Louisville Law Examiner
Volume 5, Number 5
Results Challenged
Delahanty
Elected SBA
President
by Craig Bell
Kevin Delahanty, a second-year, day­division
student, has won election as the
next President of the Student Bar Associa­tion
(SBA) by receiving a vote of 117,
while 98 votes were cast for first year day
division student Frank Janoski. There were
15 write-in votes for David Payne, a third
year day division student and six write-in
votes cast for others not appearing on the
ballot. Mr. Delahanty's victory was not un­contested,
however, as his only rival appear­ing
on the ballot, Frank Janoski; chal­lenged
the results of the election to the
SBA Elections Committee, contending that
Mr. Delahanty did not receive "a simple
majority of all ballots cast as required by
the Constitution of the Student Bar As­sociation."
The reason that such a contention was
put forth is due in large part to the con­tested
candidacy of Mr. Payne, who will
soon graduate from the law school and is
therefore ineligible under Article V, Section
2 of the SBA Constitution, which states,
"No one may be a candidate who does
not have two semesters remaining in resi­dence
following the semester in which he is
elected. For purposes of this article the term
semester specifically excludes summer
semesters." Mr. Payne's attempts to have
his name placed on the ballot were refused
by the elections board which found that he
was ineligible to run for the position. Mr.
Payne then placed a number of posters in
various locations advocating that students
write in "Honest Dave" for a number of
humorous reasons, as part of a write-in
"joke candidacy."
Mr. Janoski filed his challenge with the
Elections Committee on February 20, 1980,
the day following the election. On Feb. 21,
the Elections Committee met in a closed
door session. The Examiner learned that
Mr. Janoski's arguments were (1) That
under the Constitution and rules of the
SBA "Kevin Delahanty did not receive a
simple majority of all ballots cast," and
(2) "Article V, Section 3, Paragraph 3 (c)
of the SBA Constitution' permits voters
to write in candidates." Mr. Janoski stated
that many students either believed Mr. Payne
was a legitimate candidate or voted for him
"" - as a means to register. various protests of
the SBA.
According to second-year student Bill
Britt and Ken Howard, a third year stu­dent,
both of whom are on the SBA Elec­tions
Committee, Mr. Janoski's arguments
were rejected after a hearing lasting approxi­mately
forty minutes. The Elections Com­mittee
determined that under the provi-sions
of the SBA Constitution, Mr. Payne
was not a "legitimatet:andidate" and there­fore
Mr. Delahanty did receive a majority
of the "valid votes cast." After the SBA
Elections Committee made its decision, Mr.
Janoski continued to express his view that
the arguments he put forth were neverthe­less
the valid views in this regard.
This is the first time that an election
result has ever been contested at the law
school.
Mr. Delahanty told The Examiner that as
Serving The University of Louisville School of Law Community
Louisville, Kentucky, March 6, 1980 Circulation 4100
Newly-elected SBA President Kevin Dela­hanty
speaks to students at a candidate
debate held on Feb. 18.
President he would work to eliminate the
so called "curve" grading system which he
believes exists within the law school. Like­wise,
he felt -a need to work for the establish­ment
of a new grievance procedure for the
law school but refused to comment on any
specific proposals he may have in this regard
until he discusses these matters with out­going
SBA President Matthew H. Welch.
In the other races for SBA offices, Ray
Haley was elected day Vice President; L.
Jude Clark, night Vice President; Daryl
Coffey, ABA/LSD Representative; Terri
Hasenouer, Treasurer; and Michael Luvisi,
Secretary.
In the races for Honor Council, Lucy
Helm and Bill Miller were elected as second­year
representatives, while Talia Lieberman,
Stan Whetzel, and Kevin Renf~o were elected
as third-year representatives.
In uncontested races for office on the
Moot Court Board, Bill Kenealy was elected
President; Tim Salansky, Day Vice Presi­dent;
Elenor Welch, Night Vice President;
Neil Warder, Treasurer; Linda Thomas,
Secretary; and Leslye Murray, Scott Furkin,
and Stan Whetzel were elected as at-large
representatives.
Law- School Team. Reaches
Sem.i-Final Round In
Mock Trial Com.petition
By Pat Chism
It was getting late. The plane was leaving
at 2:00, it was already 1 :30, and the win­ning
team had yet to be announced in the
semi-final rounds of the Regional Mock
Trial Competition held in Toledo, February
15-16. The two teams who represented the
University of Louisville School of Law,
along with faculty advisor Ronald Eades,
anxiously awaited the judges' decision.
Second-year students Barbara Hartung
and S,chuyler Olt had reached the semi­final
round where they faced a team to de­termine
which school would represent the
Sixth Circuit later this year at a national
competition to be held in Houston.
When it finally came, the decision was
close but disappointing. In a split decision
the Louisville team had lost. "One judge
went for us and two against, but one judge
had the other team winning by only one
point, so you can say we lost by one point,"
said Prof. Eades.
The trip to Toledo was the culmination
of an intraschool mock trial competition
that had been held several weeks earlier in
Louisville. Fourteen students, comprising
seven teams, had competed for the six spaces
available. The two teams who won, Pat
Mattingly-Chris Waklid and Hartung-Olt,
were joined by two individual winners who
were selected on a point basis: Kenneth
Adair and Tom Brule. Mr. Adair and Mr.
Brule each participated in Toledo as alter­nates.
The first round was double elimination;
both teams won and lost a round then pro­ceeded
into the next round where one loss
would cause elimination. Here the Hartung­Olt
team won and advanced into the semi­final
round. "We got into the semi-final on
points and we were the only team to do so.
All the others were undefeated," said Ms.
Hartung.
"The 'trial' lasts several hours and is a
very intense affair," explains Prof. Eades.
The trial this year involved a slander case
deriving from a shoplifting charge.
The national competition is sponsored
by the Young Lawyer's Association of the
Texas Bar Association. The country is
divided into regions with Kentucky included
with Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. The Uni­versity
of Louisville was the only Kentucky
team entered. There were no Indiana teams
and only two teams entered from Michigan.
Ohio law schools made up the bulk of the
teams.
"Our region is a tough region," said Prof.
Eades, "because some schools have a win­at-
any-cost attitude." Prof. Eades feels
"we are accomplishing the goal we want to:
meeting with students from other schools,
exchanging ideas and learning how they run
their programs. That is what makes the pro­grams
successful.
"Our students were very relaxed and at
ease. There was more pressure to win on
other schools. Some Ohio schools, as Day­ton
or Case-Western, take winning as the
only goal they want to accomplish."
Ms. Hartung agreed that the other schools
put an "amazing _effort" in their trial pro­grams
. . "Some of the participants give up
being on the Journal to be on the team.
Some of the schools have students arguing
against practicing attorneys, using video­taping,
have four or five types of trial
classes and even dramatic coaching."
Prof. Eades expects that many more intra­school
participants will join the competition
next year and is urging interested second or
third year students to be ready to compete.
"We have about 350 possible participants.
That's a pretty good group to filter a team
out of." He said that there are no prere­quisites
to participate as some schools have,
(continued on page 7)
The mock trial teams who represented the SchQol of La.w are, from left: Chris Waklid, Pat Mattingly, Schuyler Olt, Barbara Har­tung,
Tom Brule and Kenneth Adair.
