Questions:

1. In the last 50 years or so, how many U.S. Supreme Court cases dealt with Fifth Amendment self-incrimination?
2. Of the four Court eras covered by the database (Warren, Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts), which court era had the most number of liberal decisions?
3. How many cases from Ohio made it to the U.S. Supreme Court?

 
Answering these types of questions just got easier.  Released this week, the Supreme Court Database allows anyone to search, pull up cases, and perform simple analyses.  This new database has created quite a stir on the legal blogs. 

 
The best part of the Supreme Court Database is the search options! 

If you are interested in a single case, you can access information about it (along with links to the decision) by entering the citation or case name.  A detailed case report includes lower court background, a break down on how the Justices voted for each legal issue in the case, whether the outcome is considered conservative or liberal, and links to copies of the decision on the web.  Two links point to free copies of the case decision.

If you want to analyze all the cases or a grouping of cases, use the database search to create lists of cases by legal issue, or by Court Era, by vote detail by each Justice, vote direction (liberal or conservative), legal precedent changes, etc.

I had fun trying all sorts of searches.  How many cases declared law unconstitutional?  How many cases changed precedent?  What are the 50 most prevelant petitioners (the person who initiated the case)?  The database searches are lightening fast!  No waiting for tables to display.

“In addition to providing a web-based platform to search and analyze the Supreme Court Database, this site also provides downloadable files that researchers can use with their own statistical software.”  Durable links to searches, lists and tables work also!  Generate lists or tables and share the link with others.   For an example, see my answer links below.   Way Cool!

To use the database:  At the Supreme Court Database site, click the Analysis search tab and then click the Specifications tab.

Coverage:   Data coverage right now is from 1953 to 2008 and includes data for 7367 cases. The database will be continuously updated.   Funding from the National Science Foundation is supporting the posting of the court’s decisions and data back to 1792 over the next four years.

Answers:

1. There have been 106 U.S. Supreme Court cases on self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.  Click for a list of these cases.   
2. The Warren Court had 66.7% liberal decisions and only 32.1% conservative.  Click for the table.  (If you wish to see how liberal and conservative is determined, click on documentation. )
3. In the last 50 years, 80 cases from Ohio reached the U.S. Supreme Court.  Click for a list of these cases.     

From C-SPAN’s  website:

“Beginning Sunday October 4 at 9:00 p.m. and continuing through that entire week–each night at 9:00 p.m. — C-SPAN will present groundbreaking and unique programs on the Supreme Court. Featuring an original documentary production "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court" as well as an unprecedented collection of original interviews with 9 of the living current and former Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court week will offer viewers a rare window into the Supreme Court and those that serve there.”

See a virtual tour of the Supreme Court, the justices on the current court, former homes of the court, or watch videos of interviews with the Justices and Supreme Court experts, all on the C-SPAN’s Supreme Court website.

This looks like it will be a good documentary.  Set your DVRs!

What is community legal aid?

A non-profit law firm which:

• *Specializes in poverty law and is devoted to providing free, high-quality civil legal services to eligible clients.
• *Is dedicated to providing legal advice, information and representation as assistance for those seeking to achieve and maintain self-sufficiency.
• *Provides information about laws and the legal system to those who work with the poor and elderly so that they may better serve their clients.
• *Is a non-profit corporation governed by local lawyers, members of the client community and others concerned about equal access to justice.

Source:  http://www.communitylegalaid.org/services

Two things surprised me when I was pulling this information together for this post.  First, there are many programs available to Ohio citizens who cannot afford an attorney.  Second, all these services would not be possible without the attorneys and law firms generously volunteering their services and time.  The attorneys that work with the clients are chosen from lists of volunteers.  Some programs reimburse the attorney for very limited expenses, but nothing near the actual cost of litigating a case.

Most of the services listed in this post are for individuals experiencing financial difficulty and have a need for legal assistance with a civil case.  None of the programs listed here assist with criminal cases.  Make sure to read the information on the programs web pages describing the type of cases they will provide assistance with. Due to very limited resources the programs are very selective.

1.   Community Legal Aid

Free assistance is based on the individual’s financial eligibility.  Eligible clients may be represented by either a staff attorney or they may be referred to a volunteer attorney in the community. Type of cases Community Legal Aid handles includes consumer rights, family, housing, foreclosure, health education, public benefits, wills, probate and taxes.  A more detailed listing is found here.

This organization also lists many free clinics and classes conducted on topics like divorce, Akron Municipal court, or home ownership.  The classes are limited so see this page for dates and more information.   
Website: http://www.communitylegalaid.org/ 
Phone: HelpLine: 1-800-998-9454 (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
Or apply for help online. 

