New England Law | Boston

Return to the New England Law | Boston home page.
Center for Law and Social Responsibility
New England Law Opportunities
Center for Law and Social Responsibility Environmental Advocacy Project Criminal Justice Project Education Law Project Immigration Law Project Public Service Project Women's and Children's Advocacy Project Student International Experiences

Welcome to the CLSR Weblog.

Please browse around, catch up on our latest public interest law projects, peruse our links (including the one to our home site, New England Law | Boston), and add your comments. Before you start, we encourage you to become familiar with our Terms of Use.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Public Education Legislation Project Kickoff Event a Success!


The New England Law | Boston Center for Law and Social Responsibility (CLSR) held its first workshop on charter school enrollment laws and policies on November 10, 2012.  The session was led by Professor Monica Teixeira de Sousa and attended by public school teachers, parents, a public school administrator, members of the judiciary, law students and academics.  This workshop marked the first public event for the Public Education Legislation Project, an ongoing effort on the part of the CLSR to analyze public education laws and policies in order to determine their impact on the most vulnerable student populations.


Professor Teixeira de Sousa and Retired Connecticut Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez 


The session was highly participatory and attendees shared their on-the-ground experiences with current charter school enrollment laws and policies, including their concerns about foster children and homeless students and their view that charter schools are not currently providing meaningful access for all students.

Current opt-in charter school enrollment laws requiring a child’s parent or guardian to apply to a charter school on their son or daughter’s behalf were discussed and data was shared with participants about the multiple barriers currently impeding parents from being able to take the affirmative steps necessary to enroll their children in charter schools.  The current legal framework was juxtaposed with recently proposed legislation in Rhode Island and New Jersey seeking to change charter school enrollment from an opt-in to an opt-out approach.  The opt-out approach to enrollment would include all students in a particular attendance zone or zones who are registered to attend public school in a randomized lottery.  A parent or guardian would not have to take any steps to place their child’s name on said lottery.  Parents of selected students would be notified and would have the choice at such point to send their child to a charter school or to keep their child in a traditional public school.  The Connecticut State Department of Education is currently conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of such an approach.


The bills were examined and discussed by participants and many in the room agreed that the opt-out approach held the potential to draw from a population of students that better reflected the students currently enrolled in traditional public schools.  Concerns about the opt-out approach were also raised and the attendees engaged in a lively discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the opt-out approach.

 
Next steps were also discussed and based on the suggestions provided by attendees, the Public Education Legislation Project will continue to conduct and disseminate research on charter school enrollment laws and policies, monitor the proposed ballot initiative in Massachusetts seeking the unlimited expansion of charter schools, examine the alleged practice on the part of charter schools of “pushing out” or counseling out students on account of academic performance, behavior or need of special education services, and keep the workshop participants and other interested community members informed about legislative and policy developments on the issue of charter school enrollment.


If you would prefer not to receive any emails from the Public Education Legislation Project in the future, please email Erika Barber at ebarber@nesl.edu and she will unsubscribe you from this mailing list.

Any other questions or requests for information may be sent to Professor Monica Teixeira de Sousa at mteixeiradesousa@nesl.edu.

Equal Justice Works Summer Corps - Apply December 18, 2012


Equal Justice Works Summer Corps provides law students with the chance to spend their summer working on a legal project at a qualifying nonprofit public interest organization or public defender office of their choosing.  Summer Corps members expand the delivery of critically needed legal assistance in low-income and underserved communities across the country on a broad range of issue areas.


IMPORTANT: New application period for 2013 Summer Corps program.

Please note: The application for the 2013 Summer Corps program will open on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, and we will be accepting students into the program on a rolling basis until the application closes on Monday, March 18, 2013. Additional information on the application and program will be communicated to you and posted on our website in the coming weeks. This program is highly competitive so you should apply in December if at all possible.

http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/law-school/summercorps

Friday, November 9, 2012

Public Interest Retreat / Weekend Getaway - Full Stipends Available


The 26th Annual Cover Retreat
Friday March 1, 2013 – Sunday March 3, 2013
Sargent Center, Peterborough, NH

The Robert M. Cover Retreat brings together law students, academics and practitioners committed to public interest to share their experiences, network and reinvigorate their commitment to this important work. The weekend is filled with exciting discussions and interesting topics, but it is also a weekend to relax and enjoy some time away from the law school environment. This year’s topic: Mission Impossible? Tools for Change in a Time of Political Polarization.

Cost: $150 includes Retreat fees, lodging and all meals/food*
* New England Law | Boston will cover the full cost of the retreat for four students. All class levels are invited to apply.