2 Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
Hats Off To A Rule Change
Some of the inevitable tension students
experience when their thoughts turn to that
Final of Finals - the Kentucky Bar Exami­nation
- may be alleviated somewhat by a
new change recently adopted in the Rules
of the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Rule 2.090(3) previously stated that "no
person shall be permitted to take the Ken­tucky
Bar Examination who, subsequent to
December 5, 1951, has failed to pass upon
a total of three or more bar examinations
in one or more states including Kentucky
or the District of Columbia."
Effective May I, 1980, that rule has
been amended to read: "An applicant who
receives a general average of 75!1Jo or more
shall be deemed to have passed the examina­tion.
An applicant who receives less than
that percentage shall be deemed to have
failed the examination. An applicant who
fails to pass the examination may take
additional complete examinations. "
No, your eyes are not deceiving you:
There is no longer a "three's a charm"
limit for aspiring lawyers in Kentucky. And,
according to clerks for the Kentucky Supreme
Court, the new rule will also permit persons
to repeat the examination who had failed
it three times before the effective date.
This retroactive change deserves ap­plause.
The three-time limit, added after
the diploma privilege was abolished in 1902
and a written examination required, was
patently arbitrary in many instances and
contributed to the already nerve-wracking
nature of the exam itself. After three years
of intense study at an accredited law school,
it appeared vindictive to threaten graduates
with a make-it-or-break-it rule of doubtful
utility.
Although implementation of the new rule
may be a signal that stricter grading stand­ards
will be forthcoming, the unnecessary
burden that has been lifted is welcome.
GEORGE GERBNER
Dr. George Gerbner is the author of "Trial by Television: Point of No Return," Part
I of the Brandeis Brief article appearing in this issue of The Examiner. Dr. Gerbner is
professor of Communications and dean of The Annenberg School of Communications,
University of Pennsylvania. Before joining Penn in 1964, he taught at the Institute of Com­munications
Research, University of Illinois; the University of Southern California; and
El Camino College and John Muir College in California. He has served on the staff of
the San Francisco Chronicle and other newspapers, and was a member of OSS in World
War II. Born in Hungary, he came to the United States in 1939, received his B.A. from
the University of California at Berkeley, and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of
Southern California. He has directed U.S. and multi-national mass communications re­search
projects under contracts and grants from the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Office of Education, UNESCO, the International Sociological Association, the In­ternational
Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), the Eisenhower (Violence) Commis­sion
and the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social
Behavior. Dr. Gerbner's current research on "Cultural Indicators," including the tele­vision
"Violence Profile and Index" is conducted under a grant by the National Insti­tute
of Mental Health. He is the author and editor of numerous articles, reports, and books
on mass communications research, and is the editor of the quarterly Journal of Com­munication.
Part II of Dr. Gerbner's article will appear in the next issue of The Examiner.
Louisville Law Examiner
EDITORIAL BOARD
Sam B. Carl, Editor-in-Chief
Greg Yopp, Managing Editor
Elizabeth Ward, Associate Editor
John B. Wright, Jr., Business Manager
STAFF
Pat Chism, Photographic Editor
Scott Furkin, Photographer
Gerald "Bear" Schray, Artist
Jeffrey L. Wade, Brandeis Brief Editor
Craig Bell, Articles Editor
Pat Chism, Projects Editor
Judge MARLIN M. VOLZ, Advisor
Andy Altman
Frank Bush
Shaun Esposito
Bill Kenealy
Hall Sanders
Tom Schulz
Professor ALBERT T. QUICK, Consultant
The Louisville Law Examiner is published eight times during the academic year in the
interest of the University of Louisville School of Law community. Unsigned editorial opinions
are those representing a majority vote of the editorial board and do not necessarily express the
views of the School of Law or the University of Louisville.
Articles are invited from faculty members, students, and members of the bar who wish to do
freelance work, but any proposed article must be cleared in advance with the editor as to topic
and length. This is to avoid duplication of coverage and insure that the article will not be
beyond workable length for a newspaper format.
Address all communications to the Louisville Law Examiner, School of Law, University of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. Phone 502-588-6399.
11Brandeis Brief'' Series
Emerging Legal Issues
Trial by Television:
Point of No Return?
PART I
By George Gerbner
The Annenberg School of Communications
University of Pennsylvania
Television is moving into the American courtroom. The sudden rush seems to
fly in the face of known risks of prejudice, certainty of endless litigation, the
opinion of the Supreme Court, resistance on the federal level , and the upholding
of the advisory ban on cameras in the courtroom at the 1979 Atlanta mid-year
meeting of the American Bar Association.
The Atlanta debate seemed like a last-ditch defense. Delegates grumbled about
camera crews with "tee shirts and sneakers." Claims made on behalf of the pub·
lie's right to know made resistant jurists appear to be in a rear-guard battle against
the inevitable march of freedom. The most widely reported comment came from
former FCC Commissioner and Washington attorney Lee Loevinger who told the
ABA delegates: "You're fooling yourselves. I don't think we have any choice. We'll
continue to get television coverage whether we like it or not."
Events may prove Loevinger right. Television has already entered courtrooms in
the majority of states or is about to do so for "experiments" whose long-range
effects no one has proposed to seriously evaluate. Although some polls have
been conducted with mixed results, there has been no meaningful research dem­onstrating
the validity of argumen:s for television trials or of benefits from trials
already televised. No one has yet investigated the potentially far-reaching social
impact and institutional consequences of plugging the administration of criminal
justice into a system geared to entertainment and sales.
Our organs of public discussion, the mass media, are parties in interest spear­heading
the offensive. They are not particularly motivated, to say the least, to
expose their own blindspots and limitations. The public debate has been con­ducted
on narrow, obsolete, and at times misleading grounds.
Freedom to report is not the issue. Journalists - both broadcast and print -
are free to cover most trials. The fact that they choose to report only a few of the
most dramatic already warps public understanding of the judicial process. Tele­vision
trials would not help that. They would only add audiovisual spectacle and
further dramatic diversion to the reporting.
Obtrusive equipment and courtroom decorum are no longer issues. Video tech­nology
can be unobtrusive and can even reduce the movement of reporters by
providing monitors for them.
Even video recording is not the issue. Canon 3a(7) of the Code of Judicial Con­duct
already permits recording of trials for educational purposes, to be shown
after the trial and after all appeals have been exhausted.
This leaves the addition of spectacle for general television audiences while the
trial is still in progress the only issue. That issue has been addressed -and then
ignored. The view of the Supreme Court was that the sudden notoriety of judges,
jurors, attorneys, and defendants and "heightened public clamor" will "inevitably
result in prejudice."
Prejudice in the courtroom is not only a matter of court procedure. Courts work
in a social and political climate and in an institutional setting which are profoundly
affected by television. Television trials raise the deeper issue of institutional
cross-purposes between media and the judiciary.