2.  Equal Justice Foundation (EJF)

“The Equal Justice Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization providing legal representation to low income persons.  EJF is the only organization of its kind in Ohio specifically created to attack statewide systemic problems facing low-income persons through class-action litigation and individual civil litigation. “

EJF does not accept criminal cases or family law cases.  For more information on the types of cases they do accept go here.
Website: http://www.equaljusticefoundation.com/
Phone: 1-800-898-0545

 3.  Ohio Legal Rights Service- protection and advocacy for people with disabilities

“OLRS is the state protection and advocacy system for Ohioans with disabilities. If you think you have been abused or neglected, discriminated against, denied services or been unable to access public facilities, you should contact the OLRS.”
For information about getting help from this Ohio Government department go here.
Website: http://olrs.ohio.gov/ASP/HomePage.asp
Phone: 1-800-282-9181 or TTY: 1-800-858-3542

4.  Ohio Legal Services- providing legal assistance to low income Ohioans

The website has self-help materials online and staff will connect you to free legal services nearby.
Website: http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/
Phone: 1-866-law-ohio

5.  Pro Seniors Legal Hotline

“The Legal Hotline provides free legal information, advice, and referral for residents of Ohio age 60 and over. The Legal Hotline responds to the legal needs of callers within Ohio regardless of income or location.  Typical questions concern Medicare, Medicaid and Medicaid estate recovery, living wills, durable powers of attorney for health care, and consumer problems.”
Website: http://www.proseniors.org/legal_services.html
Phone: 1-800-488-6070

Pro Bono Programs

A pro bono service is when an attorney takes a case without compensation from the client.  Many attorneys and law firms that volunteer in the programs listed in this post are providing a pro bono service.  Here are a few such programs sponsored by the government or the courts.

6.  Ohio Attorney General Pro Bono Program (Elder Law Program) 

“The Attorney General Office’s Pro Bono program provides volunteer attorneys from within the Office to assist with preparing documents to facilitate end-of-life decisions and estate distribution for elderly Ohioans.”
Website: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/probono.asp
Phone:  1-800-282-0515

7.  Ohio Attorney General Patriot Program (for military service personnel)

“Free legal assistance is available for Ohio servicemen and servicewomen being called to active duty.”
Website: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/citizen/military_veterans/ag_resources.asp  
Phone: 1-866-GI-HELPR (1-866-444-3577)

8.  Northern District of Ohio (federal court) Pro Bono Program
This is done at the discretion of the judicial officer and in only limited cases. 
Website:  Pro Bono Program  
Phone: Akron Court 330-252-6000

9.  Save the Dream – Ohio’s Foreclosure Prevention Effort

This web site is full of help for those experiencing foreclosure.  This unique multi-agency effort pulls together free help easily available for Ohioans.  Don't even think about going through a foreclosure until you have exhausted the resources at this site.  For a description of this program’s pro bono support click on Legal Assistance on the right side of the Save the Dream web page.
Website: http://www.com.ohio.gov/SavetheDream/
Phone:  Hotline 1-888-404-4674

Sources of Help outside of Summit County

Consumers’ Guide to Free Legal Help
Links provided by the American Bar Association.  The listings of resources are arranged by county.  Most of the listings point to the same resources I include in this post but it is useful if you are looking for help outside of Summit County.

To find other Ohio Legal Help, enter your county or zip code in this online directory.
Also try here .

     Get ready for new methods of computing time periods in federal court litigation.  On March 26, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court  approved proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Bankruptcy Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Criminal Procedure that will change many time periods set out in these rules and will also change the methods of computing time under these rules.  The rules will take effect on December 1, 2009, absent congressional action to reject, modify, or defer the amendments.   

     The Federal Rules' comprehensive time-computation project was undertaken in response to frequent complaints regarding the time and anxiety and the risk of error inherent in current time computation methods.  Billed as "minor" changes, most proposed rules will further the following principles (1) a "days are days" approach to counting time periods, which will eliminate the current method of omitting intermediate holidays and weekends when the time period is short; (2) a lengthening of shorter time periods to compensate for the new "days are days" approach; and (3) a preference for providing time periods that are less than 30 days in multiples of 7 so that deadlines will less frequently fall on weekends.

     In other time-computation changes, the proposed amendments to the civil rules will clarify how to count forward when a time period is measured after an event and a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday (e.g., 14 days after receipt of a motion); how to count backward when a time period is measured before an event and the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday (e.g., at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held); and how to compute hourly time periods.  The proposed civil rules will also create filing deadlines for electronic filings:  Generally, unless a statute or rule provides otherwise, the last day of a time period for an electronic filing will end at midnight in the court's time zone.  Explanations of the new rules and the proposed language can be found here.

    Additionally, Congress passed H.R. 1626, which amends 28 statutory deadlines to conform with the proposed time-computation amendments to various Federal Rules,  and President Obama signed H.R. 1626 on May 7, 2009.  The statutory changes, like the proposed amendments to the Federal Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedural Rules, have an effective date of December 1, 2009.  The Act and the amended statutes can be viewed here. 

