Edward Terry Sanford

Lawyer and judge Edward Terry Sanford is best remembered for his involvement in two high-profile Supreme Court cases, serving in one as a lawyer and in one as one of the justices. After graduating Harvard Law School, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General of the United States in 1907.

That year, Edward Terry Sanford served as the lead prosecutor in the case of United States v. Shipp et al. The case involved Senator Joseph Shipp, the sheriff in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1906. Shipp was deemed responsible when a black prisoner, Ed Johnson, was lynched after being convicted of rape by an all-white jury. Despite a successful appeal to the Supreme Court, the case of United States v. Shipp et al. alleged that Shipp had deliberately disregarded a court order and allowed the lynching of a prisoner, leaving him open to charges of contempt of court.

Edward Terry Sanford traveled to Chattanooga to prepare evidence for the government and question witnesses. For nearly two days, Edward Terry Sanford also questioned Sheriff Shipp about the incidents in question. After his preparatory role in the trial, Edward Terry Sanford believed he had established the guilt of the sheriff, as well as several of his deputies and several lynch mob members.

The resulting Supreme Court trial took place in December 1906. Using the evidence collected by Edward Terry Sanford, the prosecution successfully argued for the conviction of Sheriff Shipp. After this success, Edward Terry Sanford was appointed to district judge status in Tennessee in 1908.

In 1923, Edward Terry Sanford was appointed to the US Supreme Court. Though he wrote 130 opinions as a judge, his most influential case was held in his first year on the bench. The 1923 case of Gitlow v. New York had its origins in the 1919 arrest of Benjamin Gitlow, a New York assemblyman who was a member of the Communist Party and had published an article arguing for the violent overthrow of the American government. During the course of his New York trial, Gitlow argued that because the article had resulted in no violent actions, he should be exonerated, but was convicted regardless.

The court heard the case in 1923 and issued its opinion, written by Edward Terry Sanford, in 1925. The issue at stake concerned the legality of the New York state laws and whether they violated the first amendment. Edward Terry Sanford wrote on behalf of the seven justices who concurred that the first amendment was equally applicable to federal and state governments.

However, their ruling also established a new legal precedent for restrictions that could be placed on first amendment expression of speech. Where previously the "clear and present danger" rule had been used, the opinion written by Edward Terry Sanford relied upon the "bad (or dangerous) tendency" rule. This ruling established that states could regulate speech before it led to destructive consequences, as long as federal first amendment standards were not violated.

Valerie Plame

Valerie Plame is a former undercover CIA official whose cover was destroyed in a 2003 column by the "Washington Post" journalist Robert Novak. The subsequent investigation regarding who was responsible for the leak of the cover of Valerie Plame took four years to reach its legal conclusion in several trials, although a CIA investigation is still technically ongoing.

The beginning of the so-called "Plame affair" began when her husband Joseph C. Wilson published a series of columns in July 2003 that effectively accused then-president George W. Bush of misrepresenting the case for the invasion of Iraq. Eight days after his column was published, Novak published a paper which, as part of the argument against Wilson, identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. This disclosure effectively ended her career as an undercover CIA operative.

A number of lawsuits, both federal and civil, stemmed from this disclosure. After the revelation, the CIA requested that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation into the source of the leak. In turn, the Department of Justice asked the FBI to conduct an investigation. Ultimately, the CIA conducted its own investigation to determine who was responsible for giving Novak this information. Two grand juries were convened during this investigation, which was conducted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The first grand jury convened eventually indicted White House official Lewis Libby on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury. However, he was not indicted as the primary source of the leak regarding Valerie Plame.

In the course of the second trial of Lewis Libby, his defense counsel argued that any inaccuracies he made during the course of the CIA's investigation were the result of memory loss due to the many White House duties he had to fulfill. His attorneys also contested the statements made by prosecution witnesses. A number of other journalists were brought in to testify about their interactions about White House officials. As a result of their testimony, it was revealed that Libby had disseminated the news of the identity of Valerie Plame to a number of journalists who did not make use of this information in their columns.

The second grand jury resulted in the conviction of Lewis Libby on four of the charges filed against him. However, he was acquitted of making false statements. Lewis Libby was eventually sentenced to thirty months in prison, along with a fine. The prison sentence was later commuted by President George W. Bush.

 In the civil courts. Valerie Wilson and her husband Joseph Wilson filed a civil lawsuit which named Libby as a co-defendant alongside then vice-president Dick Cheney and two other administration officials, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage. However, this lawsuit, known as Wilson v. Cheney, was dismissed in 2007. Also in 2007, it was revealed that Richard Armitage was the source Robert Novak had drawn upon in outing Valerie Plame in his column. No legal consequences ensued for Richard Armitage.