Trials by television are likely to alter the historic relationship between two insti·
tutions that have largely divergent and partially conflicting functions. Popular
entertainment and news via mass media represent the conventional cultural pres­sures
of the social order. The judicial process involves adjudication of individual
cases according to law. In criminal cases, the most likely to be televised, fair
trial means legal determination of guilt of the specific offense charged, and not,
as in general entertainment and news, whether a person has done something
bad for which he or she should be punished. In fact, the judicial determination
must proceed as independently as possible from conventional moral pressures
and popular fear or favor. Televising trials may erode judicial independence and
do nothing to insure greater fairness that existing media security could not do.
The erosion will be hard to track and difficult to measure. It will occur as tele­vision
trials, despite any safeguards within the court, 1 are selected and edited to
fit the existing patterns of television. We may be on the verge of drifting into a
major institutional transformation while assuming that we are only making a few
public-spirited adjustments.
A review of research on the impaCt of television on American institutions shows
that it has reshaped politics, changed the nature of sports and business, trans­formed
family life and the socialization of children, and affected public security
and the enforcement of laws. 2 This may be the last opportunity to consider the
evidence already available on the influence of television on public images of law
and the courts, and to halt the rush toward television trials until we can take a
fresh view of the problem.
Ultimately, the independence and integrity of our system of justice are at stake.
Before the move to television trials passes the point of no return, their effects
upon both society and the courtroom should be considered.
TELEVISION AS A SYSTEM
Television is our common and constant learning environment. Our children
are born into it. The typical home uses it more than 6 hours a day. Viewing for
most people is a ritual performed with little selectivity or deviation.
Television demands no mobility, literacy, or concentrated attention. Its repeti­tive
patterns come into the home and show as well as tell about people and
society. Presidents, policemen, judges, spies and celebrities are familiar parts of
(continued on page 3)
Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
(continued from page 2)
a selective and synthetic symbolic environment of entertainment and news in
which we grow up and learn most of what we know in common .
. Different kinds of programs serve the same basic formula designed to assemble
v1ewers and sell them at the least cost. The classifications of the print era with
their relatively sharp differentiation between news, drama, documentary, etc. do
not apply to television. Heavy viewers watch more of everything. Different pro­grams
complement and reinforce each other as they entertain the same audiences
and propositions about life and society. Most program formulas present different
aspects of the same symbolic world made to the same specifications of television
and its sponsors.
The process of socialization via entertainment is an exercise in social ty"ping.
It sets the norms of society by showing their frequent violations. Violators and
their victims cast (or selected as " newsworthy") for most dramatic attention tend
to be those who fit established preconceptions.
Most action on television revolves around some demonstration of justice and
power. Vio~ence is the st?ck dramatic device of that demonstration. It is the cheap­est
and qu1ckest lesson m who should get away with what against whom.
Two-thirds of all major dramatic characters are involved in some violence. If
and when involved, women and minorities are more likely to be victims than vic­timiz.
ers, and are generaii.Y .underrepresented and devalued in many other ways. 3 ·
Castmg and fate on teleVISIOn combine to present - and to cultivate - a social
structure typically ruled by force and dominated by stereotypes.
. If present trends continue, selected courtrooms will become program origina­tmg
locations, transporting the sights and sounds of real courtrooms into mil­lions
of homes conditioned to their weekly ritual of courtroom and crime drama.
Trials will be picked and edited, as they have been wherever allowed so far to fit
into that dramatic ritual. Criminal courts will be pressed into the service of d'eliver­ing
to advertisers audiences raised on Perry Mason, The Defenders Owen Mar-shall
and their law in the world of television. '
Law in the world of television
Dramatic. s~ries have the bulk of the audience and of viewing time. That is
where telev1s1on has been free to protray the courts as best fits its institutional
needs.
A study of 15 prime time police programs telecast in one week found that in all
but three the enforcers of the law routinely engaged in clear violations of consti ­tutional
rights. The authors, an attorney and a law professor, conclude:
The overall image the shows project is clearly one that is alien to the Con­stitution.
~ardly a.single viewing hour passes without an illegal search, or
a confession obtamed by coercion, or the failure to provide counsel. War­rants
are not sought or issued, and hardly any mention is made of notifying
suspects of their right against self-incrimination. Scores of citizens unin­volved
in the crime under investigation are roughed up, shaken down, or
harassed- by police. Homes, offices, and cars are broken into regularly­by
police ... Every such invasion of personal privacy turns up the real, and
us~ally demente?, criminal, or is justified because the victim was probably
gu1lty of some cnme anyway. Honest, law-abiding citizens are miraculously
never hurt by these methods. 4
Of course, the Bill of Rights makes for dull viewing. But the authors wonder if
the daily obliteration of rights may not be responsible for their casual violations
in re.al l.ife and for the growing pressure on the courts to conform to the tough
ommsc1ence and omnipotence of television justice.
Th~re is thus n? la~k of information about due process. On the contrary, an
o.verk1ll of c~mpel~mg Imagery bombards child and adult viewers alike. The typical
v1ewer of pnme t1me and weekend daytime network shows alone receives the
lessons inherent in vivid images of an average of 30 police officers 7 lawyers
and 3 judges every week. s ' '
We can infer some of these lessons from the dissertation research on television
drama and the law by AlbertS. Tedesco, a Ph.D. candidate in Communications at
the University of Pennsylvania.
According to the Tedesco study, crime on television is not only much more
n;u~pant than in real life but also very different. About ten times as many tele­VISIOn
as real world characters are the targets of crime. The rank order of the fre­quency
of televisi<?n. crim~s is the opposite of that of the real world. Nearly 41
percent of all televiSIOn cnmes are murders. The next leading crime on television
only an:'ounts to 5 percent of all TV crimes. A disproportionate number of victims
are wh1tes. (In the real world most crimes are against property and a dispropor­tionate
number of victims are blacks.)
Half of all televisi?n police ~ake arrests each week. They solve crime by making
successful arrests m almost nme out of ten tries, compared to the real life clear­ance
rat,e of about 1.1 ~ercent. Arrest sends the suspect into a legal limbo.
~edesco s study, conf1rmmg those of other investigators, found that the suspect's
nghts are observed in less than two in every ten cases.
Police are t~e law, virtually iso.lated from lawyers and the criminal justice sys­tem.
In 157 cnme programs studied there was only one instance of intercession
by a lawyer in a police action against a citizen.
The television lawyers are equally removed from real life. Two-thirds work on
crimina.l ca~es, mostly. n:urder, performing selfless service defending needy cli­ents.
N1ne m ten televiSIOn lawyers are wealthier than their clients. Few if any
wor~ for the corporations that in real life employ most lawyers.
S1~ out of ten lawyers defend clients wrongfully accused and eventually
acqu1tted. One-third of all television lawyers serve as prosecutors. TV lawyers
rarely defend professional c~in:inals (who always lose); when they do, the lawyers
are l1kel~ to b~ corrupt or cn.mmal themselves. The scenario of social typing and
the conf1rmat1on of conventional presumptions - rather than the judicial avoid­ance
of all that- is the substance of the law on television.
. . ~he opaque reality of the courtroom is, if anything, less illuminating of the
JUdiCial process than is translucent fiction . One must go behind the scenes to
see how things really work. Surface appearances are more likely to conceal than
to reveal how the judicial system really works. As potentially popular spectacles
of great appeal and deceptive authenticity, most likely to be selected and inter­P.
r~ted t? fit the existing pattern of law in the world of television, trials by tele­VISion
Will place enormous new pressures on the criminal justice systems.
