Latest Posts

It Was 20 Years Ago Today

Posted in Access on Wednesday August 04 2010 @ 4:11am

Well, 20 years plus a week that Bush I signed the ADA into law. What everyone feared -- an avalanche of litigation, a ruined economy -- never happened (well, at least not the avalanche of litigation, and certainly we can't blame the ADA for today's economic problems).

What did happen was this: quietly, and without much fanfare, society has become accustomed to ramps, railings, closed captioning, and other innovations that make life easier for people. Some of these innovations, called universal design, are useful to all of us at one time or another, particularly as society (read: Baby Boomers) ages.

And the major goal -- employment of individuals with disabilities (read: more taxpayers)? The Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability report that, according to their survey, only 21% of working-age individuals with disabilities are employed. For working-age people without disabilities, this number is 59%.

Internet access also continues to be a problem. Only 54% of individuals with disabilities have access to the information superhighway, compared with 85% of adults without disabilities.

Does the ADA apply to courts? Oddly enough, nobody was sure at first. But we know now that the answer is yes. Some questions remain -- how much access? Must every room in an entire courthouse be accessible? Or is it enough to have some rooms reserved for use by people with disabilities?

And access by whom? Parties, attorneys, judges, and court staff -- of course. But does a defendant's hearing-impaired brother get use of an interpreter at trial? What about the defendant's great-aunt? What if the great-aunt raised him?

NPR's Talk of the Nation discusses What's Changed in 20 Years Since ADA Passage, (July 28, 2010).

See also: the ADA megasite, housed by the DOJ. If you can't find it here, it probably doesn't exist.

As a p.s., Bush II signed the ADA Amendments Act in 2008. CHADD offers a nice summary.

Overlawyered or Overhyped?

Posted in Access on Wednesday July 14 2010 @ 4:35am

If you think things are crazy where you work, imagine this -- downtrodden celebrities (society's favorite kind) parading through, day after day, leaving paparazzi in their wake like so much confetti after a parade.

On top of that, it all takes place in a state where furloughs and other cutbacks have become de rigueur (though Furlough Fridays are, thankfully, over for now).

See Stars, Cameras and Theatrics Strain Courts, Michael Cieply, NYT (July 9, 2010).

L.A. court PIO Allan Parachini is the man! We remember back in the day when he would send out informational faxes regarding Winona's shoplifting case. Getting the word out to the people who are going to show up (whether invited or not) is just one of Mr. Parachini's tasks.

Eriq Gardner at THR, Esq., doesn't get it but tries with Are Celebrities to Blame for an Overburdened Court System? (July 12, 2010). It's not about the celebrity legal problems themselves -- they're not so different from anyone else's. It's the logistics. Traffic, security, cameras in the courts (and their concomitant procedures), long lines, parking...the confetti falls on all of these and more.

One person's DUI is another person's photo op. As the threshold for fame dips to a new low, gawkers increase and multiply. The result is chaos, which is just one more piece of the court PIO's life.

Risky Business

Posted in Access on Tuesday July 28 2009 @ 8:48pm

What security risks does your court face? Is anyone actually watching the screens of surveillance cameras? Are people with metal shanks hidden in their shoes waived through? Do security personnel stand with their backs to potential perps?

Who poses the bigger threat -- angry criminal defendants or religious women?

The Georgia Judicial Council issued a new policy allowing people in court to wear head coverings for religious or medical reasons. Special search procedures honoring the dignity and privacy of such people are outlined.

See Muslim Headscarves to Be Allowed in Georgia, Jim Galloway, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 24, 2009); and Deputy Alleges Security Violations in Atlanta Courthouse Shooting, Daniel Yee, AP (March 10, 2006).

Jacket Required

Posted in Access on Monday May 11 2009 @ 6:53am

Courts try to make sure participants look their best -- or at least passable. Signage, flyers, and straight talk send out the message: No Shoes, No Shirt, No Trial.

Now Michigan's highest court will answer the question: can judges dictate how witnesses dress?

The case at hand involves a Muslim woman who refused to remove her veil for religious reasons vs. a judge who cites the confrontation clause. (Antigone, anyone?)

Michigan's large Muslim population makes this something more than a lone test case. See Michigan Supreme Court Considers Dress Rule, AP, Chicago Tribune (May 11, 2009).

Video Never Killed Anybody

Posted in Access on Monday February 09 2009 @ 8:09am

First we heard that the revolution would be televised. Then we heard that video killed the radio star. So which is it? What, exactly, does TV do to courts?

We're going to say: relax! Someone, somewhere, will play the O.J. card. The country started watching the O.J. event with the slow-chase and never let up. It was, by all definitions, notorious. Notorious trials have always been with us. The Scopes trial was immensely popular -- a century before Court TV was even a twinkle in anybody's eye. One might even guess that trials occurring before the TV age attracted even more attention -- they provided a form of infotainment not accessible by other means and captured the public's imagination in ways other events had not.

The critics of televised court proceedings are united. Even those who have less in common than Felix and Oscar are cozy as Kate and Allie. For example, it's rare for Justice Scalia and Simple Justice to agree on anything, but they are of one mind when it comes to opposing cameras in the courts.

There are rules in place. Witnesses and jurors can't be televised. Parties always have the option of moving for their very own version of TV turnoff week. If California -- with its swimming pools and movie stars -- can survive its Rule 980, so can the rest of the world.

See Florida Student Asks Scalia a Question -- and Gets Scolded, Tony Mauro, BLT (February 4, 2009).

Camcourter

Posted in Access on Monday January 26 2009 @ 10:56pm

We've seen Paris and Nicky try farm life, people trying to sing and dance, and 24-7 coverage of space.