What is Political Correctness?

The term refers to language, ideas, behavior, etc, that is used in political, societal, and public discourse so individuals of a certain gender, sexual orientation, race, culture, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, occupations, etc, are not offended.  The topic of political correctness is hotly debated, and numerous pieces of legislation have tried to install the idea of “political correctness” into law. 

The Debate over Political Correctness (P.C.)

On one side, proponents of p.c. argue that certain terms should be used in public broadcasts, such as on the radio and television, to ensure members of certain societal groups are not offended.  Certain pieces of legislation like the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 have set up fines for people or parties that broadcast “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

Opponents of p.c. argue that the standards are an obvious attack on the First Amendment rights for the freedom of speech. 

On February 5, 2000, Bill Lind compared p.c. to cultural Marxism.  He argued that p.c. was a movement toward an ideology that was enforced by the power of the state.  He ripped at p.c. and stated the following:

“The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious.  In fact, it’s deadly serious.  It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.  It is the disease of ideology.  PC is not funny.  PC is deadly serious.”

Examples of Political Correctness

Authors Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf provide common examples of p.c. used in political and public discourse in their book titled The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook.  Some of the examples listed in the book include the following:

·         using “intellectually disabled” instead of terms like “retarded”

·         using “African American” instead of “black,” “negro” or other terms

·         using “Native American” instead of terms like “Indian”

·         using “Caucasian” instead of terms like “white”

·         using words like “visually impaired” or “hearing impaired” instead of “blind” or “deaf”

·         using gender-neutral terms like “server” instead of waitress or waiter or “police officer” instead of “policeman”

·         using terms like “winter holiday” instead of “Christmas” to respect religious rights

Views on Political Correctness

P.C. is, in large, a truly American term, and other countries have criticized the United States for restricting the rights it was founded upon.  Many left opponents of p.c. argue that it’s a social issue rather than a constitutional issue. 

In March of 2004, Representative Ron Paul called the Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004 an “indecent attack on the First Amendment.  He stated, “And now comes the right’s attack on the first amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways.  And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radio.” 

Even though legislations has approached the idea of p.c., it is likely to stay a social issue and remain a highly debated topic for years. 

J. Michael Luttig

J. Michael Luttig is an American attorney best known for his period as an appellate court judge. J. Michael Luttig served in this capacity in the fourth circuit court from 1991 to 2006, writing opinions on many major cases during this period. Prior to this period, he worked in private practice from 1985 to 1989. In 1989, he entered the Department of Justice.

In 1994, J. Michael Luttig's father was killed during a carjacking. The defendant twice filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. However, many of the Supreme Court justices recused themselves from hearing the case because of their personal familiarity with J. Michael Luttig. The defendant was later executed.

One of his most prominent opinions was written in 2003 when hearing the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The case concerned Yaser Esam Hamdi, who had been captured in Afghanistan and detained as an enemy combatant despite being an American citizen. Hamdi appealed his custody and was rejected by the majority court, which deferred to the powers of the executive branch in deciding not to hear his case. However, in a dissenting opinion, J. Michael Luttig stated that Hamdi was entitled to a rehearing of his case, since he had not been granted due process. J. Michael Luttig also stated that the reasoning given in favor of the executive branch was insufficiently strong. The case was later heard by the US Supreme Court.

Another prominent case concerned the detention of another enemy combatant. The case concerned Jose Padilla, who was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of planning to detonate an large bomb. Padilla had been detained as an enemy combatant, a legal procedure which was validated by a Fourth Circuit Court decision. The majority opinion was written in September of 2005 by J. Michael Lutting. However, in December of that year a decision was made by the Bush administration to transfer Jose Padilla to a civilian prison. J. Michael Lutting refused to authorize this request, arguing that the government's request seemed to be motivated by a desire to avoid a Supreme Court hearing about the earlier opinion. The Supreme Court eventually approved this request.

Another prominent case occurred in 1999, when J. Michael Lutting wrote the opinion of the majority regarding the Violence Against Women Act. This was legislation permitting victims of gender-motivated crimes to file suit specifically regarding such actions in federal court. In his opinion, J. Michael Lutting argued that this act was unconstitutional, since Congress is not permitted to regulate interstate commerce by permitting citizens to file such damage claims against the states. The Supreme Court later concurred in its hearing of the case.

During his time as a judge, J. Michael Luttig was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom he had formerly acted as a clerk. In 2006, J. Michael Luttig left the Fourth District Court and took an executive position with Boeing Motors. 