What are the effects?
Is there any way to calc'ulate the effects? Research conducted so far can show
the background of television-cultivated conceptions of social reality into which
(continued on page 6)
Dean 's Dicta
Dean Harold G. Wren
It is axiomatic that the sine qua non
for every law school is a faculty of
high quality. We are especially proud
of the diverse and talented law faculty
at U of L. In this issue, I propose
to describe in this space our efforts
to improve the quality of the faculty
and its work.
Professor Ralph Petrilli is leading a
faculty seminar in legal education this
semester. To date, we have had two
meetings, one devoted to classroom
techniques, and the other to the prob­lem
method. When we next meet on
Friday, March 7, we shall deal with
the problem of teaching courses that
are oriented toward statutory law. Pro­fessor
David Leibson will lead the
discussion, using the Uniform Com­mercial
Code as the vehicle for illus­trating
this method .
The law faculty commonly di­rects
much of its collective effort
toward the maintenance of a law
school curriculum to meet the needs
of future lawyers of the late twen­tieth
century. There has been much
discussion on the national scene of
the importance of skills training while
one is in law school. The balance be­tween
academic instruction and prac­tical
training in the preparation of
future members of the Bar will be the
subject of a debate between Professor
James R. Merritt and Judge Charles
M. Leibson on March 12 in the Allen
Court Room. We look forward to an
entertaining and enjoyable evening
for all our faculty, students, and
alumni.
Promotion and acquisition of tenure
is important to every faculty member,
but especially to the junior members.
For persons who joined the full-time
faculty prior to July I, 1980, the nor­mal
time in rank is three years as an
Assistant Professor, and three years
as an Associate Professor. This semes­ter,
I have instituted a system where­by
I have an opportunity to have a
private conference with each faculty
member at least once every semester.
On this occasion, the faculty mem­ber's
performance is reviewed, and
counsel is offered as to how he or she
may best develop his or her career. I
also listen to the views of each faculty
member to obtain suggestions for im­proving
the program and administra-tion
of the law school. ·
Since law faculty are faced with the
budgetary problems that have afflicted
everyone in our inflationary economy,
there will undoubtedly be a great deal
of concern about the level of law
faculty salaries in 1980-81. As of this
writing, we do not know what the level
of increase will be. Normally, faculty
receive a certain percentage of the
current year's salaries as a cost-of­living
increment to keep pace with in­flation,
and the Dean is provided with
additional funds for merit increases.
The judicious use of the latter funds
is, of course, a major decanal respon­sibility.
In determining how they
should be distributed among the vari­ous
members of the faculty, we look
to the performance of individual fa­culty
members in the three major areas
of teaching, research, and service.
I am particularly pleased with the
dedication that all our faculty give to
their responsibilities. The classroom
instruction at our law school is the
finest in the nation. Many of our
faculty are highly productive in legal
research and writing. This year, the
University has approved a policy of ·
allowing faculty members, on appli­cation,
to obtain released time to per­form
a particular research project. I
hope that more and more faculty will
take advantage of this fine opportun­ity.
In the area of service, faculty
members help the law school, the Uni­versity,
and the community at large.
Within the law school, they serve on
key committees to develop the poli­cies
that govern the administration of
the school. A member of the faculty
serves on University-wide comm.ittees
and governing boards (e.g., the Fa­culty
Senate) important in the estab­lishment
of policies that govern the
University as a whole. Finally, our
faculty remain active in the Louisville
Bar Association, the Kentucky Bar
Association, and the American Bar
Association. Law faculty often con­tribute
a substantial amount of time
and energy to these organizations
which are dedicated to improving the
legal profession as a whole.
In short, the University of Louis­ville
School of Law is fortunate in
having a group of men and women
who have dedicated their lives to the
educational branch of the legal pro­fession.
In addition, a number of
members of the practicing Bar of the
City of Louisville contribute their
time and talent as part-time faculty
members. As the number of full­time
faculty stabilizes around an
annual active figure of twenty-five,
and the student body settles into a
fall enrollment of five hundred, we
enter a period of stability for the
years that lie ahead. With a student­faculty
ratio of 20: I, we will main­tain
a high quality educational pro­gram
for many years to come.
Yours sincerely,
Harold G. Wren
Dean
"The m.utua/ confidence o_n which all else depends can be maintained only by an
open mmd and a brave reltance on free discussion."
-Learned Hand
Let us know your point of view.
Le.tters to the editors should be typed and signed. The editors reserve the right to
ed1t letters for space considerations and for clarity.
3
l
II
4 Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
Faculty Complements Teaching With Writing
By Tom Schultz,
Shaun Esposito,
John B. Wright,
and Sam Carl
As students have no doubt guessed,
professors do more than just grind "the
law" into the heads of students. Many
faculty members are engaged in the prepara­tion
of materials for publication in law re­views
and other scholarly mediums. To dis­cover
the extent of current research and
publication efforts, the Examiner inter­viewed
several faculty members concerning
their endeavors.
When asked about the importance of
publication by the faculty, Dean Harold
Wren commented that "I cannot empha­size
research enough." He added that "We
are not a publish-or-perish school, how­ever,"
stressing that instruction must come
"first and foremost."
In highlighting the importance of writing
by faculty members, Dean Wren states that
approximately 30 percent of the faculties'
time should be engaged in such work. He
added that faculty publication work is taken
into consideration in determining promo­tion,
tenure and merit increases.
Dean Wren is himself engaged in the
preparation of materials for publication.
He has two books in preparation and re­vision.
One is Creative Estate Planning,
which he is attempting to revise since it
was written before the tax reform legisla­tion
of 1976. The other is a seminar book
which he wrote several years ago entitled
Corporate Changes. "It is really the sub­stantive
side of corporate reorganization
law," Dean Wren explained. He hopes to
enlist student research aid in updating both
works.
Following is a brief summary of current
and recent writing projects undertaken by
faculty members.
PROFESSOR KNOWLES
Professor Laurence W. Knowles continues
to be an Executive Editor of the Journal of
Law and Education which he founded nine
years ago. Professor Knowles explains that
the Journal, published quarterly, is probably
in the top 25 percent in number of subscrip­tions.
In stressing the importance of the
Journal, he notes that one out of every ten
persons in the United States is in some way
connected with the educational process.
School of Law students who are involved
in the production of the Journal are Frances
Niccolai, Elizabeth Ward and John Tobin.
First year students, chosen as second semes­ter
assistants in preparing the case sum­maries,
are Frank Janoski, Charles Mullins
and Lewis Kinser. The Journal features edu­cation-
related articles OIJ labor relations,
judicial developments, federal programs,
legislative developments, and tax and
finance.
PROFESSOR BIGGS
Professor William E. Biggs' wntmg
activities currently entail drafting legisla­tion
for the Mayor's and County Judge's
commission on local government. Professor
Biggs is a member of a group of Univer­sity
of Louisville faculty whose efforts are
being coordinated by the University's Urban
Studies Center.
