ending with former governor Edward T. Breathitt, a total of nine speakers presented their expertise on a variety of environmental problems. From air pollution to urban planning, a broad range of topics were brought to the attention of Environmental Law So- Return To School PAD's UL Law By Dede Delaney P.A.D.s are returning. This is probably one of the most noteworthy changes taking place in the realm of legal fraternities at the University of Louisville. The high point this fall semester has been the "patrol car program" in which over seventy- five freshmen and actives took part. With the help of City and County police the P.A.D.s were able to ride in cruisers on Friday evenings during the month of October. Continuing the emphasis on professional programs, the fraternity is considering several tours of different jails and penitentiaries in early November. Putting even more emphasis on legal programs, Judge Edward J. Brockman, Jr., President of the local P.A.D. Alumni Association, has invited students to sit on the bench with him in Quarterly Court. The Vinson Chapter of Pho Alpha Delta feels that there has been an excellent response to both the professional programs and social events. ciety members in order to establish a basic understanding of the environmental problems facing Kentucky. The enthusiastic response of E.L.S. members as well as those who spoke instilled a confidence that the Environmental Law Society has found a place as a major organization within the framework of the school of law. Just as new precedents will be established in the area of environmental law, so too will the E.I.S. set new precedents as it continues to grow. Basic to growth and attainment of meaningful goals is an academic understanding of the subject matter. This is provided by the Environmental Law Seminar, organized last year by the Environmental Law Societies sponsor, Prof. William B. Martin. The seminar setting a precedent itself by being the first of its kind at the school of law. In moving forward and establishing new precedents as an organization it is hoped that the Society will take an active role in the area of environmental law. One major objective of the Environmental Law Society is to acquaint its membership with those actively involved in environmental control, thus providing an early relationship between those who will be working in the environmental field. Another avenue of endeavor to be developed is in the area of research. Working with public officials on legislation reforms and proposals in the environmental area would not only provide a vital public service but also would be invaluable as a learning tool for our members. Encouraged by its beginning, the Environmental Law Society of the University of Louisville School of Law stands ready to pursue a better understanding of the legal aspects of the environmental problems which face Kentucky, and a willingness to participate in helping to find a solution to these problems. The Unive1·sity of Louisville School of Law has enlarged its staff and they are preforming an excellent job in helping both students and faculty. Pictured are: Mrs. Ann R. Vick, Barbara E. Ayers, Joyce S. Carroll, and Phyllis M. Ohlemacher. Not pictured are: Mary An Mimsterl, Sondra Harroff, Mrs. Adah Lovesee, Ruth C. Meves, and Faye Welter. Ralph Nader Wants Law School Reform By Ralph Nader* In all the discussion recently at law schools about grading and curricular reform and student participation in faculty and administration decisions, it appears that one highly significant proposal could be adopted forthwti.th. I refer to the establishment of a year-long course given by Social events have included an opening day beer blast at Masterson's and the September cookout at the Brockman's. The Alumni Association continues to invite fraternity members to their monthly dinner meetings, which are held at various restaurants in the area. These meetings have included many distinguished speakers, among whom have been Dr. Carroll Witten, President of Aldermen; Chuck Kaplan, Legal Aid Society attorney; and Major Russell McDaniel, Jefferson County Acting Police Chief. This fraternity has endeavored to close the gap which exists between the law school and the profession. Too often, students find that they know few, if any, attorneys and thus are handicapped in finding both clerking and permanent positions. Certainly, being a member of Phi Alpha Delta is no guarantee of get-ting a job, but it may be of some help when the law student graduates. students for the benefit of the faculty. The case for such a course is compelling and the mechanics of conducting it fairly simple. Students have a great deal to convey to the faculty-their legal experience in clinical work, a greater sense of the urgencies of the times that are straining the legal system, their frequently greater familiarity with new techniques or bodies of knowledge of relevance to developing legal systems and their considered critiques of formal course work that makes up the law school's teaching pattern. There is substantial evidence that many professors are developing a keen appreciation that law students have much to teach as well as to learn. This recognition is bound to increase as law students, organized in investigating teams, begin producing first rate empirical studies of legal institutions. But even for those members of the faculty who resist the obvious, a student course for the faculty can be justified as a steady feedback process that is bound to enrich the professor's response to his classes. Once the principle of a student course is accepted, the mechanics could be worked out to maximize participation and efficiency. Law schools have always been good at mechanics. By way of suggestion, a steering committee of students, chosen by their peers, could organize the course content, decide whether to inict an "eye for an eye" and adopt the Socratic method or develop another less time-consuming procedure, determine the kinds of demonstrative evidence to be utilized, the field trips to be taken and the spinoff benefits to be conveyed to other law schools and in journals of legal education. I am sure that many exciting innovations and benefits can be derived once such a course is adopted. What the faculty may be realizing is that the breakdown in the last few years or its presumed or actual arrogance toward the students--whether ingrained or merely a teaching technique--is a wonderful experience. The rewards reaped are increasing displays of foresight-a quality of which the law schools in the past could rarely be accused-and a greater infusion of impirical and normative content in course and extra-curricular work. Some ground rules for such a course would obtain near unanimous support. There should be no grading and no compulsory attendance. I expect that the newspaper would welcome reactions and suggestions relating to such a proposal. Let us hear them. *Editor's Note: Reprinted by permission of Public Interest Research Group, Washing, D.C. Page 4 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971 The Louisville Lawyer Editor-inChief ................ ................ .... ............. ... ....... ..... ........ ....................... ......... Cecil A. Blye Assistant Editor .................... ....................................... .... ............ ......... Gillard B. Johnson III Copy Editor ....... .......................................................... ................................ ............. Gerald Henry Chief Photographer ......... ............................. .................................................... Dennis Hummell Staff ................... ............. Clyde Wills, Elaine Johnson, James Smith, and David Broderick An Editorial A New Objective With this issue, the Louisville Lawyer seeks to embark upon a new course--that of regular publication. As is evident, publication in recent times has been spotty, but we believe the rudder will bear the sudden stress of new direction. It is anticipated that the paper will be uublished once this fall, and two or three times during the spring semester. This depends upon money, printing experience and student and other interest. Should interest prove high enough, perhaps a way can be found to publish monthly. An obstacle to past publication has been the uncertain hands of the university- system printing operation, which seemed so swamped with other business that ours was put off. But now, a contract has been obtained with another printer. What will the Louisville Lawyer be? For a start, it will be a channel for students, faculty, the school administration, the local and even state legal communities to express their views and ask their questions. Perhaps this issue's article by Judge Ballantine, a respected circuit court judge here and a part-time member of the faculty, can be the first in a regular column by members of the local judici-ary. We hope so. There'll be room for other regular features, from law fraternity news to faculty views. There will be room for thoughtful articles. The Louisville Lawyer could be a paper of record for student activities. If there is any interest, why not print in these pages, for all the students to read, all the resolutions passed or considered by the SBA executive committee; the decisions of the student court; texts of important speeches made at the school (such as the recent talk by Sen. Ervin). These are some of the things which are possible, and Which would complement the various other items which will be published in the also-invigorated SBA Newsletter. As that publication noted, however, one of the big questions to success is interest of the law school community. The Louisville Lawyer has no writing staff, as such, but is pretty much held together by a patchwork of two or three editors. Writers or commentator sare welcome. So are letters to the editor, which we hape can be published in a regular letters column. Since the Louisville Lawyer has no office, either, the SBA has agreed to let its office in the annex be a drop-off point for letters, articles and suggestions. The Dean's Forum By Dean James Merritt According to figures recently released by the American Bar Association, law schqol enrollments increased by more than 30% from 1966 to 1970. What is even more striking is that two-thirds of the growth took place in 1970. Law school enrollments have been doubling every decade but the astonishing growth in 1970 might cause us to ask ourselves where these law students came from and more significantly where are they going? Part of the increase is due to a rise in population but a good deal of it appears to be a manifestation of a new preference for students graduating from college. One remarkable fact is that while the overall enrollment was increasing by about 30% the number of women students rose by 159%, having grown from 2,600 to 6,900. Several studies are underway to try to explain the influx of women into law schools. One researcher concluded that he knew no more about women law students than he did about women in general. In answer to a direct question by the American Bar Association only 16 of 140 law schools reported that they could have enrolled additional students in the first year class. The 16 law schools reported vacancies for only 353 day students and 306 evening students. These figures represent only 2% of the first year enrollment. It would appear that law schools are very nearly filled to capacity. During the past year very little in additional facilities have been added. An interesting complaint among law school administrators last year was that more students showed up to register than prior experience would have lead anyone to expect. Last year there were about 75,000 applicants for 35,000 places. This year it appears that there will be about 110,000 applicants for the 35,000 places. At the University of Louisville the enrollment picture is just as bleak as that at the national level. With one more set of LSAT scores yet to be received, we have three times as many applicants as we can accommodate. It would appear that now is the time when law schools can become increasingly selective and upgrade the general quality of the student body but that is scant comfort for prospective students who would have been accepted at any other time in history. This is a time when law students who are enrolled in law schools may ask about opportunities upon graduation. The market for Ph.D's has been saturated in many fields. Although there is some discussion about overcrowding the bar, the requirements of universal representation in criminal matters and the representation of juveniles are only beginning to be filled. With the increasing complexities of law and society, many positions previously being filled by laymen may now become attractive to lawyers. Prof. Alford F. Conard of the University of Michigan, President of the Association of American Law Schools, has warned that insufficient legal education facilities could result in a lawyer shortage. Studies by the staff of United States News and World Report indicate that about the right number of lawyers are being produced to keep with present demands. There seems to be no reason to expect anything other than an increasing opportunity for lawyers. II The Student Bar II By Robert W. Keats The Student Bar Association oegan the 1971-72 administration by providing the Law School and its students with new equipment and services of a magnitude never before offered. The following major services have already been provided to stimulate and aid the legal education. SERVICES TO THE STUDENT 1). In order to improve the quality of communications directed to the student boody from both the S.B.A. and Law School administration, the S.B.A. has purchased a large metal SIGNBOARD which is located in the foyer of the main law building. Only S.B.A. announcements of events and important administrative announcements of interest to the students will be placed on this board. Students are encouraged to note these announcements every day. 2). The Student Bar LOUNGE located on the ground floor of the Law School Annex was completed this summer. The lounge was provided by a special fund donated by Ben Washer. Students are encouraged to use this lounge. 3) After negotiations resulting in excessive bids from over seven Chicago and Louisville electronics companies the S.B.A. decided to undertake on its own installation of a long overdue SOUND SYSTEM for the Allen Court Room. 4). In order to offer another long overdue reliable service, the S.B.A. has completed negotiations and is providing a XEROX COPY MACHINE. The copier, which is located in the hallway outside the Law Library journal room, will provide copies for a nickel (5c) per copy. Those students who receive bad copies on the copier are encouraged to return the bad copies to the librarian for a full refund. 5). The SIB.A. has presented several recommendations and QUESTIONS TO THE DEAN of the Law School. Questions and complaints most often asked by students this term have been answered by return letter which is posted on the S.BA. bulletin board located on the lower level of the Law School building. (The S.B.A. makes every effort to arbitrate student complaints and keep the student informed. The S.B.A. has found the Dean and the Law School factulty receptive and timely in returning an answer or opinion to the students.) 6). At the beginning of the fall semester all law students were notified by mail of the S.B.A. BOOK EXCHANGE. The book exchange provided law students with the opportunity to sell their books for a greatcampus book store. It also offered the er amount than offered for return by the buyer the best deal on used books that could not be matched by the campus store. The S.B.A. is opening negotiations with the leading law publishing com-panies in order to determine the feasibility of purchasing new books at a lower cost than now offered by the campus store. Early results of this investigation are encouraging, and it may be possible in the future for the S.B.A. to provide new books to law students at a reduced price. 7). The S.B.A. PHONE DIRECTORY is again offered this year. It is a compilation of accurate addresses and phone numbers of law students which will provide greater ease in calling for that class assignment. In order not to discriminate, the night students will be included with the day students in one mass phone directory. 8). Those students who type their notes, outlines, and examinations will be pleased to note that six new Royal TYPEWRITERS have been provided by the S.B.A. The machines are located in the Law Library journal room. These new typewriters will relieve the frustrations of those wjho had to type on our old W.W.II rejects. Students who type are asked to exercise ordinary care in order that unnecessary service and expense will be prevented. 