Cameras in the courts -- what, if anything, would they change?

Cameras can be used to try to turn the tables; just ask the governor of Illinois. He wants cameras, but no trial. Every revolution is now televised. Recall Tonya Harding, Roseanne, and Bono all taping the paparazzi, back atchya. Just a week ago, one of the new first daughters caught her father's inauguration on a handheld device. Forget being in the moment, we've captured it for later.

In Minnesota, politics brought cameras to court, too. See Minn. Judges Allow Cameras in Court for Senate Battle, RCFP News Media Update (January 22, 2009). TV stars-turned-politicians are guaranteed to bring up the ratings!

Here in Ohio, court-o-rama is probably alone in watching Chief Justice Moyer and company on the Ohio Channel. Often broadcast in the wee hours, these are not for the tired or easily bored. The only thing close to a scandal we've seen thus far was a disciplinary hearing. It was handled with professionalism and civility by the bar, defense, and justices.

Who knows, soon insomniac New Yorkers may have a similar option. The new chief is known to favor cameras in the courts. See NY Chief Judge Nominee Backs Cameras in Courtrooms, Michael Virtanen, AP/Newsday (January 14, 2009).

What do cameras change?

Access. Not everybody can come to court; court comes to everybody.

Knowledge. We're always excited when some otherwise obscure procedure or little-known bit of legalese comes to light via a notorious case. If people need Britney to teach them about conservatorship, so be it.

The rumor mill. When people don't know what's going on, they gossip for lack of better information.

Haircuts. We heard that when Washington state courts first allowed cameras, the judges worried about their hair. Now that they're used to it, they worry less.

Are you ready?

What Not to Do: Deny Access

Posted in Access on Wednesday December 17 2008 @ 7:36am

Rules about courtroom decorum are often set by the judge. They may be informal or written down, strict or somewhat lax. A family or juvenile court may have different standards than a court of last resort. No matter what standard is set, the right to wear cultural and religious dress should be preserved.

Who made judges the arbiters of fashion? They get to wear those delightful robes. No question about what to wear each day! Yet, there should be some sense of seriousness and respect in the courtroom.

Sure, security risks abound. Baggy clothes, large winter coats, and head coverings could, in theory, hold weapons. So can pockets, briefcases, and tote bags. Where does it end?

It ends when access to the courts is threatened. In Douglasville, Georgia, a Muslim woman was held in contempt and jailed for not removing her hijab.

Use the magnometer at the entrance. Search pockets and bags. For the love of Pete, make peopel remove baseball caps. But allow people to express their religious views. A hijab is not disruptive, does not show disrespect to anyone, it is not a security risk any more than a nun's habit might be.

See Douglasville: Muslim's Scarf Leads to Arrest at Courthouse, Moni Basu, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (December 17, 2008), for the story about a modern-day Antigone.

One Angry Man

Posted in Access on Thursday November 20 2008 @ 8:40pm

Can a juror change the world?

See Juror Challenges Closed Door Trial in Journalist's Murder Case, Philip P. Pan, Washington Post Foreign Service (November 20, 2008).

Too Much Time on Their Hands

Posted in Access on Thursday October 09 2008 @ 8:27pm

What do Martha Stewart, Jeff Gordon, Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, President Bush, and Hurricanes Ike and Gustav have in common? They've all been named as defendants in bogus lawsuits filed by the Litigator Crusader and his ilk.

If idle hands are the favorite tool of frivolous litigators, LWOP prisoners are their Home Depot. While it's perfectly OK for prisoners (and anyone) to file important suits, these handwritten, bogus claims clog court access for everyone (fellow prisoners included). Claims like these diminish the seriousness with which the powers that be take prisoner litigation.

Please oh please find another hobby! Take a cue from Martha Stewart, who started a nice knitting circle and practiced yoga while incarcerated at Alderson.

Some alternatives:

Prison Book Program

Project Pooch

Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program from BJA

Boston University Prison Education Program

Prison Horse Adoption

PEN Prison Writing Program

See Judge Rejects Strange Claim, Kevin Kelly, Kentucky Enquirer (October 2, 2008), and Obama, McCain Make a Joint Appearance -- in Frivolous Lawsuits, Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers (September 12, 2008).

Refer back to Weird, or Just Lots of Pictures? Ranking the World's Strangest Pleadings, court-o-rama (March 7, 2008).

Outreach in California

Posted in Access on Tuesday September 23 2008 @ 1:39pm

After reading about Washington's efforts, Fritz Ohlrich, Clerk of the Supreme Court of California, wrote to tell us about the California Supreme Court's Special Oral Argument Outreach Session:

The California Supreme Court has regularly conducted oral argument sessions in San Francisco (headquarters) four months each year; in Los Angeles four months; and in Sacramento two months each year, since 1879 (the court doesn't hold oral argument in July and August). For the past seven years the court has held one special outreach oral argument session each year.

In October the court will hold its 2008 special session at California State University-Palm Desert campus. While this session is to be held on a university campus, the target audience is high school students.

An important feature of our program is having local trial court judges and local attorneys visit the participating high school classes before the session to explain the materials and to brief the students before they actually attend the oral argument.

Another special feature of our program is that the entire one-and-a-half-day session will be cable-cast statewide.

* * *

See also State Supreme Court to Hold Special Outreach Session in Riverside County's Coachella Valley, press release (September 17, 2008).

For more information about the program, please contact Lynn Holton, Public Information Officer, at 415-865-7740.

Thanks to Ohlrich and Crawford for the information!

Next 10 Posts >>

court-o-rama.org

the least dangerous blog

Categories