     At first glance, these rules appear to be no more than mere counting changes.  But take a closer look.  Each set of amended rules — appellate procedure, bankruptcy procedure, civil procedure, and criminal procedure — include rules of more substance.

     In addition to the relatively "minor" time-computation changes, for example, some of the proposed new Federal Rules would have greater impact as follows:

• Proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 12.1 – Proposed Civil Rule 62.1 would provide a consistent procedure for obtaining an "indicative ruling" from a district court judge when a case is on appeal.  When a case is appealed from a district court, the district court loses jurisdiction to consider issues involving the case, but a practice has arisen in most circuits that permits district courts to make an "indicative ruling," i.e., to indicate the ruling it would make if it retained jurisdiction.  Proposed Civil Rule 62.1 will provide a uniform procedure for the federal courts that will permit the district court to defer ruling, deny the motion, or indicate either that the motion raises a substantial issue or that it would be inclined to grant the motion if the case were remanded.  Requests for indicative rulings are typically prompted by Rule 60(b) motions for relief from order or judgment that are filed after an appeal has been granted.  Proposed Fed. R. App. P. 12.1 is consistent with Civil Rule 62.1 and facilitates remand to the district court when the district court indicates that it would grant the motion if the appellate court remands for that purpose or indicates that the motion raises a substantial issue.
• Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) — Changes the time period for amending, as of course, a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required.
• Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 48 — Permits a court to poll the jury individually and requires the court to do so on request of a party.
• Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52, 59(b), (d), (e) – Changes current 10-day time periods to 28-day time periods for the following:
  • motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law) under Rule 50(b),
  • motions to amend a judge's findings of fact following the entry of judgment in a bench trial under Rule 52;
  • motions for a new trial or to amend or alter a judgment in a jury trial, under Rule 59.
• Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 — Proposed Criminal Rule 41 is amended to provide clarification on how warrant procedures apply to seizure of electronically stored information (ESI).  Rule 41 adopts a "two-stage" procedure.  It authorizes (1) a first-stage seizure of the electronic storage media or seizure and copying of ESI; and (2) a second-stage review of the medium or ESI for information consistent with the scope of the warrant, at an offsite location.  

Is a stay the same as an injunction?  Do we really care?  The U.S. Supreme Court answered these burning questions Wednesday when it decided Nken v. Holder and poetically explained:  “The sun may be a star, but ‘starry sky’ does not refer to a bright summer day.”

The Court was trying to explain how a stay walks like a duck, talks like duck, but is not a duck — or in this case, not an injunction.  An injunction directs the conduct of the defendant, prohibiting or commanding action.  A stay temporarily halts a judicial proceeding.  As the Court admitted, a stay looks curiously like a preliminary injunction.  These two common (yet allegedly “extraordinary”) remedies share a functional overlap.  Both preserve the status quo, temporarily halt action, and use the same four-part test for qualification.  As Justice Kennedy noted in his concurrence, in most cases, the difference between the two will have “little practical effect.”

Not so in the case of Jean Marc Nken.  In Nken, the technical definitions mattered to interpret an act of Congress, the 1996 immigration reform act, that limited injunctive relief.  The plaintiff, Nken, a native of Cameroon sought asylum in the U.S. claiming that his participation in student protests in the 1990s subjected him to persecution in his home country, demonstrated by his 30-day imprisonment in 2000.  The immigration courts denied his claim and ordered his removal from the U.S.  Nken then sought a stay of the removal order while he appealed.  The lower court of appeals applied the immigration statute’s standard which said that no court can enjoin the removal of an alien unless clear and convincing evidence show that the removal is prohibited by law. 

A solid majority of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Roberts rejected this application of the immigration statute.  Instead, they held that a stay is different from an injunction because the stay acts upon the proceeding, while the injunction acts upon the conduct of the defendant or government.  A stay is procedural.  An injunction is substantive.  Thus, the limitations on injunctive relief contained in the immigration statute did not apply to Nken’s request for a stay.  Instead, the traditional test allowing the equities of the circumstances to be factored in would apply. 

The sticking point was the Court was unable to explain what Congress might have meant by its limitation provision if not applied to stays.  That didn’t bother the Court too much, though the dissent by Justices Alito and Thomas were concerned about this dissing of congressional intent. 

We're honoring Native Americans. Really.

Spring training got into full swing this week.  For most of my adult life, the return of baseball was like a ray of sunlight breaking through grey skies because I love to watch and score the game.  But since I moved to Cleveland four years ago, the return of baseball has left me tense–dealing with the conflict between my love of the game and the image of Chief Wahoo.  At times like these, I am repeatedly reminded of a poster I saw in Sports Illustrated when I was in grade school that had pictures of fictitious and patently offensive mascots for teams named the "New York Negroes" and the "Boston Jews," along with those of the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins.  At the bottom of the poster it read: "If any one of these is offensive to you, then they all should be."  I have yet to hear a good explanation for why that statement is not correct.