Currently, Jefferson is the only Ken­tucky
county that is prohibited from form­ing
a "metro" government such as that
found in Fayette County. Prof. Biggs em­phasized
that metro is a "nasty" word to
some people and his group has specifically
avoided using any label for its activities.
While Fayette is the only county in Ken­tucky
to consolidate its city and county gov­ernments,
Prof. Biggs was quick to point
out that Fayette does not have the problems
presented by the 75 municipalities in Jeffer­son
County. "We are talking about a very
different kind of animal here in Jefferson
County," he says, and "any local govern­ment
changes made here would be totally
unique and tailored to the specific needs of
this community.''
Despite the support voiced by both Mayor
Stansbury and County Judge McConnell
for a "new form of county and local gov­ernment,"
no changes are expected in the
near future. "The preliminary studies that
are being conducted now are what we con­sider
as enabling legislation, that is, per­mission
to form a 30 member commission
to make a government improvement pro­posal."
This second commission would be
composed of a geographically diverse group
of Jefferson County residents. This would
be the group that would actually draft the
proposal which, if all went according to
plan, would be presented for a yes-no vote
in 1984.
PROFESSOR REYNOLDS
Professor A. David Reynolds has re­cently
completed an article entitled "The
Mechanics of Institutional Reform Litiga­tion:
Two Case Studies" which will appear
this Spring in the Fordham Urban Law Jour­nal.
The article deals with two Title VII
discrimination suits brought as a class action
against the Philadelphia police department.
Prof. Reynolds became interested in the
suits while serving as a law clerk in the
Federal District Court, located in Philadel­phia,
and has since made several trips there
for research purposes. The premise of the
article is that large public interest-law re­form
lawsuits present unique problems not
encountered in traditional litigation. The
article analyzes three particular problems:
(I) how completely the parties in litigation
represent the class, 2) how the court decides
upon what remedial form of affirmative
action to impose, and 3) enforcement pro­cedures
if public officials resist implemen­tation.
Prof. Reynolds is also working on an­other
paper analyzing how procedures used
by the French courts may be of value to
American courts.
PROFESSOR ABRAMSON
Associate Professor Leslie W. Abramson
is preparing works in the areas of criminal
law and procedure, constitutional law and
administrative law. A book entitled Criminal
Detainers, which grew out of work on his
Master of Laws degree, is now in publica­tion
and an article on the same subject has
been accepted for publication in Prisoners'
Rights Sourcebook, Vol. II.
An article entitled "Entrapment and Due
Process in the Federal Courts" has been
accepted by the American Journal of Crim­inal
Law. That article was co-authored by
third year student Lisa Lindeman. Other ar­ticles
prepared for publication include a re­view
of U.S. Supreme Court cases and an
article concerning the Administrative Proce­dures
Act, to be published in Prof. Volz'
Federal Practice Manual.
PROFESSOR LEIBSON
PROFESSOR LEIBSON
Professor David J. Leibson has recently
signed a contract with Michie/Bobbs Merrill
Publishing Company to write a book, tenta­tively
titled, The Uniform Commercial
Code of Kentucky. The book will be in
the nature of a "hornbook" with particular
emphasis on the Kentucky cases decided
under the UCC.
Already, the initial draft of the first
chapter is finished and Prof. Leibson hopes
to complete the entire book in early 1981.
Although he has had previous work pub­lished,
this is his first book and by far his
biggest undertaking. Referring to the amount
of work ahead, Prof. Leibson stated that,
"Other faculty members who have written
books have told me that my target date is
unrealistic." However, with the aid of third
year student Lisa Hughes as a research
assistant and a probable sabbatical next fall,
he feels optimistic about the completion of
his work schedule.
Prof. Leibson feels that the book will
be a practical aid to Kentucky practitioners.
"I thought about writing a general hornbook
to compete with White & Summers, but felt
that this would be more beneficial to Ken­tucky
lawyers and judges." He points out
that his book will be much more current
than the White & Summers edition which
has not been revised for some time.
.~:. ~.:.:.-..-...-....; :
PROFESSOR MARTIN
Professor William Martin's current project
is a paper dealing with the interaction of
law and theology from theoretical, academic
and practical perspectives.
The project is an outgrowth of the joint
law-theology program between the Univer­sity
of Louisville School of Law and the
Lousiville Presbyterian Theological Sem­inary
which allows students to obtain a law
degree and a theology degree in about half
the time. It is the first such program in
the country.
Part of Prof. Martin's paper will contain
a study of Louisville's experience in law­theology
courses. Prof. Martin, who taught
some of these joint courses, has also just
finished two years studying at Emory The­ological
Seminary while on sabbatical.
This is Prof. Martin's first endeavor into
this field of research, in which he is being
assisted by second-year student Shaun
Esposito. A large part of the research and
the paper's content will deal with the in­tellectual
history of the interrelationship
between law and theology. This is a new
field of research and also an expanding
area of interest.
"We can directly trace the major consti­tutional
theories, for instance, to religion in
the Western scheme of things," Prof. Mar­tin
explains. "Although the fields of law
and theology are very close, at other times
they are more divergent." A third part of
the paper will deal with what this intellectual
history means to legal education.
Prof. Martin describes lawyers and the
--
legal education they receive as "means­oriented."
He said that lawyers are social
engineers who make the system work, "but
yet spend far too little time asking in any
kind of professional or academic way where
we are going to take it." The theologian, on
the other hand, spends his time talking
about the "kingdom of God" but has very
little practical education on how to obtain it.
''We may be able to make an argument
that what are the weaknesses of legal educa­tion
can be complemented by the strength
of the theological education and vice versa."
Prof. Martin hopes his paper will spur
more interest in the field and will get out to
law schools the intellecutal and practical
reasons as to why the joint law-theology
program at U of L is a successful program.
PROFESSOR DOLSON
Professor William F. Dolson's publishing
efforts usually center on topics ·in labor
arbitration and land use control. At present,
he is working on a proje~t for the ABA
Labor Law Section Committee on Arbitra­tion
and Collective Bargaining to study
methods of accomplishing expedited arbitra­tion
procedures.
Prof. Dolson explains that "arbitration
started out as a fast and inexpensive
method of satisfying grievances in prefer­ence
to the strike. Expedited arbitration
aims to eliminate the rising costs of pro­longed
and detailed hearings that cause
the unions' treasuries to become depleted.
Like the results of a study he completed
last year dealing with discovery in arbitra­tion
hearings, the present project will be
published by the ABA and sent out to the
approximately 10,000 members of the
Labor Law Section.
For the second consecutive year, Prof.
Dolson is a tri-editor of The Chronicle, a
journal that is received by members of the
National Academy of Arbitrators . And, as
an arbitration hearing judge, he must write
numerous decisions which he describes as
"a type of writing that is very important;
it sharpens the skills one needs in the class­room
for exploring and creating concepts."
Prof. Dolson is also revising the real prop­erty
forms and text of Kentucky Legal
Forms with Prof. Volz, which will be in
publication this summer.
ASSOCIATE DEAN SMITH
Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
DEAN SMITH
Associate Dean Steven R. Smith has a
long list of previously prepared works to his
credit and is currently engaged in producing
several more writings. His main areas of in­terest
include legal education and medical­legal
problems. He is presently under con­tract
to review model medical informed
consent video tapes which will be used to
show to patients who will undergo surgery.