9). Another first in S.B.A. history is the offering of a PHOTO SERVICE to seniors. In conjunctoion with the University of Louisville Yearbook and the Shillito photo service the senior law student will be able to (a) include his photo in the U of L Yearbook, (b) obtain smaller photos for himself, and (c) be included in a law school composite, all for only $5.00. This service to students is recommended by the S.B.A. since it provides the senior with a much needed recent photo for his resume and also provides the school with a composite which it will hang on the bare walls of the Ben Washer Lounge. Complete details of this service are located on the S.B.A. bulletin board. 10). A periodic S.B.A. NEWSLETTER will be offered this year. After several non-productive years, the Newsletter has been revived by editor Ed Kagan (72). First copies of the newsletter will be posted on the S.B.A. bulletin board. The Newsletter is intended to keep the law student knowledgeable of his organizations affairs. Students who wish to include articles are encouraged to notify the editor. 11). The BRANDEIS LECTURE SERIES in honor of Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis is sponsored by the S.B.A. and is under the leadership of Chairman Julius Steiner (72). The lecture series has already proved successful with its early speakers: Senator Samuel J. Ervin, Jr. the Senate's foremost constitutional authority who spoke to an over flowing courtroom September 24th; and Alan N. Palasky who spoke October 15th on the policy and practice of tax law. Other notable lecturers who are expected to appear in the series are Senator Marlow W. Cook of Kentucky for November, and Senator John Sherman Cooper, also of Kentucky, for January 1972. Tentative lectures for the spring semester include Senator Edward M. Kennedy, John E. Mitchell, and Justice William 0. Douglas. 12). The S.B.A. SOCIAL PROGRAM began the year with much to be desired. However, a more complete effort is being made on the part of the social committee headed by Diane Donoghoe (72) to provide improved social affairs. The S.B.A. is proposing a cocktail party every month and also intends to promote the gala Barristers' Ball in honor of retiring A. C. Russell, former ean and istinguished Professor of Law. 13). The University of Louisville S.B.A. was host on September 17th and 18th to the LAW SCHOOL DIVISION of the American Bar Association. Representatives from law schools in the 6th circuit were present at Stouffers for two days of concentrated discussion on problems confronting law students and the LSD-ABA organization. The S.B.A. hopes this convention stimulated thought among the delegates in order to form a stronger national organization of law students. 1). The S.B.A. under the direction of Wesley Gersh recently compiled the FACULTY EVALUATION which was conducted during the spring 1971 semester. The results of this student effort was not intended to harass the faculty. FALL, 1971 THE LOmSVILLE LAWYER Page 5 At LaGrange Reformatory Dodd Tells Effects of Criminal Conviction Editor's Note: The following paper was presented to the Inmate Chapter of the Jaycees at Lagrange Reformatory by Christopher J. Dodd. Society has provided numerous criminal sanctions for persons found guilty of violating the law: death, incarceration, fines, and various forms of conditional release. However, the sanctioning process actually begins prior to conviction and, in most cases, continues long after the ex convict has served his sentence. These other sanctions are normally referred to as Civil Disabilities, but in reality they are nothing more than what social scientists call stigmas. In many ways the stigma of a prior conviction is much more devastating than the actual sentence prescribed by law. Not only may a person face a prison sentence, he may also permanently lose his right to vote, to hold office or public or private trust, to serve as a juror or witness in a court of law, to pursue professional occupations, to enter contracts, to obtain insurance and to even manage his own property. I am sure there are many inmates who, if they accepted guilty please, were uninformed of the civil rights they would forfeit as incident to their convictions. The cruel and hard fact is that in the United States today when an ex-convict walks away from prison he will be certain to suffer civil disabilities which cannot be overcome by good works or the passage of time. Many of the official stigmas which exist today are the result of ancient law based on archaic principles of human justice. In the Greek and Roman civilizations a civil disability resulting from a crime wlas called "infamy." Any person pronounced "infamous" lost, among other things, his right to appear in court, to vote, to make speeches, to attend assemblies, an dto serve in the army. With the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Germanic tribes of Europe and England, civil disabilities became much more primitive in practice. Pr1or to the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Anglo- Saxons imposed civil disabilities called "outlawry.'~ The practice of "outlawry'' was based on the premise that a convict had "declared war on the community," therefore the community had a right to retaliate by whatever means thought reasonable. So severe was this retaliation that a man convicted of a srime rarely escaped death. Between 1066 and 1870, a new procedure of civil disabilities appeared called "attainder." Any person convicted of treason or a felony was declared "attained." The consequences of attainder were forfeiture of all property, corruption of blood and loss of all civil rights. Since the principle goals of English criminal jurisprudence were retribution and deterence, punishments were often extremely harsh-death being the usual sentence. In the reign of Henry vm 72,000 persons were hanged, and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth vagabonds wfere hanged in groups of three and four hundred. Yet not only was the sentence severe, but the manner of execution laws frequently brutal. A death sentence could be carried out by hanging, beheading, burning at the stake, boiling alive, or mutilation of the convicted man's body. Inherant in the concept of deterence was the belief in social degredation. The use of stigmatic mutilations such as branding, and deforming the hands, ears, tongue and other parts of the body made the convicted person more easily identifiable in society long after he had paid his debt. The history of early American Criminal Jurisprudence was very similar to the English concept. However, after gaining our independence, the gravity of penal sanction was reduced, yet the practice of imposing civil disabilities continued to play an important role in the treatment of convicts. Despite the claim of many that the penal system in this country has become too lenient--everry state has civil disability laws on its books. These civil disability laws can be divided into two categories: civil death statutes and specific disability statutes. Civil death statutes are all encompassing provisions that deprive a convict of rights while he is serving a prison sentence. Specific disability statutes stipulate particular disabilities that become operative at the time of conviction and continue throughout an ex-convicts' life unless the right is rested by state procedure. Underlying these laws is the judicial and legislative conclusion that once a person is convicted of a crime he is permanently corrupt. It is indisputable that people who are untrustworthy should be prevented from holding positions that demand public or private confidence, but it is entirely fallacious to conclude that a prior felony conviction conclusively and permanently indicates such untrustworthiness, and any civil disability statutes w\hich are based on this premise would appear to be constitutionally defective. KENTUCKY Following the majority of jurisdiction in the United States, Kentucky provides civil disabilities resulting from criminal conviction. In particular, a felony conviction in Kentucky excludes an ex-convict from voting, and holding public office. In addition an ex-felon may be prohibited from entering professional schools such as law, medicine, or engineering. He may not be able to testify in a court of law or serve as a juror and may find it difficult to obtain work. These disabilities are statutory and for the most