Sean Bell Situation: Justice has Many Layers in the U. S. Legal System

By Syreeta LaShawn McNeal, CPA, JD

Gary Haugen states “God has a plan to help bring justice to the world -- and his plan is us.” The tragedy of the announcement of the acquittal of all three New York police officers in the New York state criminal system in the slaying of Sean Bell is sending shock, grief, and outrage from Sean Bell’s family to the extended African-American community in all arenas. This article is intended to inform and affirm that justice is not solely found in this single state criminal verdict issued on April 25, 2008. Justice has many layers and it is up to legal professionals to give sound and objective information so that the Bell family and larger African-American community understands the various layers of justice in the U. S. legal system and how we should tactically understand the pros and cons of each and pursue all avenues that will bring the justice that Sean Bell and his family deserves.

Overview of the U. S. Legal System

The American legal system has several layers. The first layer is the division between federal and state law. Another layer is the division between the criminal and civil system. The graphic below outlines a representation that can apply to the Sean Bell situation.

The verdict announced on April 25, 2008 specifically addressed the New York state criminal system only. Therefore, Sean Bell’s family still has a variety of options in the New York state civil or federal criminal and/or civil systems.

Burden of Proofs within Criminal & Civil System

The burden of proof for either a state or federal prosecutor to win their criminal case is vastly different from the burden of proof required for a plaintiff, like the family of Sean Bell, to win a civil case. The burden of proof required in a criminal case is that the prosecutor has to put forth evidence that persuades a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges alleged. Beyond a reasonable doubt represents a very high standard and in numeric terms, this standard represents that the evidence presented in trial has to convince the judge or jury by more than 99% that the defendant did in fact do the crime alleged. If the judge or jury has any doubt regarding the credibility of the evidence presented by the federal or state prosecutor, they usually find the defendant not guilty. The rationale for this high standard in a criminal case is that our legal system feels it is far worse to convict an innocent man on suspect and unreliable evidence.

In contrast, the burden of proof required in a civil case is that a plaintiff must present evidence that persuades a judge or jury that the defendant did the charges alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. This civil standard is a lesser standard than the criminal standard and on a numeric scale the plaintiff has to present evidence that convinces the judge or jury by more than 51% that the defendant did the charges alleged.

So, the verdict in the Sean Bell case issued on April 25, 2008 that acquitted the three New York police officers resulted from the fact that the judge did not feel the evidence the prosecutor presented was credible and reliable for him to convict the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The message for the family of Sean Bell and the African-American community at large is to not loose hope for justice legally. It hurts for everyone here because it shocks the conscience that an unarmed, young man should be shot 50 times by undercover police officers without receiving some type of vindication, like a guilty verdict, in the New York criminal case recently presented. However, legal professionals must ensure that they inform the family of Sean Bell and the African-American community to use a variety of legal options available. There is no guarantee of victory for any legal case brought in our judicial system. Justice has many layers and our U. S. legal system does act as a system of checks and balances to ensure that a balancing act is instituted dealing with people representing victims and the accused. Pursue all legal options available to ensure that you can seek justice even though one venue has closed the door.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

The Affirmative Action Plan

By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.

One of the most controversial topics in our society is the issue of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a measure that was instituted to promote access to education and employment opportunities for socio-economic disadvantaged citizens and minorities. The motivation behind the proponents of Affirmative Action is to cure some of the effects of past discrimination to these “non-dominant” groups for example African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Since the advent of Affirmative Action measures, there has been an increase in diversity in employment and university attendance.

Affirmative Action is often achieved with recruitment programs that target those persons who come from historically oppressed groups. Critics of Affirmative Action argue that Affirmative Action is another form of discrimination in that it is based solely on race and that often times “qualified” applicants are denied positions in favor of “less qualified” applicants. Critics also argue that this is a form of “preferential” treatment and it puts the majority race at a disadvantage.

The critics of Affirmative Action are not all members of the majority race. In fact, growing number of critics of Affirmative Action come from members of the non-majority (or minority) races that Affirmative Action was intended to aid. One such minority critic is Ward Connerly. Connerly is a University of California Regent and he is one the biggest proponents for overturning Affirmative Action measures. Another prestigious African-American opponent to Affirmative Action is United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Clarence Thomas has been an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. He is a Republican (or conservative) justice who often rules on the side of conservatism in his opinions. When questioned about his opinion concerning Affirmative Action, Justice Thomas cites his own personal experiences with Affirmative Action.

Justice Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. Upon graduating, he could not secure employment at the prestigious law firms that his fellow classmates were able to find fairly quickly. In fact, the only position of employment he could secure was a position with the Attorney General’s Office in Missouri. Justice Thomas has stated that he believes that the reason that he could not secure employment at the major law firms following his graduation from law school is because employers viewed all if his accomplishments as a result of “preferential” treatment. In short, he believed that potential employers were of the opinion that he did not “earn” his law degree and that he was socially promoted to academic success. He believes that if there is no Affirmative Action, employers could not hide behind the veil of discrediting the accomplishments of African-Americans and it would force employers to review minority applicants in the same manner as majority applicants.