This form of explanation will be of ulti­mate
benefit to both patients and doctors
in assuring that patients understand the na­ture
of the treatment they will undergo,
Dean Smith said. He will also review the
tapes with faculty members from Harvard
and New York University.
Dean Smith has submitted an article for
publication entitled "The Constitutional
Right of Privacy and Psychotherapy." The
article will review cases in the area to see
the extent of the privilege in the current
state of the law.
He has also prepared an article dealing
with the reinspection of law schools by the
ABA which will examine the procedures
and considerations made in such inspections.
PROFESSOR STENGER
Professor Robert Stenger often feels
uncomfortable with certain areas of the law
because he feels dissatisfied with the exist­ing
state of the law.
This is what stimulates his interests in a
particular field, so he begins to research and
appreciate the complexities of the issues. It
is in these areas that he writes and pub­lishes.
"Writing gives you a platform for advo­cating
that the law out to be changed,"
explains Prof. Stenger. "Day to day teach­ing
does not allow you the chance. Writing
gives you a chance to go in much greater
depth and appreciate the complexity of the
issues." As an example, Prof. Stenger cites
an article he has recently submitted to the
Journal of Family Law concerning "the
standards or lack of standards that the
Burger Court has used in deciding various
cases involving illegitimates; the rights of
the illegitimate child, the rights of the
mother and the rights of the father.''
One conclusion he has drawn from this
research is that the rights of the child are
only protected if the father is identified. As
a result, he said, "large number of children
remain outside the protection of the law.
The child only has rights from one half of
what ordinary people have."
The majority of Prof. Stenger's writing
activity centers in the area of family law,
constitutional law and decedent's estates;
areas in which he also teaches. This helps
keep his teaching topical and at the same
time allows him a chance to cover the field
in a little bit greater depth.
But Prof. Stenger also identifies with an­other
value to be gained from the law review
articles he and other faculty members write.
"For teachers there is P.R. value for writing;
that when people publish a book, law review
articles and the like it shows that this fa­culty
is productive in scholarship and re­search.
It enhances .the school."
In fulfilling that goal, Prof. Stenger has
written previews of U.S. Supreme Court
cases. "It's not to predict what the court
will do, but it's to try to fit this case in
with the cases already decided." The pre­view
tries to determine what the significance
of the court's decision will be depending on
how it decides the issues.
In conjunction with a class on family law .
he taught last semester, Prof. Stenger has
reviewed the book Unmarried Couples and
the Law by Graham Douthwaite for the
Journal of Family Law.
Currently in the mill is an update of an
article he wrote about the Privacy Act of
1974, which went into effect in 1975. "With
five years of experience under the act, only
now are these problems going to emerge,"
he said, referring to privacy as a two-edged
sword . He said the purpose of this research
is to try to appreciate the conflicting in­terests
as are presented by, for example, the
question of whether adoption records should
be sealed. Balanced against the child's right
to know is the mother's privacy interest.
Prof. Stenger feels that the privacy issue
has implications life-wide and describes the
law as having a ripple effect with reper­cussions
in all other areas.
PROFESSOR QUICK
Is it illegal only if it is legal? Professor
Albert Quick has pondered this paradoxical
question in his most recent law review article.
Prof. Quick has recently completed an
article.dealing with the statutory construc­tion
of a particular provision of the U.S.
Code dealing with racketeering, 18 U.S.C.
1961, better known as RICO (Racketeer
Influence in Corrupt Organizations).
It is expected to be published late spring
or early Summer in the Detroit College of
Law Law Review, which contacted him to
write a survey article of all the substantive
criminal law cases decided by the Sixth Cir­cuit
Court of Appeals over the last year.
"The Sixth Circuit has not been too active
in substantive criminal law, except in
RICO," he said. "Instead of a survey
article it became more issue-oriented; almost
akin to a case note." The issue of the jour­nal
in which the article is to be published
should be valuable to both practitioners
and students, he said, as it will cover all
notable cases decided in the last year by the
Sixth Circuit.
Prof. Quick's particular article deals with
a 2 to 1 panel decision which held that the
RICO provisions apply only to legitimate
enterprises used for racketeering purposes.
It does not, under this decision, apply to a
numbers racket or a book-making enter­prise.
The Sixth Circuit is the first and only
circuit to have decided RICO in this limited
manner.
Prof. Quick reviewed the panel's decision
and other decisions on this issue to deter­mine
if the Sixth Circuit's decision is legally
sound.
"I came to the conclusion that the court
slighted some arguments that should have
been given greater weight. The ultimate
conclusion was that the court probably de­cided
the case _incorrectly and that it should
have held that the enterprise element does
in fact include both legitimate and illegiti­mate
organizations."
5
The article was in keeping with Prof.
Quick's writing history of specializing in the
areas of criminal procedure, criminal law
and criminal justice.
In general, he believes that "writing goes
hand-in-hand with teaching. It also broadens
you and that broadening will certainly carry
over to the students. It gives you greater
depth of understanding.''
Prof. Quick said his past survey articles
have almost been continuing legal education
type of articles, pointing out certain direc­tions
in the law. These also serve, besides
enhancing his teaching, to alert practitioners
to changes in the law and to alert courts
to alternate views.
Along these lines, he has plans to begin
work soon on an article concerning the im­pact
of mental illness on confessions.
PROFESSOR VOLZ
Professor Marlin Volz certainly has not
overlooked the second of these duties. In
and to provide service to the community.
Professor Martin Volz certainly has not
overlooked the second of these duties. In
September, 1979, a revised and expanded
volume 7 of West's Federal Practice Manual
was published. Prof. Volz is the primary
writer of the volume and is general editor
of the set. Volumes 8 and 9 have already
been added this year and volumes 10 and 11
will be added later this year, together with
a separate index volume.
Prof. Volz said most of his writing is for
the practicing lawyer, "how-to-do-it" books.
He first became involved in writing while
a student at the University of Wisconsin
Law School. There, he was a member of a
student lawyer's club which would sponsor
"lunchtime seminars" on practical legal
topics. At these seminars conducted by prac­ticing
attorneys, Prof. Volz took extensive
notes, which at the prodding of a fellow
student he prepared in manuscript form.
His writing for West Federal Practice is
primarily in the area of civil procedure and
federal jurisdiction.
"That writing and that research ties in to
what I am teaching. It keeps me up to date
in my teaching and keeps me up to date in
my book writing. The two really work to­gether,"
said Prof. Volz.
But Prof. Volz also has difficulty saying
no to other projects. He recently contributed
a chapter on arbitration law to a book on
Occupational Health Law. This grew out of
a paper he read before the National Aca­demy
of Labor Arbitrators on medical and
health issues in labor arbitration. And about
a year ago the second edition of a book on
school and education law was published of
which Prof. Volz was one of three authors .
This interest stems from his involvement
with the National Organization on School
Law of which he is a charter member and
a past president.
Also in the works is a revision of Volumes
3 and 4 of Bank-Baldwin's Kentucky Legal
Forms in collaboration with Professor Wil­liam
Dolson and Assistant Professor Judith
Richardson. From his experience as a pro­bate
judge, Prof. Volz has written Kentucky
Probate Practice which will be published by
Banks-Baldwin this fall.