part continue after a sentence has expied unless a pardon or restoration of civil rights is procurred from the governor. Prior to the deprivation of a man's civil rights in Kentucky two essentials must be present: (1) there must be a conviction, and (2) the conviction must be for a felony. Kentucky adheres to the rule that a conviction occurs only after there has been a determination of kuilt and a pronouncement of judgment and sentence. Thus, if a court adjudicates a defendant guilty and imposes a sentence, but suspends execution of the sentence and places the offender on probationthere is still a conviction. However, if the court suspends imposition of the judgment and the sentence and puts the defendent on probation-there is no conviction and civil disabilities cannot be inflicted. In Kentucky a felony is defined as any offense which is punishable by death or confinement in the state penintentiary. Unlike the majority of states, Kentucky seemingly follows the policy that specific disability statutes are only applicable to convictions by Kentucky (Wood vs. Wood, 264 S.W. 2d 260-Ky. 1954-) Courts. The rationale for adhering to such a policy is based on the principle of common law rather than on legislative intent. The imposition of a civil disability on the basis of a conviction in a foreign court would constitute a penalty in Kentucky for the commission of a crime elsewhere, thus contravening the common law doctrine. This rule is not without exemptions. In 1957 a Kentucky court held that a conviction in a competent court of another jurisdiction bars a person from voting in Kentucky unless an execution pardon from the governor restores his civil rights. A felony conviction in a federal court however. has the same effect on a convict's civil rights as does a Kentucky conviction. CIVIL DISABILITIES IN KENTUCKY RESULTING FROM A FELONY CONVICTION RIGHT TO VOTE Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution sttes that: 1. Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the general assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage. But persons excluded may be restored by executive pardon. 2. Persons wjho at the time of election, are in confinement under the judgment of the court for some penal offense . . . (shall be denied the right to vote). Thus not only may a person incarcerated be denied voting rights, but once his sentence expires the civil disability will continue unless he petitions for restoration of his civil rights. RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE Under section 150 of the Kentucky Constitution a convicted felon is prohibited from holding private or public offices of trust unless his civil rights are restored. All persons shall be excluded from office who have been, or shall hereafter be, convicted of a felony, or of such high misdemeanor as may be perscribed by law, but such disability may be removed by pardon of the governor. Persons who are convicted of bribery, forgery, perjury or any felony while in office shall be removed, and a subsequent pardon by the governor will not reinstate them to their former position. K.R.S. 61. 040 Although of little significance in this day and age, the state constitution also prohibits those persons who are involved in a duel from holding public office. K.R.S. Section 239 EMPLOYMENT OF EX-CONVICTS Of all the collateral effects that an ex-convict suffers as a result of his felony conviction, the most serious is the problem of obtaining employment after release from prison. Until recently, an ex-felon found it all but impossible to get a job. Employers, like the majority of people, were hesitant to trust anyone who had a previous criminal record. The sigmas of prior convictions are still present, but recent legislation has improved an ex-felons' chances of meaningful employment. The federal government has provided funds to bond any ex-convict for as much as $10,000 as an incentive to employers to hire ex-convicts. Missouri, Illilois and California, are states which have enacted legislation prohibit~ employers from inquiring as to an applicants criminal record. Generally, there are no limitations on the kind of employment an ex-felon can obtain. However, as a practical matter conviction for certain crimes will preclude an ex-felon from some kinds of employment. For example, a person convicted of -arson would probably not be employed at a munitions plant. Former convicts can find employment with the post office, the military and most federal, state and local agencies. In Kentucky, an ex-convict is prohibited from being employed by the police or fire departments. However, in some jurisdictions ex-felons are actively recruited by the police. The Kentucky State Employment Service has special programs to assist exfelons procure work by "matching'' the applicant to the job, taking into consideration the ex-con's skills, background and record. Ultimately, however, it is the employer's choice. There are no specific lawt> which force employers to hire ex-felons, or prohibit employers from denying work to former convicts due to their criminal records. EXECUTIVE PARONS AND RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS The Kentucky Constitution provides two procedures by which an ex-convict can regain his full rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. The first way is by obtaining an executive pardon. The executive pardon is a directive issued by (Continued on page 6) SenatQ'/' Sam Ervin began the 1971-72 Brandeis Lecture Series discussing the issue of "FEAR OF FREEDOM" dealing with such topics as civil rights, religious liberties, and the D.C. crime bill. Other lectures for the first semester include Alan N. Polasky and Senator Marlow W. Cook. Page6 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 19'71 Dodd at LaGrange (Continued from page 5) the governor returning a pernon to society. RIGHT TO TESTIFY According to Kentucky Revised Statutes 421.090 any person who has been convicted of perjury or making false statements is precluded from testifying in a court of law. Specifically the statute declares that A person convicted of any of the offenses described in K.R.S. 432.160 to K.R.S. 432.180 (perjury and false statements) shall ever afterward be disqualified from giving evidence in any judicial proceeding, or from being a witness in any case whatever except that he may testify in his own behalf in a criminal prosecution. Unlike other civil disability statutes, disqualification of a witness due to a prior conviction of perjury or false statements is permanent, and a restoration of civil rights will not restore this privilege. This law, however, only applies to perjury or false statement convictions. A person convicted of any other felony is competent to testify, and there is no prerequisite of pardon or restoration of civil rights. RIGHT TO SERVE AS JUROR The privilege of sitting in judgment of one's peers is also denied to a former felon unless he has been pardoned by the governor. No person shall be qualifieod as a juror for service on a grand or petit jury unless he is a citizen and for the preceding year has been a resident of the country wherein called to serve, at least 21 years of age, sober, temperate, discreet, and of good demeanor, not under indictment, and, if convicted of a felony has been pardoned. K.R.S. 29.025. Although there is no law which explicitly excludes former felons from entering professional schools such as law or medicine, a record of previous conviction for a felony will in many instances preclude an applicant from acceptance. At the University of Louisville Law School if an applicant has a previous conviction-the dean will inquire of the state bar association if the conviction would prohibit the person from receiving a license to practice law and make his decision accordingly. Medical schools follow 'the same procedure. However, in the field of engineering and land surveying former felons are prohibited from receiving a license. No person shall be eligible for a license unless he is of good character and reputation, nor shall any person be eligible if he has been convicted of any felony ..... K.R.S. 322.050 Normally, any professional person who is convicted of a felony will have his license revoked, and any subsequent pardon or· reinstatement of civil rights will not reinstore him to his former position. The executive pardon can be given to persons presently incarcerated, but examples of this have been rare in recent years. An illustration of one case was the recent decision by the governor to pardon a man who was suffering from terminal cancer. The man was permitted to return home to be with his family for his final days. He died one month after his release from prison. A misconception held by many is that an executive pardon erases a person"s record of criminal conviction. This is not the case. The second way by which an ex-con viet can recover his lost privileges is through an executive order restoring his civil rights. Although much more readily obtained than the executive pardon, the restoration of civil rights has the same effect as an executive pardon. The only significant difference between the twb procedures is that the executive pardon is awarded under exceptional circumstances. Restoration of civil rights is a rather simple procedure that is rarely denied provided the applicant meets the minimum standards and requirements. 