None of which is to say that I don't sympathize with fans of the Indians who get defensive on this point.  There is the simple conscious or unconscious equation that: (1) I've been wearing Chief Wahoo gear my whole life; (2) I'm not a racist; so, (3) Chief Wahoo can't be a racist image.  There is also the sense that there should be one place in the world where we should be free from the wagging finger of the "political correctness police."  For many, that "place" is sports.  We work hard, struggle to make end meets and be good people–is it really too much to ask that we be allowed to watch our home team in peace?  I can sympathize with both these sentiments.  But my short response to them is that we are called to be better.  One of the great things about humans is that they have the capacity to reconsider deeply held beliefs.  And, when the time is right, they can stop defending the indefensible.

And speaking of being better, I think I know just where to start.  When I think of Cleveland and northeast Ohio I think of a place where people suit up and show up for work and greet you with a smile in spite of high crime, foreclosures, and winters that would make Mr. Freeze look for warmer climes.  There is a spirit here that refuses to give up even in the face of the cruelest jokes or harshest criticisms.  I am currently in my fourth year at the University of Akron School of Law, and I can tell you with complete conviction that every person on our organizational chart is committed to being of maximum service to our students, the law school, and the communities–local, national, and global–that we are connected to.  There really is a "Spirit of Ohio" and I would love to see the team that plays the most games in Cleveland each year have a name and mascot that reflect that spirit–as opposed to one that leads to children holding signs that say, "I am not a mascot."

Which leads me to the subject of this post: Does Chief Wahoo deserve an antitrust exemption?  Professor Mitchell Nathanson recently posted a paper that,

examines the relationship between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the law and discusses how it has evolved that MLB has become unofficially exempt from federal law on a wide range of issues due to its unique status within American society. Although its antitrust exemption is well-known, MLB has, in practice, not been subject to the forces of federal law in many other contexts as well, setting it apart from most other corporations and organizations – even other professional sports leagues such as the NFL, NHL and NBA. . . . .  From its inception in 1876 to the present, MLB has been, in effect, an extra-judicial entity, a society unto itself, answerable to no one in all but the most extreme circumstances.

This made me wonder whether the United States government should be bestowing such benefits on an organization that profits from the use of a racist image like Chief Wahoo.  To believe that it shouldn't does not even require you to believe that Chief Wahoo is in fact a racist image.  You would just have to accept that there is a significant amount of controversy surrounding the image and that the federal government shouldn't be "taking sides" in the controversy.  (Prof. Nathanson argues that the government's preferential treatment of major league baseball is rooted in judicial and legislative acceptance of the "baseball creed," which states that "baseball contribute[s] to individual and public welfare by 'building manliness, character, and an ethic of success.'")  You also would not have to worry about infringing on the individual liberty of MLB and the Cleveland Indians because you would not be prohibiting the use of Chief Wahoo as a mascot, you would merely be declining to bestow special federal treatment so long as they chose to keep the Chief.  This is not unlike Title IX, which does not prohibit sex discrimination in education–it simply ties the receipt of federal funding to compliance.

Joe Posnanski, sports columnist and former Clevelander, put it like this:

Wahoo is an inherently racist symbol.  Nobody could really deny this.  Nobody could look at that grinning mug and say, "No, it's really a flattering portrayal of Native Americans, who were conquered, nearly wiped off the planet by our ancestors and then forced to live on reservations."

….

The only reason Chief Wahoo is around is because Native Americans don't have a strong enough voice in this country to put a stop to it.  When Native Americans protested at the 1997 World Series, they were mostly laughed at.  Three were arrested.  Is this really the kind of country we want to be?  And for what?  To stand up for our inherent rights to enjoy a racist sports logo?

I love Cleveland. I love the Indians and I even love Wahoo in a weird way because it is such a part of my childhood.  But it is not just time to get rid of Wahoo, it is way, way past time.  I don't think this is the biggest problem facing the world, or even the 54,993,287th biggest problem facing the world.  I don't care about political correctness either.  No.  It's just wrong.  Very wrong.  Get rid of it.  The fewer wrong things in the world, better.

At a time when there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding the message our children are getting from baseball regarding steroids, maybe we can also reconsider the message of Chief Wahoo.  After all, newly appointed Attorney General Eric Holder recently "described the United States … as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues," and "urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters."

So, consider yourself urged.

P.S.–In the interest of full disclosure: I am a Yankees fan.  I realize some of you may dismiss everything I've written to this point on that basis alone.  But I hope you won't.