Lee A. Johnson

Lee A. Johnson is an American judge. After graduating from law school in 1980, he entered private practice. He served as the city attorney of Caldwell, Kansas from 1987 to 1997. In 2001, Lee A. Johnson was appointed to the Kansas Court Appeals system. From 2001 to 2007, Lee A. Johnson served in this capacity until appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2007.

 One notable case Lee A. Johnson has ruled upon recently concerned placing caps on settlement payments related to medical malpractice. The case was filed by a woman who, during surgery to remove her right ovary, instead had her left ovary removed. The woman filed suit and was awarded $759,679.74 in damages. Of this sum, $575,000 was concerned with pain and suffering and related side effects of the surgery rather than pure economic loss. State law stipulates that this type of non-economic compensation should be limited to $250,000. Therefore, the amount of the settlement was modified by the judge.

The plaintiff then filed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of this restriction and the settlement adjustment made by the judge. The doctor also filed an appeal, alleging that the plaintiff had failed to conclusively demonstrate evidence of malpractice and that expert witness testimony had been improperly restricted.

The court heard this case in October 2012. Lee A. Johnson contributed to the majority opinion issued by five members of the Supreme Court. In their opinion, the court noted that placing caps on malpractice compensation is a controversial issue which the state Supreme Court has previously issued conflicting rulings about. The majority opinion went on to state that this restriction did not violate the right to trial by jury, the right to the due course of law and the right to equal legal protection. The majority opinion also stated that this legislation did not constitute  violation of the separation of powers between state and federal governments.

While Lee A. Johnson concurred in part with the majority opinion, he filed a partial dissent alongside fellow justice Carol A. Beier. In their dissent, they noted that they believed the plaintiff's right to trial by jury and due process of law had been violated and did not issue a judgment as to whether the plaintiff's right to equal protection had been violated. However, Lee A. Johnson concurred by the majority concerning the separation of powers.

Lee A. Johnson also concurred with the majority in restoring $100,000 to the plaintiff awarded to cover future medical expenses, which had been granted by a jury but removed by a post-trial judge. The majority opinion concurred that the jury had had sufficient evidence to justify such an award. In total the plaintiff was awarded that amount, $250,000 for noneconomic damages, and roughly $84,000 in medical expenses already incurred. All arguments presented by the doctor concerning her lack of malpractice were rejected.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar is an American attorney currently serving as a Senator for the state of Minnesota. Prior to her assuming this public office in 2007, Amy Klobuchar practiced both private and public law. In 1998, she became the first female county attorney to be elected in Hennepin County. Amy Klobuchar maintained this position from 1999 to 2007, when she assumed the office of Senator.

During her period as Hennepin County Attorney, Amy Klobuchar emphasized the prosecution of repeat offenders and violent criminals as a matter of particular importance to her office. As part of her efforts, Amy Klobuchar was instrumental in the creation of a community prosecution initiative. The first such program was established in Manhattan in 1985. The purpose of such a program is to establish stronger ties between citizens of the area in question and the prosecutors managing it.

Under the supervision of Amy Klobuchar, the community prosecution initiative established in Hennepin County consisted of three different divisions. One, located in the Third Police Precinct, provided a full-time prosecutor tasked with coordinating law enforcement with local police officials and consulting regularly with a community council on the needs and concerns of the area.

The second division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the Fourth Police Precinct and is staffed by two full-time prosecutors concerned with juvenile crime. Another prosecutor in this office is concerned with adult crimes. Community initiatives allow community members to participate in the sentencing and rehabilitation process. The third division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the city of Bloomington. Here, one full-time attorney is concerned with handling all juvenile crime cases which occur in the area.

In addition to her active work in prosecuting criminal offenses, Amy Klobuchar was a strong advocate for criminalizing driving while intoxicated as a felony level offense in the state of Minnesota. The appropriate litigation was passed, in large part thanks to her efforts.

Following her arrival to the Senate, Amy Klobuchar has been involved in a great deal of high-profile legislation. One bill which Amy Klobuchar co-authored along with two other Senators is known as the "Commercial Felony Streaming Act." This legislation, which is pending and has not yet been introduced to the Senate, concerns streaming copyrighted material on a computer from an unauthorized provider. Currently, this is only a misdemeanor offense.

However, under the terms of the legislation co-authored by Amy Klobuchar, would criminalize such activities at a felony level. In order to be charged with a felony violation, the defendant in question would have to have streamed material whose value was in excess of $2,500 or for which the licensing fees are in excess of $5,000. Furthermore, to be prosecuted the defendant in question would have to made use of this kind of illegal streaming video at least 10 times within the period of 180 days.