1) The applicant must have either served his complete sentence, or be on probation or parole. 2) If the applicant petitions immediately when released from prison or released on probation or parole, he need only submit his request for restoration of civil rights through the ivision of Probation and Parole of the epartment of Corrections. 3) If the applicant delays petitioning for six months after being placed on probation or released on parole, or six months after his sentence has expired; he must submit three letters of recommendation from officials in the county where he resides. 4) The letters of recommendation must be sent along with his application form to the Division of Probation and Parole. 5) The Division of Probation and Parole will then verify the information on the application, check the petitioner's parole record, check the court records and the letters of recommendation and finally forward the applicant to the governor for final appr?val. 6) In addition to a $200.00 fee, the applicant must have his petition for restoratiton of civil rights notarized and signed by his parole officer. The principle of executive pardons and restoration of civil rights goes back to the old common law theory that a person who violates a law of society forfeits his right as a citizen, thus only through executive pardons can a man regain his rights as a citizen. As a completely gratuitous act by the chief executive, a pardon hardly seems a cure for the statutory deprivations of important rights. Does it not seem unfair that once a man has paid his . so called debt to society, society should still penalize him further? Should we not indulge in the presumption that once a man has been allowed to regain his felloW1 citizens, he should have the rights of any other citizen? Although it appears petitions to restore one's civil rights are rarely if ever denied, who can say that one day a governor may not abuse his discretion and deny ex-convicts their right to participate in society as full citizens? Unfortunately, the civil disability laws run counter to the philosophy of rehabilitation and belong more appropriately with the discarded idea that convicts should be punished and then banished from society. In reality these laws frustrate the rehabilitative process by increasing the liklihood of recividism. As one commentator has said, "It will be appreciated that these disprivileges can so handicap an individual as to make it difficult for him to live honestly after release." In Kentucky the civil disability laws operate rather simply. The prosecutor proves his case and the jury signs away a possible military career, a professional practice, position of responsibility and in some instances the right to participate in the electoral process. The effects of the juries' decision is not erased by time; and the heedless acts of a youth tend to conclusively establish the bad character of a reformed and wiser man. Senator Ervin Addresses Brandeis Lecture Group (Remarks Prepared by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina, for delivery to the School of Law of the University of Louisville, in connection with the Brandeis Lecture Series at Louisville, Kentucky on Friday, September 4, 1971. FEAR OF FREEDOM Freedom of the Individual Freedom for the individual was bought for us long ago by the blood, sweat, tears, and prayers of multitudes of men and women, great and small. The Founding Fathers esteemed it life's supreme value. They so testified by declaring in the preamble to the Constitution that they ordained and established that instrument to preserve the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. Freedom is hard to win or preserve, but easy to lose. The price of its keeping is eternal vigilance, and this vigilance will be exercised only by those stouthearts who love freedom above all things and are always ready to do battle for it against its enemies, doubt and fear. Doubt lacks faith in freedom and fear is afraid of freedom. When doubt and fear prevail, government becomes tyrannous, and people become tolerant of tyranny. Tbe Bill of Rights The Founding Fathers apprehended these truths. Moreover, they were aware that history repeats itself. For these reasons, they knew that the tyrannies of the past would be attempted in the future in the land for which they were creating a government; that the government they were creating would undert11-ke in time of doubt and fear to suppress by sharp measures exercises of freedom displeasing to it; and that freedom itself would thereby be put in peril unless it was protected by irrepealable constitutional law. And so the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to place freedom beyond the reach of any President or any Congress who might doubt the wisdom of America's commitment to freedom or fear its exercise by Americans. The aim of the Bill of Rights is aptly described in these words in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certtain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." A Time of Doubt and Fear Ours is a time of doubt and fear. So~e nations threaten the peace of the world and the security of our coun-try. Violent crime stalks our land. In the recent past, riotous mobs have burned and looted in some of our cities; and disquieting agitators have staged violent, and hence unlawful demonstrations on public streets and college campuses. These things have frightened many Americans, including some in high offices. These Americans have lostt faith in America's commitment to freedom. They demand the abridgment of historic freedoms of our people, and attempt to justify their dem;and by the plea that there is no other way to obtain security for our land. Let us reject this plea with words uttered by William Pitts, the younger, in the House of Commons in 1783: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." And let us remind ourselves of the admonition given to Americans by Benjamin Franklin in even more troublous times: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I am not among those who doubt and fear. I hasten to affirm, however, that I do not view the threat from abroad or the crime at home with complacency. They present problems of the gravest nature. There are, however forthright and rational ways to confront these problems without abridging basic freedoms. America W'ill remain the land of the free only if it remains the home of the brave. Free men can confront the threat to our national security by keeping their hearts in courage and patience and being prepared to lift up their hands in strength; and a free society can combat crime effectively only by affording speedy and fair trials to those charged with criminal acts and imposing appropriate sentences on the ones adjudged guilty. Targets of Abridgm,ent Americans of little faith and much fear have adopted as targets of abridgment the historic right of persons arrested for non-capital federal offenses to be free on bail while awaiting trial, the ancient right of the people to regard their homes as their castles and to be secure against unjustifiable intrusions by government on their privacy, their personal liberty, and their private property, and the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly of those individuals and groups whose thoughts and words are displeasing to government. Let us consider these matters in the order of their statement. The Right to Pretrial Release on Bail The Bastille is history's