To apply: 

Please send your resume and a brief statement (a few paragraphs) describing how the retreat would benefit your career development and why you would be a strong candidate to represent New England Law | Boston. For questions or to apply, contact Erika Barber, Center for Law and Social Responsibility Fellow at erika.m.barber@nesl.edu or 617-422-7434.
Applications due Wednesday, January 16th, early submissions are strongly encouraged!

For general info about the retreat, visit http://www.law.yale.edu/news/coverretreat13.htm

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Post grad job for Sept. 2013 with the ACLU in NYC

Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New York, NY)—The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU), founded in 1920, is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, with more than 500,000 members and is dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution. The Speech, Privacy and Technology Project of the National office in New York City invites applications for the William J. Brennan First Amendment Fellowship, which will last for a one-year period beginning in September 2013.
The Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology is part of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, which works to strengthen democratic institutions and values and advocates for government transparency and accountability. In addition to the Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, the Center for Democracy includes the Human Rights Project and National Security Project.

The Brennan Fellowship was created to give people just starting their careers an opportunity to receive training and experience in First Amendment advocacy, and to help the ACLU advance its First Amendment goals. The Brennan Fellow will function as an integral part of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, and will focus on our extensive docket of First Amendment cases. The docket currently includes several major cases relating to free speech, privacy, and technology. For example, attorneys in the Project are litigating a novel and landmark First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of patents granted on the human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer. They have also filed suit on behalf of former chief Guantanamo prosecutor Morris Davis in a lawsuit against the Congressional Research Service, which fired Davis from his government job because of his public writings concerning the military commissions.

The Brennan Fellow's responsibilities will include, but will not be limited to, the following: participating in trial litigation at all levels of federal and state courts, including conducting legal and factual research, interviewing clients, drafting briefs and pleadings, and assisting in discovery and motion practice; assisting in drafting amicus curiae briefs; providing support for ACLU affiliate litigation; serving as a resource for ACLU legislative and policy work; and advancing ACLU policy goals through public education, organizing and participating in coalitions.

Compensation: Salary
Desired Class Level(s): 3LD, 4LE
Alumni: No


HOW TO APPLY
For details on how to apply, go to https://law-une-csm.symplicity.com/students/ and log in with your student ID and your symplicity password. Once in the school’s online job database scroll your mouse over the top purple headings to Job Postings, then click on the first dropdown option, CSO JobNet. In Keywords search ACLU and this posting will appear. You can also call the CSO with any questions.


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Criminal Justice Position for Recent Grads - Washington, D.C.


The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (CFSY) works to end the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole (JLWOP) in the United States. The Campaign works with advocates across the United States and in Washington, D.C. that use public education, advocacy, and litigation as strategies to pursue this goal. We work with active state campaigns and are advised by a committee of experts in the field.

SUMMARY OF POSITION: The CFSY Program Assistant is based in the National Campaign’s Washington, DC office and provides critical programmatic and administrative support to the staff. The CFSY offers a full benefits package and competitive salary, commensurate with experience.

Duties include, but are not limited to:

• Program support tasks such as targeted JLWOP research, creating spreadsheets from collected data, and preparing, formatting, editing and distributing documents such as reports, charts, advocacy documents, and posting web content.
• Perform a range of administrative tasks including, organizing all logistics for travel and meetings, assisting with reimbursements, processing and responding to mail, taking minutes at meetings and maintaining CFSY contact lists and databases.
• Respond to inquiries about CFSY, serve as a resource to outside organizations and conduct outreach to potential supporters and allies.
• Assist the Director and Operations & Development Manager with resource development efforts through drafting, editing and formatting grant proposals and reports, managing contact lists of individual donors, and liaising with some funder contacts.
• Manage online database of contacts and distribution lists.
• Assist Communications Director with new media tasks, including the development and implementation of an online outreach plan, tracking of blog and online news and posting news and other information to the website.
• Recruit, manage and coordinate the work of the CFSY intern.
• Other substantive tasks may be assigned based on demonstrated abilities.

QUALIFICATIONS: The candidate must have office/administration experience, demonstrated organizational and computer skills, as well as excellent writing abilities and competence in using the tools of electronic and social media. Strong interest in criminal justice issues, particularly reform to harsh juvenile sentencing practices in the United States, racial discrimination in juvenile justice, and / or human rights in the United States and a bachelor’s degree are required. Ability to work during weekends on occasion is preferred. Work and/or internship experience in juvenile justice is highly desirable.