Bruce Bennett was an Arkansas politician best known for serving as the state Attorney General from 1957 to 1960, and then again from 1963 to 1966. During his first term as Attorney General, Bruce Bennett was associated with the passage of a series of bills he authored in 1958 with the specific purpose of making it impossible for the civil rights organization the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to operate in the state. Among other things, the bills authored by Bruce Bennett specifically forbid the NAACP from maintaining attorneys in the state and compelled the organization to give the state a complete list of its members. Similar laws passed by the state of Alabama were later deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the 1958 case of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People V. Alabama, effectively nullifying his legislative work.

After an unsuccessful run for state governor in 1960, Bruce Bennett returned to the office of the Attorney General in 1963. During this time, he was involved in the creation of the Arkansas Loan and Thrift company. The company was founded by businessman Ernest A. Bartlett Jr., who had come into possession of a building and loan charter whose terms outdated current state laws governing the regulation of savings and loans businesses. The draft for this company's charter was completed in the office of Bruce Bennett, who became a shareholder in the business.

Following the foundation of the company, advertising was successful in soliciting investments from churches and private citizens. The company promised a higher rate of return than could be legally granted by savings and loans institutions, investing the funds into unsafe products while earning roughly $4 million. During this time, the company attracted the attention of the state Savings and Loan Commission. To determine whether the company could be regulated and investigated, the state's savings and loan regulator, Clint Jones, sent Bruce Bennett a series of letter inquiring whether the company could be regulated as a savings and loan association, bank, or insurance company. Bruce Bennett replied in the negative to every query without disclosing his role in the company.

The Arkansas Loan and Thrift company declared bankruptcy in 1967, prompting a renewed investigation, this time from the Federal Savings and Loan Commission. Subsequent legal investigation revealed the role of Bruce Bennett in protecting the company from investigation and regulation. In 1969, he was indicted on charges including securities violations, postal fraud, and wire fraud. However, in the subsequent handling of the case, the presiding federal judge, who was a friend of Bruce Bennett's,  severed the case against him from that of other defendants being charged. Due to his throat cancer, Bruce Bennett was able to receive a number of continuances delaying the start of his trial. Bruce Bennett died in 1979 without ever having been prosecuted for his role in the Arkansas Loan and Thrift Company.

Jan Schlichtmann

Best known for his work on a lawsuit which served as the basis for a best-selling non-fiction book, attorney Jan Schlichtmann is a currently operating attorney best known for his work on the case Anderson v. Cryovac. Though he lost the case, the publicity attendant to the work resulted in more stringent Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The case was instigated in the early 1980s, when Jan Schlichtmann met with representatives of the town of Woburn, Massachusetts. In 1979, the state's Department of Environmental Quality tested the town's water wells and determined that two out of eight had been contaminated by trichlorethylene, a chemical which had caused cancer in animals in laboratory tests. Trichlorethylene was found to be present in levels five times higher than safe, and the wells were immediately closed. A 1982 investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency traced the contamination to dumping performed at factory grounds used by two companies, the chemical plant of W.R. Grace and the John J. Riley Tannery

Following the closing of the wells, six children who all lived on the same block of Waltham were diagnosed with leukemia. Jan Schlichtmann and his partners agreed to represent the eight families in question in a lawsuit against the two companies. In part due to the arguments presented by lead defense counselor Jerome Facher, the presiding judge agreed to have the trial take place in two parts.

In the first part of the trial, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners were required to demonstrate that W.R. Grace and the John J. Riley Tannery were responsible for the contamination of the wells in question. After 79 days of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty regarding W.R. Grace but not for the John J. Riley Tannery. At this point, the trial continued to its second part, in which Jan Schlichtmann was required to demonstrate that the contamination was the direct cause of the development of leukemia.

At this point, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners had incurred a great deal of debt, in part because of the expenses necessitated to commission studies proving a link between trichlorethylene and leukemia development. Unable to proceed with the case fiscally, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners negotiated a $8 million settlement with W.R. Grace.

After the close of the trial, an in-house report produced by the Tannery emerged proving that the company knew that it had dumped waste chemicals in an illegal fashion, leading to contamination. Jan Schlichtmann therefore appealed the ruling regarding the tannery on the grounds that their attorney had knowingly suppressed this evidence. The case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which agreed with Jan Schlichtmann and ordered the original presiding judge to reconsider the case.

Ultimately, the presiding judge agreed with the claim of withholding evidence. However, in his opinion the judge ruled that Jan Schlichtmann had launched a frivolous lawsuit when filing without this evidence and ruled against him.