most accursed prison. Within its walls, the Kings of France imprisoned without trial for periods determinable by their wills men and women who criticized the government or those in power. The Kings justified their tyranny by asserting that they detained these men and women to prevent them from committing future crimes. French revolutionaries stormed and razed the Bastille while the Bill of Rights and the Judiciary Act of 1789 were being formulated. The drafters of these instruments were determined that there should be no Bastilles in America. To this end, they provided in the Judiciary Act that all persons arrested for noncapital federal offenses shall have an absolute right to release on bail while awaiting trial, and they decreed in the Eighth Amendment that excessive bail shall not be required of them. When Congress conferred on it power to prescribe rules of criminal procedure for federal courts, the Supreme Court continued the absolute right to pretrial release originally embodied in the Judiciary Act of 1789 by expressly stipulating in Rule 46 that a "person arrested for an offense not punishable by death shall be admitted to bail." The Bail Reform Act of -966, which I authored, expanded this right by establishing alternative ways for persons arrested for non-capital federal crimes to obtain release from custody pending trial (Continued on page 7) FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 7 Senator Ervin at UL (Continued from page 6) if their poverty disables them to give monetary bond. I omit discussion of the controversial question whether the somewhat enigmatic Eighth Amendment guarantees to every person arrested for a noncapital federal offense a constitutional right to release on bail pendi-\lg trial. I do assert, however, that the rule established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and preserved in Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Eighth Amendment itself reflect the sound philosophy that a free society must take certain risks in order to remain free, and that among such risks is the risk that a person arrested for a non-capital federal crime may flee or commit crime if he is released on bail while awaiting trial. When campaigning for the Presidency, President Nixon stressed the law-andpotency for several reasons. The Amerorder issue, which had much vote-getting ican people had naturally become apprehensive for the safety of their persons and properties because of the increase in crime. They had become appalled by the interminable delays in the administration of criminal justice in trial and appellate courts. They had become dismayed, moreover, by Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who had apparently forgotten that society and the victims of crim,e are as much entitled to justice as the accused, and who had fashioned new rules compelling trial courts to permit convicted criminals to relitigate repeatedly the validity of their convictions, and limiting the admissibility in tril courts of the most convincthe voluntary confession of an accused ing testimony known to mankind, namely, that he perpetrated the crime alleged, and the testimony of an eye witness that he saw the accused commit the crime charged. After his inauguration, President Nixon made some sound recommendations for congressional legislation in respect to the administration of criminal justice. Unforttunately, however, he obscured these recommendations and delayed their enactment and implementation by insisting that Congress forsake the traditions of our land and enact preventive detention laws, 'no-knock" laws, and other repressive measures. He specifically urged Congress to enact a nation-wide preventive detention law. Under his proposal, a federal judge will be empowered to deny immediate release on bail or its equivalent to any person arrested for a dangerous or violent noncapital federal offense and to imprison him for 60 days without trial on the merits if the judge finds in a preliminary hearing where the rules of evidence do not obtain that such person will present some undefined danger to another person or the community if he is granted pretrial release from custody. The provision requiring a preliminary hearing as a condition precedent to the entry of an order of preventive detention and limiting the period of preventive detention to 60 days were included inPresident Nixon's proposal in deference to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Wlhich undoubtedly places severe restrictions on the power of the federal government to deprive a person of his liberty because it fears he may commit a crime in the future if he is not detained. President Nixon has been unable thus far to persuade Congress to adopt his nation-wide proposal, but he has managed to induce it to impose a similar proposal on the crime-riden District of Columbia. Unfortunately, this even occurred before a study made by the National Bureau of Standards was made public. The Bu-reau studied the subsequent records during a protracted period of time of persons arrested in the District of Columbia for dangerous or violent crimes and released on bail or its equivalent during four selected weeks in the first six months of 1968, and found that the facts refute the basic asumptions which underlie the demand for preventive detention laws, -,anamely, that persons arrested for dangerous or violent crimes have a high propensity to be rearrested for subsequent offenses of a serious nature, and that judges can accurately predict those who wil be dangerous if released. The study revealed that only 5 percent of the persons arrested for dangerous or violent crim,es were rearrested for subsequent serious crimes during the protracted period covered by it; and that virtually all of the rearrests occurred more than four months after the original arrests. While the advocacy of preventive detention may have political value as a symbol of devotion to law-and-order, the study of the National Bureau of Standards and experience under the Districtt of Columbia preventive detention law demonstrate that preventive detention is worthless as a weapon against crime. Indeed, it will prove worse than worthless if employed on a substantial scale. By adding the preliminary hearings on the detention issue to the dockets, it will actually delay courts in trying criminal cases on the merits and thus impede the prompt administration of criminal justice. Besides, it will inevitably result in the imprisonment of m.any innocent persons because judges do not possess the predictive power to select out of 100 persons the 5 who will prove to be dangerous to others or the community if granted pretrial release. Because of these things and the difficulty of reconciling it with the "ordered liberty" which due process of law commands, preventive detention has no rational or rightful place in our land. Consequently, Congress ought to repeal the shameful District of Columbia preventive detention law, spurn the President's request for a similar nation-wide law, and cling to the tradition which had its origin in the first year of our Republic's existence. By adhering to the historic right of persons arrested for noncapital federal offense to be released on bail or its equivalent while awaiting trial, America will continue to administer criminal justice in a way which commends itself to free men. Such a course of action promotes the fair and just administration of justice. This is true because it makes the presum; ption of innocence a realitty; enables the accused to assist his laWYer in preparing his defense; permits the accused to retain his job, support his family, and live in his own home pending trial; saves the taxpayers the expense of maintaining the accused in jailed idleness and suporting his family on relief pending his trial; minimizes the overcrowding of inadequate and already crowded jails; insures that no innocent accused will be stigmatized by imprisonment for a crime he did not commit; and honors the dream of the Founding Fathers that there shall be no Bastiles in America. Every Man's Home Is His Castle The deepest hunger of the human heart is for a home in which one ffilll.Y have privacy, exercise personal liberty, and enjoy safety free from unjustifiable intrusions by government or law-breakers. Ages ago the Prophet Micah pictured this hunger with eloquence by describing the mountain of the Lord as a place where "they shal sit every man under his vine SEA's first dance of the year showed some encoumging signs and it is hopeful that future parties wil draw la1·ger student participation. He?