CORE COMPETENCIES:
• Organized – maintains system for organizing work materials. Able to function under pressure and handle numerous tasks simultaneously.
• Flexible Time Management – able to prioritize with minimal supervision and take on unexpected tasks as they arise. Independent and creative- able to take on projects
• Enthusiastic about learning – able to take guidance on assigned tasks, eager to gain new skills and being challenged, and interested in regular feedback on completed work.
• Excellent communicator – good oral and written communication skills. Honest and straightforward with questions and ideas.
• Self Motivated – able to take the initiative to start new tasks and work diligently without a lot of supervision.
• Commitment to working as a team – friendly and courteous, willing to work closely with CFSY staff and as part of the larger community working to end JLWOP.
GEOGRAPHIC PREFERENCE
Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA)
PRACTICE AREA(S)
Public Interest
LOCATION(S)
City
Washington
State/Province
District of Columbia
Country
United States

HOW TO APPLY
For details on how to apply, go to https://law-une-csm.symplicity.com/students/ and log in with your student ID and your symplicity password. Once in the school’s online job database scroll your mouse over the top purple headings to Job Postings, then click on the first dropdown option, CSO JobNet. In Keywords search 7775 and this posting will appear. You can also call the CSO with any questions.



Friday, November 2, 2012

CORI Initiative Student co-authors Mass Lawyer’s Weekly Critique of Appellate Delay


Justice denied: appeals mired in delay

by Jeanne M. Kempthorne, Allison G. Haar ('13) and Sejal Patel
Published in Mass Lawyers Weekly: October 4th, 2012

Allison G. Haar ('13) CORI Initiative Volunteer (A project of the CLSR) co-authored the following article