Prof. Volz said he has recently agreed to
do a new edition of Caldwell's Kentucky
Form Book.
6 Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
Journal of Fatnily Law Selects 1980-1981 Editors
by Elizabeth Ward
The new editorial board for the Journal
of Family Law is headed by Barbara Har­tung
as Editor-in-Chief, whose job will con­sist
of supervising the entire publication
process as well as determining the ultimate
content of each issue. Sam Fritchner, named
to be the Executive Editor, will handle the
technical aspects of publication, in­cluding
correspondence with the printer
and final proofreading of the manuscript.
As Research Editor, Shaun Esposito will
supervise the student writing. Mr. Esposito
will also be responsible for finding cases
relevant to Journal topics and for seeing
that the cases are treated properly in the
case notes. Colleen McKinley as Articles
Editor will be responsible for soliciting
and reviewing articles for publication from
recognized authorities in the area of family
law. Schuyler Olt and James Nitsche as
Manuscript Editors will supervise the writing
of notes by the candidates. Kathiejane Ohler,
the new Administrative Editor; will perform
the daily business functions for the Journal
such as paying bills, and obtaining copy­rights.
Five staff editors, yet to be selected
from the remaining field of present candi­dates,
will assist the new editorial board in
their positions.
The major task facing the new editorial
board is the Candidate Program. All in­terested
first, s.econd and third-year night
students, as well as day students, have been
urged to complete a writing assignment.
"After evaluation of the completed writing
assignments, the Editorial Board will extend
invitations to join the Journal to those stu­dents
whose writing ability and record of
scholastic achievement (minimum 2.6) merit
such invitation," according to Ms. Hartung.
Students who satisfactorily complete the
written assignment but "whose grades do
not reflect a sufficiently high level of aca­demic
achievement" have a second oppor­tunity
of being selected in May in the event
their academic standing improves and if the
Journal still needs more candidates.
The Journal of Family Law's editorial board for the coming year is Barbara Hartung, Sam Fritchner, Kathiejane Ohl r, h un
Esposito, Colleen McKinley, James Nitsche, and Schuyler Olt.
The candidacy program consists of proof­reading,
cite checking, periodically writing
recent developments, writing two case notes
(lengthy analyses with footnotes), writing
one note (an in-depth analysis of a topic
within family law, with footnotes), occa-sional
assignments from the research depart­ment
and regularly scanning advance sheets
for cases relevant to family law.
Candidate selection should be completed
by March 8th and all persons who sub­mitted
a writing sample will be notified by
mail as to their status. Ms. Hartung has
plans of increasing the circulation and
broadening the horizons of the Journal. Of
Student Legal Research Group
University of Louisville School of Law
-quick
-efficient
-thorough
research suited to your needs
at reasonable rates
For further information, contact Tal ia Liebermann
at ((502) 588-6399
School of Law
University of Louisville
Belknap Campus
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
primary interest is the Journal's involvement
in a White House Conference on Family
Law. "We will send representatives to the
Kentucky meeting and should have repre­sentatives
go to the national meeting in
Minneapolis. We're hoping for articles and
ideas for areas needing to be treated."
Ms. Hartung anticipates articles on pater­nity
issues and state long arm statutes en-forcing
support orders. The editorial board
is contemplating having a symposium on
some aspect of family law next year.
"My concept of the Journal is to maintain
both the scholarly approach in the articles
and also to offer to the practitioner relevant
and timely information which may be used
in day-to-day activities," opines the new
Editor -in-Chief.
LBA Installs New Officers
Attorne~· Henr~· A. Triplett presents a plaque to Larry B. Franklin in honor of his service
to the Louisville Bar Association as president in 1979. New officers for 1980 were also
announced at the meeting, held at the Hyatt Regency, Jan . 26. The officers are: Peter
Karem, President; Geoffrey Morris, President-elect; Steven Kriegshaber, Vice-Presi­dent;
John Southard, Secretary; and George Schuhmann, Treasurer.
Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980 7
(continued from page 3)
televised trials will have to fit. This research found that exposure to television
cultivates a heightened sense of living in a mean and violent world. Heavy viewers
(compared to light viewers in the same age, sex, and socio-economic groups)
exhibit a consistently higher degree of insecurity, mistrust, and quest for pro­tection.
They give higher estimates than light viewers of their chances of encoun­tering
violence, the proportion of violent crimes, the number of people involved in
law enforcement, the danger of walking in a city at night, and the number of times
policemen use their guns. They are more likely than their light viewing counter­parts
to agree that people just look out for themselves, try to take advantage of
others, and cannot be trusted. And they are more likely than their light viewing
neighbors to seek protection and take protective measures themselves. All in all,
television viewing appears to cultivate relatively anxious hard-line attitudes among
viewers of most types, particularly the young.6
Television is also the chief purveyor of information about occupations. Children
score significantly higher on a test of occupational knowledge about rare voca­tions
seen frequently on television than about more common occupations seldom
seen on television. 7 Children who give television as the source also have more to
say about the professions. All sources other than television (including conversa­tion)
provided information to less than half about lawyers and to less than one
third about judges. The majority could not cite any difference between lawyers on
television and in real life; 73 percent could not cite any differences between judges
on television and in real life. The researcher cautioned that " ... viewing of tele­vision
was found to cultivate an understanding of the world of law enforcement
consistent with television's somewhat inaccurate portrayals."8
The public is not only misinformed about but also disinterested in the issues
that really occupy the courts. The exceptions are a few highly visible and politi­cally
charged controversies such as desegregation, prayers in the public schools,
capital punishment, abortion, and "coddling" defendants in criminal cases. Much
of the vocal interest comes from media publicity given to claims of judicial ex­cess
and leniency, and from organized groups objecting to the enforcement of
laws they dislike in the first place. 9 Trials are most likely to be televised, as they
have been in the past, if they can tap viewer intere'st in such cases and boost
their audience appeal and rating.
Due process in the world of television is a dramatic and usually violent demon­stration
of power. It is an exercise whereby innocent types are vindicated, guilty
types are condemned, and women, children, old people, nonwhites, and other
minorities are underrepresented but overburdened with risks of failure and
of victimization.
Constitutional rights (save those of the media) are generally ignored. Fearful
and dangerous fantasies about crime and law enforcement cultivate public ignor­ance
and misconceptions of basic principles of the judicial process.
These are not mistakes or aberrations easily correded. They are deeply rooted
in the social control functions of much entertainment and news. They are parts
of the process that sets cultural norms and that generates the anxieties and inse­curities
which can find release in dependence on strong authority and in harsh or
repressive measures.
These social functions of media compete and conflict with those of the courts.
Such competition and conflict is part of a system of institutional checks and
alances. The history of troubled relations between the two institutions shows a
precarious balance reached at great cost over the centuries.
Footnotes
1. Even safeguards require vigorous enforcement which is impractical. An analysis of the
effectiveness of ABA and State press-bar guidelines covering the release of pre-trial
information, and reported in bar and press polls to work "reasonably well ," found that
67.7 percent of the stories violated the agreement. James W. Tankard, Jr., Kent Middle­ton
and Tomy Rimmer, "Compliance with American Bar Association Fair Trial-Free
Press Guidelines," Journalism Quarterly, Autumn 1979, p. 468.