·e Pete McDonald seems to be asking his wife when the next dance is scheduld. It wiU be in January and Broderick is hopeful that Pete and the rest of the student body will attend. and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid." When it was emerging from the mists of history, the common law of England undertook to satisfy this hunger by declaring that every man's home is his castle, and that every man may resist to the utmost unidentified persons who undertake to enter his home against his will. This principle of the common law was judicially recognized and applied in Semayne's Case, which was decided in 1603 and which declares: "The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose." This principle of law is not absolute as against government. It must yield on rare occasions if an overriding public purpose demands that government make an entry into a home. But even on those rare occasions, government may enter only if it uses means which insure that its power to enter is not abused. In recognition of this the Court further declared in Semayne's Case: "In all cases where the King is party, the Sheriff 'if the doors be not open' may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the King's process, if otherwise he canot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make requests to open doors." In opposing a proposal to collect an excise on cider by methods which abridged the concept embodied in the maxim every man's home is his castle, William Pitt, the elder, expressed the veneration of Englishmen for the principle of law embodied in such concept by this statement in the House of Commons: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter. Al his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." When they migraed from England to America, the colonists brought with them a proud attachment to this principle of the common law. Hence, it is not surprising that the people of Boston rebelled when officers of the British Crown entered and ransacked their homes and places of business under general warrants to collect taxes imposed upon them by Parliament. This outrage was one of the tyranies which provoked the American Revolution. After Independence was won, the Founding Fathers incorporated this principle of the common law in the Fourth Amendment, which reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment protects the occupant of a house from an unannounced entry by an officer of the law. Even though he has a legal right to enter a house to ~ake a lawful arest or execute a lawful search warrant, an officer is prohibited by the Amendment from attempting to do so unless he first announces his identity and purpose to the occupant and is refused admittance by him. This requirement has this two-fold objective: (1) To protect the privacy, personal liberty, and safety of the occupant; and () to protect the officer from the danger of violent injury or death at the hands of the occupant, who might otherwise mistake him for a burglar. The requirement of prior announcement of identity and purpose is subject to limited exceptions, which are stated in Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 48. The opinion rightly asserts that the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unannounced entry of officers into a house, "except (1) where the persons within already know of the officers' authority and purpose, or (2) where the officers are justified in the belief that persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or (3) where those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door) are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers in the belief that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted. Manifestly the facts which call any of these exceptions into play cannot be known to an officer until he arrives at the house where the arrest or search is to be made. Crime and dangerous drugs present hard problems. Hard problems are the quicksands of sound legislation. In 1970, Congress enacted two "noknock" laws. One of these is embodied in the District of Columbia CoCurt Reform Act (P.L. 91-358), and regulates arrests and search warrants for all purposes in the District of Columbia; and the other is incorporated in the Drug Control Act (P.L. 91-513) and regulates search warrants for discovery of dangerous drugs or controlled substances as defined in the Act throughout the country. The District of Columbia Act contains two unprecedented provisions. One of them empowers a judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcem\ent officer ex- (Contlnued on page 8) W4t 1Jlnutnutllt 1Jlawytr FORM 3547 REQUESTED Senator Ervin (Continued fTcnn page 7) press authority to break and enter any dwelling house or other building in the District to execute an arrest warrant without giving the occupants notice of his identity and purpose if the judicial officer finds that "such notice is likely to enable the party to be arrested to escape" and the other empowers a judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcement officer express authority to break and enter any dwelling house or other building in the District to execute a search warrant without giving the occupants notice of his identity and purpose if the judicial officer finds (A) that "such notice is likely to result i:h the evidence subject to seizure being easily and quickly destroyed or disposed of'; or (B) that 'such notice is likely to endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person", or (C) that "such notice would be a useless gesture." The Drug Control Act empowers a federal judicial officer to confer upon a law enforcement officer express authority to break and enter any building to execute a search warrant for the discovery of dangerous drugs or controlled substances without giving the occupants notice of his authority and purpose if the judicial officer finds (A) that "the property sought may and, if such notice is given, wil be easily and quickly destroyed or d1sposed of," or (B) that "the giving of such notice will immediately endanger the life or safety of the executing officer or another person." In attempting thus to abrogate the constitutional obligation of an officer to give notice of his identity and purpose before he undertakes to break and enter a house to make an arrest or search, these noknock statutes offend the letter, the spirit, and the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Neither Congress nor any official acting under its authority can nulify a constittutional requirement o nthe ground that obedience to it "would be a useless gesture." The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be made to hang on such an arbitrary and brittle thread. Moreover, these no-knock laws do not bring the unprecedented powers they attempt to create within any of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement of prior notice of identity and purpose. To be sure, they pay lip service to the Fourth Amendment by stating that the extraordinary warrants cannot be issued except upon probable cause. Probable cause can only be established by facts which exists and are made known to a judician officer at the time he acts on an application for an arrest or search warrant. It cannot be predicated upon prophesies or suspicions or fears as to what the conduct of the occupants of a distant house may be at some future time when an officer of the law reached the premises to make an arrest or search. Hence, there can really be no probable cause for the issuance of the extraordinary warants the no-knock laws undertake to sanction. Apart from constitutional considerations, no-knock laws are bad. If its people are to have respect for law, a nation must have respectable laws, and no law is respectable if its authorizes officers to act like burglars, and robs the people of the only means they have for determining whether those who seek to invade their habitations violently or by sealth are officers or burglars. When the Drug Control Act was under Senate consideration, I moved to strike the no-knock provision from it. I predicted at that time that its implementation would result in the deaths of both law enforcement officers and householders. Unfortunately, this unhappy prediction has