Nearly 10 years ago, the Visiting Committee on Management in the Courts, chaired by Father J. Donald Monan, then-chancellor of Boston College, concluded that the courts of Massachusetts were “mired in managerial confusion” and that the “impact of high quality judicial decisions is undermined by high cost, slow action, and poor service to the community.”
The Monan Report concluded that the “management of the Judiciary is preventing the people of Massachusetts from receiving the justice they deserve” and that “[s]ome citizens get better justice than others.”
In the almost 10 years since the committee issued its scathing report, the courts and the Legislature have instituted numerous reforms to make the management of the trial courts more professional and efficient.
In at least one area, however, progress has seriously lagged. Appellate justice in the commonwealth is so slow that it may violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Recent court data indicate that criminal appeals, in particular, are absurdly slow: In fiscal year 2012, the time between filing of the notice of appeal and entry in the Appeals Court averaged 204 days for civil cases and 333 days for criminal.
Civil cases, on average, were disposed of within 378 days of docketing in the Appeals Court; for criminal cases, the average was 483 days.
In the 1st Circuit, in contrast, appeals are decided, on average, in less than a year. The American Bar Association’s time standards provide that 95 percent of all appeals to the intermediate appellate court should be decided within one year of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Several federal courts around the nation have ruled that an appellate process that takes longer than two years is presumptively unconstitutional. Massachusetts’ system routinely exceeds that outer constitutional limit, sometimes by years.
What does this mean in the real world? It means that someone serving a two- or three-year sentence is almost certain to serve his entire term of imprisonment before disposition of the appeal.
It means that appeals from District Court convictions are, in large measure, an empty, but very costly, ritual. In fact, no one keeps track of how many defendants serve their entire term of imprisonment before disposition of their appeal.
Without question, the court reporter system in Massachusetts deserves the blame that has been heaped on it for years.
Court reporters operate largely free from court oversight and have little financial incentive to complete transcripts for indigent criminal defendants, as opposed to civil litigants, in a timely fashion.
Efforts by the committee headed by Appeals Court Judge Mark Green to speed up the process have yielded some improvement, but serious problems persist, both in quality and in timeliness.
It still falls largely on defense counsel to push to get the transcripts done, and there are few, if any, repercussions for reporters who fail to comply with time standards.
But the delay problem does not end with preparation of the transcript. The culture of delay is firmly entrenched in the appellate process.
In several counties in Massachusetts, appointed defense counsel struggle to do their jobs impeded by the clerks’ offices. Instead of court clerks automatically riding herd on court reporters, the burden to follow up falls on appointed defense counsel — at public expense.
And even when the transcript is finally completed, clerks in some offices drag their feet to get copies made for counsel, impose ridiculous requirements that counsel personally pick up the transcripts, and then take their time assembling the record.
In short, while many clerks strive to be helpful and to facilitate counsel’s efforts to accomplish the task at hand, too many continue to exhibit the lack of customer service and accountability that the Visiting Committee decried almost a decade ago.
The appellate courts themselves bear a good deal of the responsibility. Not only does there appear to be little if any repercussion for court reporters and clerks who impede the process, the court itself sets the tone.
In several, if not most districts, the commonwealth’s appellate attorneys routinely seek very lengthy extensions of time in which to file the state’s responsive brief — often 60 to 120 days beyond the 30 allotted by rule. This extension is often followed by a second request for additional time.
The Appeals Court routinely grants the commonwealth long extensions without waiting for an objection or even inquiring whether there is an objection. This surprising practice is enshrined in Mass. R. App. 15(b), which places the onus on defense counsel to file a motion to reconsider, vacate or modify such action.
In practice, the Appeals Court is extremely lenient with the state’s motions for more time. Often the affidavit submitted in support of the motion unwittingly describes lax management practices whereby an appeal is not even assigned to an assistant district attorney until it is almost due.
And, while the rule permits the aggrieved party to move to vacate or modify the order granting more time, the Appeals Court has rarely granted such motions, and even then, the process, by itself, gives the commonwealth relief from the deadline.
Many defense counsel have simply thrown in the towel, concluding that it’s fruitless to complain or fearing that their own requests for more time will be denied.
Defense requests for more time are simply not comparable to prosecution requests. For one thing, they do not raise due process concerns so long as the defendant agrees that an extension is necessary. The defendant and counsel can weigh the impact of a request for delay on the time the defendant will spend behind bars waiting for his appeal to be decided. And, if they don’t agree, the defendant has some recourse.
In contrast, delay is always in the state’s interest so long as the defendant stays behind bars for the duration. There is no client to whom the commonwealth is answerable.
Moreover, the district attorneys’ offices are in a much better position than appellant’s counsel to comply with the briefing deadlines.
First, the appellant’s brief sets out the facts, with citations to the record, frames the issues, and cites the applicable law.
Second, the DA’s Office gets plenty of notice of when its brief will be due, whereas appellate counsel is powerless to control when a case will be docketed and the clock start ticking.
Third, the DA’s Office is in a position to triage cases and manage resources in light of looming deadlines, whereas appellant’s counsel is often a sole or small-firm practitioner struggling to juggle competing deadlines.
Even when they seek long delays in the briefing schedule, the DAs’ offices reflexively oppose motions to stay execution of sentence, even in cases in which the defendant has a minimal criminal history, is convicted of a nonviolent offense, and is serving a short sentence likely to be completed before the appeal is resolved. And the courts almost never grant motions to stay, even when the delay is unconscionable.
The judiciary appears insensitive to the perception of many defendants that the system is rigged against them and that the whole appellate process is a charade with an almost certain outcome.
Even a reversal is cold comfort to a defendant who has spent years in prison waiting for justice. Rule 15(b) feeds the perception of systematic unfairness. It undermines the reputation of the court.
While a strong case can be made that the average appeal in Massachusetts presumptively violates defendants’ constitutional right to due process, neither the state nor the courts have much incentive to address the problem.
The courts pay lip service to the importance of a speedy resolution of criminal appeals and frequently criticize the glacial pace, but they have avoided providing any remedy to complaining defendants.
Thus, the due process guarantee provides no effective check on the commonwealth, including not only the DAs’ offices and the clerks’ offices, but the judiciary itself.
Three proposals to address the pervasive culture of delay immediately suggest themselves:
• First, court reporters who do not comply with time standards for producing transcripts must be subject to appropriate sanctions, including contempt and fines. At a minimum, they should not be permitted to undertake additional work, including hearings, until transcripts are complete.
• Second, the appellate courts should no longer grant the commonwealth’s motions for extensions without inquiring whether there is an opposition. At the very least, the courts should summarily deny motions that are not timely filed and should not grant extensions longer than one week without soliciting defense counsel’s position on the motion. No motion by the state for an extension longer than one month should be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances. If the commonwealth fails to file by the deadline, it should be barred from oral argument.
• Third, motions to stay execution should be given a meaningful hearing. When the sentence is short, the offense non-violent, and the defendant has no prior record, or when the commonwealth, including court reporters and clerks, are responsible for inordinate delay, there should be a strong presumption in favor of a stay.
Placing responsibility for the release of convicted defendants pending appeal where it belongs will have an immediate impact on the culture and practice of the courts, the DAs’ offices and the clerks’ offices. Nothing less will suffice to give effect to the due process guarantee of a prompt appeal.

Complete URL: http://masslawyersweekly.com/2012/10/04/justice-denied-appeals-mired-in-delay/