2. George Comstock, "The Impact of Television on American Institutions," Journal of
Communication, Spring 1978.
3. George Gerbner and Nancy Signorielli, Women and Minorities in Television Drama
1969-1978. University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg School of Communications,
Philadelphia, 1979.
4. Stephen Arons and Ethan Katsh, "How TV Cops Flout the Law," Saturday Review, March
19, 1977, p. 14.
5. These figures come from our archives of television monitoring since 1967.
6. For the most recent reports, and references to previous studies, see George Gerbner,
Larry Gross, Nancy Signorielli, Michael Morgan, and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck, "The
Demonstration of Power: Violence Profile No. 10," Journal of Communication, Sum­mer
1979.
The Key Number System
takes you from one
case in any law book
to all cases in point
Take a cited opinion. Check the Table of Cases in your
Key Number Digest. There you'll find the Key Number
that classifies that case and all others in point. And this
method works even when you begin with cases from
books not based on the Key Number System. That's
one way the compatible Key Number System makes
your library more valuable, more useful. Find out how
you can put it to work too, today.
O.K.C..V.~­P.
O. Box 969
Barr Street Station
Lexington. KY 40588
Phone:
Lexington: 606/255-2040 ·
Loui....tlle: 502/584-5058
KENTUCKY ..uaLJCATIONI:
South Western Reporter
Kentucky DeCISions
Kentucky D1ges1
Kentucky Pract1ce Ser~es :
Probate Pracllce & Procedure with Forms
Methods of Practice
Rules of C1v1l Procedure
Criminal Practice & Procedare
7. Melvin L. DeFieur and Lois B. DeFieur, "The Relative Contribution of Television as a
Learning Source for Children's Occupational Knowledge," American Sociological Re­view,
October 1964.
8. Suzanne Jeffries-Fox, "Television's Contribution to Young People's Conceptions about
Occupations." (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1978)
p. 208-9.
9. The Public Image of the Courts: Highlights of a National Survey of the General Pub­lic,
Judges, Lawyers, and Community Leaders. Williamsburg, Va.: The National Center
for State Courts, 1978.
Regional Competition Stirs Student Interest
(continued from page I)
but it "would be nice if they have had trial
practice or evidence."
Jim Seiffert, president of the Moot Court
Board, stressed that there is more interest
in practical experience. "You hear com­plaints
that there is no practical application
in law school. But there is if you sign up for
things like this competition. Arguing before
downtown judges, that's as practical as you
are going to get.''
The Mock Trial intraschool competition
was sponsored by the Moot Court Board.
This year was different because of the
large number of participants in the intra­school
competition. Janice Martin, a mem­ber
of the-Mock Trial Board and the coor­dinator
for the trials, explained that "in the
past there was so little student involvement
or interest that we have never had an intra­school
competition. In other words, three
or four people would sign up and then,
when it got time to have the competition,
nobody wanted to, so our teams were pretty
much picked by default.
"It is encouraging to see so many people
turn out," Ms. Martin said. She credits
the turnout to the fact that the Board was
better organized and to a "growing senti­ment
among the student body that they
need to do more practical things to prepare
for the outside world ."
Members of the Board found "witnesses"
for the trials from undergraduate classes.
Third year students Steve Arnett and Kevin
Horne spoke before classes and recruited
student participants.
WOODY'S TAVERN
&ALE GARDEN
Judges and attorneys from downtown
Louisville acted as the judges and juries in
the intraschool competition. Judges who
participated were: Circuit Judge Joseph H.
Eckert, District Judge Olga Peers, Circuit
Judge Lawrence Higgins, Kentucky Court
of Appeals Justice Robert Breetz, Circuit
Judge Charles Anderson, District Judge
Tom Knopf, District Judge Ellen Ewing,
District Judge Donald Smalley, District
Judge Richard Fitzgerald, and Circuit Judge
George Kunzman.
Attorneys who participated were: Larry
Franklin, Nick King, Tom Clay, Richard
Remmers, Ed Stouffer and Tim McCall.
Judge Higgins indicated that he was
"pleasantly surprised at the excellence of
the participatns. All were prepared well and
I only regret that both couldn't win. I have
no doubt that some will make cracker­jack
trial lawyers."
brook & burnett
THURSDAYS IN MARCH
CLASS UP YOUR ACT ...
DmNKTHEVERYBESTFORLESS
GUINNESS STOUT • MOOSE HEAD BEER
MICHELOB • HEINEKEN • ST. PAULl GIRL
LOWENBRAU
YOUR CHOICE NINETY CENTS
Judge Eckert said he was "very impressed
by the students' efforts and demeanor" in
the courtroom situation. "They seemed
anxious for the critique. In judging a mock
trial situation we try to judge how quick
they are on their feet , how they react.
Sometimes the court asks questions to raise
anger." He said that his panel decided be­forehand
to make remarks that should elicit
a motion for a mistrial. "I asked the other
judges, 'Have you ever heard a more ridi­cul
ous statement? ,' which is something I
would never say in court, especiafly 1f it was
a jury trial."
-
8 Louisville Law Examiner, March 6, 1980
Journal
of
Family Law
Articles of Continuing Interest
• A Look at the American Family's Right to State De­partment
Assistance When Relatives Are Detained
Abroad: Some Policy Considerations .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vol. 16, No.2 (1977-78)
• The Magnuson-Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Com­mission
Improvement Act: Should the Consumer
Rejoice?
Vol. 15, No. (1976-77)
• Repossession Under the U.C.C.: The Rights of the
Creditor and Debtor .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vol. 17, No. 1 (1978-79)
Mail Orders to:
Managing Editor
Journal of. Family Law
D Vol. 16, No.2 ($4)
D Vol. 15, No.1 ($4)
D Vol. 17, No.1 ($4)
University of Louisville Name ______________ _
School of Law
Address---------------
Louisville, KY 40208
City _______ State ___ Zip
A Quarterly Publication of the Universitv of Louisville School of Law
March 7-8
March 12
March 12
March 21
April10
April15
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Continuing Legal Education, Owensboro, Kentucky: Child Custody.
Contif!uing Legal Education, St. Catharine College, Springfield, Kentucky:
Real Estate Law.
Debate: The Practical vs. Theoretical Approach to Legal Education. Judge
Charles Leibson and Professor James Merritt. 8:00 p.m. in the Allen Court­room.
Continuing Legal Education, Commonweallh Convention Center, Louisville,
Kentucky: Creditor Remedies and Consumer Protection.
Deadline for application to take the July Kentucky Bar Exam.
Last day of class.
Louisville Law Examiner
School of Law
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
John M. Harlan
Law Examiner
Volume 5
NumberS
March 6, 1980
The School of
Law fares
well in a
recent mock
trial competition •
. . . page 1
In February,
the law school
administration
conducted a
memorial service
in honor of the
late United States
Supreme Court
Justice William 0.
Douglas. At right,
Justice Douglas
is pictured as
he spoke at the
law school in 1973.
Copyright© 1973,
the Courier-Journal.
Reprinted with
permission.