materialized on a number of occasions. I do not condemn no-knock laws in ignorance of the terrible toll which crime and daugerous drugs exact from society. Dangerous drugs doom those who become addicted to them, shatter the happiness of the families of the addicts, and provoke much of the crime that haunts our land. The evil and selfish men who traffic in dangerous drugs for filthy lucre and bring these tragedies to pass deserve the harshest punishment the law sanctions. Despite these things, I cling to an abiding conviction that it is beter for lawmakers to permit some wrongdoers to escape than it is for them to sacrifice upon the altar of fear and doubt the ageold boast of Anglo-American law that every man's home is his castle. A freedom sacrificed is seldom resurrected. First Amendment Freedoms Time precludes detailed comment on recent efforts to abridge the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly of individuals or groups whose thoughts and words offend government or a majority of our citizens. These efforts find graphic illustrations in President Johnson's use of the Army to spy on civilians who exercised their freedoms of speech, association, and assembly to express their disapproval of administration policies, and President Nixon's attempt to bolster the power of the Supersive Activities Control Board to harass and stigiD\atize unhappy and foolish people, who have committed no crime. Conclusion The tides of fear are rising, and the anchors of faith are dragging. It is in such a time frightened humanity needs freedom most. Since courage is beter than fear, and faith is better than doubt, let us spurn fear, cherish faith, and dedicate ourselves to this proposition: Freedom is life's supreme value and must be preserved for ourselves and our prosterity, cost what it may. Henry Clay Senate Lauded By Ronald Bogle Reference is often made to quantity detracting from quality. Clearly, such is not the case with the Henry Clay Senate of the Delta Theta Phi Law Fraternity. Rather, the quantity has greatly added to the quality of our Senate. At the present time, our Senate boasts of 130 active members, and all contribute to make our Senate what it is. Further, this figure does not reflect the addition of our fall pledge class. Thus, it is easy to understand why the Henry Clay Senate is the largest student senate in the nation. Aside from being the largest student senate in the nation, our fraternity was honored last year by being named the Outstanding National Student Senate, and was named this past summer as the Outstanding Regional Senate. Such high honors are not easily achieved or lightly taken in view of the high degree of competition from the 74 student senates across the nation. Rather, they are prestigious awards granted on the basis of high scholastic achievement, law school activities, campus-wide activities, fraternity projects, individual achievements, and activities with alumni and other student senates. Clearly, the Henry Clay Senate is a proven leader in all of these categories. However, the greatest achievement of our Senate would appear to be in the category of scholastic achievement, and law school activities. We are especially proud of the contributions of our Senate in scholastic achievements and activities. To begin with, the student with the highest scholastic average in each class is a Delt. At the present time, five of the six editorial positions on the Journal of Family LaLw, including the Editor-in-Chief, are held by Delts. At Awards Day last spring, all four awards granted to the students making the most significant contribution to overall legal scholarship went to mem- Lex Fillies (Continued ff'cnn page l) Professor Ann Scott, author of The Southern Lady and Professor of History at Duke University, discussed the history of the woman in America. Professor Scott revealed that although 17th century American women performed the same physical work as men, 19th century industrialization resulted in removing hard work from the home and women "allowed themselves to be transformed from part of the economy to status symbols." According to Professor Scott, notable exceptions to this raditionally defined role for women existed but awareness of women's contributions is limited due to the fact that they have been overlooked by historians. The workshops conducted included in part Placements Problems, Women in the hers of the Henry Clay Senate. Of the 93 Book Awards, i.e. awards presented to those students with the highest grade in designated courses, 47 were presented to Delts. Also, the ODK Award to the Outstanding Senior Male(s) went to two brothers. In addition, four brothers were elected to Phi Kappa Phi. Needless to say, we are proud of our scholastic achievements. But we are also proud of our accomplishments and participation in law school activities. The present and past Presidents of the Student Bar Association are members of our Senate, and Delts hold 6 of the 11 positions open to them on the SBA Executive Committee. Further, the present and past Presidents of the Moot CoCurt Club are Delts, as are 5 of the 8 members of the Moot Court Executive Board. The winner of last spring's Moot Court Competitio nis a Delt, as are two of the three members of our National Moot Court team. Clearly, these are impressive feats, but our fraternity is not all work. Social activities play a major role in our fraternity, and they assist in keeping our fraternity a close and unified body. This includes not only activities within the student senate, but, also, with our alumni senate. Intramural athletics play a role in our activities. Not only are we the only law school fraternity, but we are the only fraternity from any graduate school to participate in the graduate school intramural activities. Certainly, we are proud of our fraternity. The brothers of the Henry Clay Senate of Delta Theta Phi have contributed much to the University of Louisville School of Law, and later to the Louisville and Kentucky Bar Associations. With the quality of our brotherhood, it is easy to understand why we have contributed much, and easier to understand why we will contribute more. Criminal Justice System, Recruitment and Admission of Women to Law Schools, Women in Politics, Women and Welfare, Minority Women, The Professional Woman and her Role in the Family Structure, Abortion, and Radical Women. The workshop on Placement Problems was conducted by Karla Harbin, a Legal Aid attorney in Durham, N.C. Ms. Harbin indicated safeguards against sex discrimination in employment included Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. s 200(e)) and President Nixon's executive order forbidding sex discrimination within the federal government, as the federal government is exempt from Title VII. Ms. Harbin attempted to forewarn women law students about some of the problems they will face in seeking employment as lawyers by presenting interview questions to anticipate. |
Subject |
University of Louisville. School of Law University of Louisville--Students University of Louisville--Alumni and alumnae University of Louisville--Faculty University of Louisville--Employees Law students Law & legal affairs Law and legislation--Kentucky Law and legislation--United States Law libraries Legal education Libraries |
Location Depicted |
Louisville (Ky.) Jefferson County (Ky.) |
Date Original | 1971-10 |
Object Type | Newspapers |
Source | Various-sized print newspapers published by students of the University of Louisville School of Law. The print edition may be found in the University of Louisville Law Library or the University of Louisville Archives and Records Center. |
Collection | Law Library Collection |
Collection Website | http://digital.library.louisville.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/law |
Digital Publisher | Law Library of the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville |
Format | application/pdf |
Ordering Information | The publications digitized in this collection are the property of the University of Louisville School of Law and are not to be republished for commercial profit. To inquire about reproductions, permissions, or for additional information, email lawlibrary@louisville.edu. |
Rating |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
F |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
J |
|
K |
|
L |
|
M |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
U |
|
V |
|
|
|