John Burris

John Burris is a prominent California-based attorney associated with his work in many cases involving police brutality and discrimination against African-Americans. One of his earliest prominent cases involved the defense of rapper Tupac Shakur, who was arrested by police on jaywalking charges. Shakur alleged that the arresting officers in Oakland had beat him and filed a 1991 lawsuit seeking $10 million damages. John Burris successfully obtained a $42,000 settlement.

In 1992, John Burris became involved in the case of Rodney King, whose beating by Los Angeles Police Department officers in 1991 caused riots. King had initially hired Steven Lerman after his beating, but dispensed with his services in October 1992 in favor of retaining Milton Grimes. Grimes had John Burris and fellow attorney Federico Sayre assist him in preparation of the case. Grimes, John Burris and Sayre were dismissed in August of 1994.

In 1996, Rodney King filed suit against John Burris, Lerman and Sayre. The suit alleged that John Burris and other attorneys had fraudulently charged him for work done on the suit, thereby lessening the size of settlement through fraud. His lawsuit was rejected in appeals court, which concluded that the one year statute of limitations had elapsed by the time King took this legal action.

In 1998, John Burris acted as defense attorney for professional basketball player Latrell Sprewell, who had been charged with reckless driving for forcing another driver off the road before hitting another car, injuring two people. Though he could have been sentenced to six months in prison, a plea bargain was arranged of three months of home detention in addition to two years of probation and a small fine.

From 2000 to 2003, John Burris was a leading counselor representing 119 plaintiffs in a federal district lawsuit filed against the city of Oakland. The

combined civil rights lawsuits concerned four Oakland police officers who were alleged to have committed a number of offenses, including beating prisoners, unlawful detentions, and planting evidence. In 2003, the city of Oakland agreed to a settlement totaling $10.9 million to be divided among the 119 plaintiffs.

In 2009, John Burris acted as leading co-counsel representing the relatives of Oscar Grant, who was shot to death by Bay Area police on New Year's Day. In the incident, Grant had been restrained and was lying on the ground, waiting to be handcuffed, when he was allegedly shot once in the back by officer Johannes Mehserle. As a result, the Bay Area Rapid Transit authority agreed to pay a settlement totaling roughly $5.1 million, including interest accrued.

In addition to his high-profile successes, John Burris has occasionally been the subject of legal action. In 1996, his license to practice in California was suspended for 30 days due to misleading solicitations he had sent to those who had survived natural disasters. John Burris disclaimed responsibility, saying it was done by employees without his knowledge.

George Tiller

George Tiller was a Kansas doctor nationally known as one of three Americans physicians at the time offering abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. He was shot and killed in 2009 by an anti-abortion activist.

Under Kansas state law at the time, anyone who wished to receive an abortion was required to receive an opinion from two separate physicians who could not be financially affiliated. In 2003, George Tiller faced charges that 19 patients had received second opinions from Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus in appointments scheduled through his office.

 In court, George Tiller said that this scheduling arrangement had been established on the basis of his attorney. Each charge carried a potential sentence of up to a year. However, the only witness presented by the prosecution was Dr. Neuhaus, weakening their case. George Tiller was acquitted of all the charges against him, pending an administrative review of his license by the state Board of Healing Arts.

 In May 2009, George Tiller was killed by Scott Roeder, who shot him in the head. Roeder had previously been arrested and convicted when he was discovered transporting explosives in his car in 1996. Initially unidentified as the shooter, Roeder escaped from the scene of the crime but was found and arrested within three hours. He was arraigned on June 2, 2009. At this time, Roeder declined to enter a plea regarding the murder of George Tiller and requested that he be assigned a public defender. A preliminary hearing concerning charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault was held on July 28.

 In January of 2010, Roeder's arguments successfully argued that he could be charged with "voluntary manslaughter," in which a fatality is committed by someone who honestly believes it to be justifiable. The actual trial began on January 22. During the course of argument, Roeder's lawyers attempted to call two judicial officials who had attempted to convict George Tiller on other charges at earlier dates to testify about his abortion activities. However, the court ruled that this testimony regarding legal abortions was irrelevant and likely to prejudice jurors and disallowed it.

 Scott Roeder took the stand as a witness in the trial of the murder of George Tiller on January 28. During the course of his testimony, Roeder defended himself by saying homicide was justifiable to save the lives of unborn children. However, his attempts to provide graphic descriptions of the abortion process practiced by George Tiller were successfully objected to by the prosecution. At the conclusion of his testimony, the judge reversed the earlier standing and prohibited the jury from convicting Scott Roeder on charges of voluntary manslaughter.

 The day following Roeder's testimony, the jury found him guilty of the murder of George Tiller as well as the two aggravated assault charges. His sentencing occurred on April 1. At this time he was given a sentence of 50 years of incarceration without the possibility of parole.