The analysis of Justice Thomas, while at least somewhat accurate, is incomplete. It is impossible to analyze Affirmative Action without considering the quota system. Quotas are diversity goals that academic institutions and places of employment have instituted to increase the numbers of minorities and women at these institutions. The quota system has been the measure used by these institutions to implement Affirmative Action. The typical diversity initiative will have a diversity goal of 7% to 25% minority placement. Of the total positions, about 2% to 9% are set aside for African-American applicants. This means that when a white applicant applies for a position, he or she is competing for the 75% to 93% of the positions that are set aside for him or her. When an African-American candidate applies for a position, he or she is applying for the 2% to 9% that is set aside for him or her. So, this begs the question, are African-American applicants and White applicants having the same access to these positions under this quota system?

A critical analysis of the Affirmative Action system would lead to a conclusion in the negative. If 100 positions are available and there are 100 qualified African-American applicants and 100 qualified White applicants, do each of the African-American applicants and White applicants have the same chance of getting these positions? An analysis of Affirmative Action by the quota system yields a conclusion that no more than twenty-five (25) of the African-American applicants will be selected for the above mentioned positions and no less than seventy-five (75) of the white applicants will be selected.

The second part of the analysis leads to a very critical question, “If twenty-five (25) African-American applicants do fill the positions, did they take the positions from the White applicants?” This question is at the heart of the Affirmative Action debate. Some would argue that some of the twenty-five (25) African-American applicants were less qualified than some of the White applicants who did not get hired. If so, then these African-American applicants were selected “over” the non-selected white applicants and this is a form of “reverse discrimination.” At first glance, there would appear to be at least some validity to the argument. However, a critical analysis of the situation leads to the conclusion that the African-American applicants and the White applicants were never in the same applicant pool of consideration.

If this analysis is correct, then African-American applicants and White applicants do not have the same access to these positions and the majority race has a distinct advantage when it comes to education and employment. This appears to be the case with Affirmative Action measures in place using the quota system. It appears, however, that Affirmative Action is on its way out of the educational and employment process. California and Michigan have already overruled Affirmative Action measures in education and those states have seen significant declines in minority attendance at their colleges and universities. Several states will have to vote on Affirmative Action in the coming months. Missouri is a state that voted recently to keep its Affirmative Actions practices, angering critics of these measures.

The future of Affirmative Action is in question. For the opponents of Affirmative Action measures, this will not adversely affect minority applicants. For proponents of Affirmative Action measures, this is a step back in the efforts to achieve equal access to education and employment opportunities. Whether you are a conservative or liberal, most readers of this article has an opinion on the Affirmative Action issue. The only question is, when this issue is put on the ballot in your state, what are you going to do about it?

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Is the Doctrine of "Separate But Equal" Dead or Just Dormant?

By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

We are privileged to not have to live during the Jim Crow Era where our parents and grandparents could only go to separate facilities denoted for blacks and whites in the United States. But, I wonder is the legally created doctrine of “separate but equal” dead or just dormant?

Overturning the legally created doctrine of “separate but equal” in the United States is a tough task. The United States Supreme Court recognized racial segregation nationally in three landmark cases: United v. Stanley [1] , Plessy v. Ferguson[2] and Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky [3]. These cases helped establish the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” solidifying racial segregation from a state to a national level.

A. United States v. Stanley

In Stanley, the Court answered whether sections 1 and 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional.[4] Five civil rights cases (United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson & wife v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company) were consolidated and heard before the Court in 1883.[5] Collectively, the plaintiffs were denied accommodations and services in an inn, hotel, theatre, and on a railroad privately owned in Kansas, California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee.[6]
The Court’s interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit states from violating the individual rights of its citizens.[7] If the Court granted the federal government the power to enforce under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court reasoned that all state action would violate the Fourth Amendment.[8] To prevent such far reaching impact, the Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment monitoring rests with the states.[9] Because the states created racial segregation in public and private institutions, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress the power to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1875 upon the states.[10]

B. Plessy v. Ferguson

In Plessy, the Court answered whether the 1890 Louisiana statute providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races was a reasonable regulation.[11]
Plessy Ferguson, resident of Louisiana of mixed descent, paid first class fair on the East Louisiana Railway to travel from New Orleans, LA to Covington, LA on June 7, 1892.[12]
East Louisiana Railway representatives authorized Mr. Ferguson to vacate seat and occupy a coach section designed for people of color.[13] Mr. Ferguson refused the order and imprisoned in the parish jail of New Orleans.[14]

The Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s purpose as a citizenship test and not one entitling blacks to equal protection.[15] The Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment was to enforce separate equality for blacks and whites.[16] Furthermore, the Court referenced that the most common instance validating their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was linked to the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children in the states.[17] Like Stanley, the Court asserted that states are free to determine how the races socialize and these laws are not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.[18] Therefore, the Court upheld the state statute of separate but equal in public accommodations to be constitutional.[19]

C. Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

In Berea College, the Court answered whether Berea College’s practice of racial integration in instruction was unconstitutional.[20] Berea College, incorporated in Kentucky, operated a private school of learning accessible to both whites and blacks.[21]
On October 4, 1904, the grand jury of Madison County Circuit Court indicted Berea College for unlawfully and willfully permitting both white and blacks students to receive instruction in the same classroom as a violation of Kentucky laws.[22] The Court asserted that the state regulates its institutions, not the federal government.[23] Also, the Court asserted that the state is under no obligation to treat a corporation and an individual alike.[24] The Court asserted that corporations are regulated by states and the Fourteenth Amendment protected individuals.[25] The Court expanded the reasoning of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to individuals, not corporations. Because Berea College was incorporated in Kentucky, the Court held that Kentucky’s indictment of Berea College was not unconstitutional.[26]

Argument
The Remaining Cases of the Doctrine of “Separate but Equal” are Still Good Law

Stanley is the first U. S. Supreme Court case to recognize a state’s right to implement racial segregation in private institutions as it related to the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy extended Stanley’s ruling and recognized a state’s right to implement racial segregation in public accommodations. Berea College extended Plessy’s ruling and recognized a state’s right to implement racial segregation in private schools. All three cases enforced racial segregation in private and public institutions on a national level known as the doctrine of “Separate but Equal.” Also, the three cases prevent the federal government from using provisions, like the Fourteenth Amendment, to interfere with state actions.

The U. S. Supreme Court overturned Plessy’s application of the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS.[27] However, the U. S. Supreme Court has not overturned Stanley and Berea College.[28] With the Court not overturning Stanley and Berea College, the cases are still good law. Hence, subtly the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” exists even though visible manifestation of separate facilities for whites and blacks do not. With the push for privatization of public law schools, a legal loophole exists for public law schools to reinstate racial segregation in admissions. Therefore, minority groups like African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans need to create a strategy to have the U. S. Supreme Court overturn Stanley and Berea College to effectively end the legally created doctrine of separate but equal. This might be difficult. In 2007, the United States Supreme Court took steps to reverse Brown’s impact in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.[29] As a bear comes back to life after hibernation, it appears that the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is looking to revive the bear of “separate but equal.”

So the answer to the self-imposed question is that the doctrine of “separate but equal” is not dead. It is dormant and in hibernation. Legally, we all should be worried because we can’t afford to allow states to re-implement separate facilities for blacks and whites without any assurances of protections from the federal level if legally they can do so.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] See United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).
[2] See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
[3] See Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908).
[4] United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 8 (1883).
[5] Id. at 3.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 11.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 19.
[11] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 550 (1896).
[12] Id. at 541.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. at 544.
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at 550.
[19] Id.
[20] Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45, 53 (1908).
[21] Id. at 45.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 54.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 58.
[27] Shepard’s listing for Plessy v. Ferguson as of July 28, 2005.
[28] Shepard’s listing for United States v. Stanley and Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky as of July
28, 2005.
[29] See Parents Involved in Community Schools, Petitioner v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 551 U.S. ____ (2007).

A Judge’s Unlikely Heroism

By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.

Exoneration by DNA evidence is a mechanism that has changed the landscape of jurisprudence in recent years. Many convicted felons have been released as a result of newly discovered evidence that either points to another suspect, or proves innocence. No county, in the United States, has seen the release of as many innocent prisoners as Dallas County, Texas.

Earlier this year, Charles Chatman was released, after spending some twenty-seven (27) years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. At the time of his release, he was the fifteenth (15th) convicted prisoner in Dallas County to be released by DNA evidence since 2001. At the time of his release, Mr. Chatman was forty-six (46) years of age, spending the majority of his life behind bars. As tragic and unsettling his wrongful conviction is, the story of John Creuzot, the Judge who presided over Chatman’s release, is as heroic.

Judge Cruezot was appointed to the Criminal District Court No. 4 by Democratic Governor Ann Richards in 1991. Since he assumed the bench, Judge Creuzot sought to work inside and outside the courtroom to find innovative ways to meet the challenges that were facing the community in Dallas County. One of the challenges that faced the entire Texas community was the number of black males that were incarcerated. This number was especially high in Dallas County. Upon further examination, Judge Creuzot discovered that the legal system the country prides itself on, did not work as equitably for poor citizens and racial minorities. He teamed up with the Innocence Project of Texas and began to review those cases in which there were questions of quilt.

Of the fifteen (15) wrongfully convicted inmates to be released from the Dallas County Prison, the vast majority have been released on Judge Creuzot’s watch. In Chatman’s case, Judge Creuzot recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals find him not guilty after DNA evidence proved that he did not commit rape. Several of Chatman’s relatives were present, fighting back tears. Those tears turned to cheers when Chatman was finally released.
Chatman’s case was not simple to overturn. Chatman, who was twenty (20) when he was convicted of rape, was picked out of a line up from the victim, who was in her twenty’s (20’s) at the time. The victim also identified Chatman at trial. Serology tests also matched the type of blood found at the scene of the crime to Chatman’s blood type. This same blood type would be a match to 40% of the black male population. Although Chatman had an alibi for the crime, he was convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault in 1981 and given a prison sentence of 99 years.

Judge Creuzot recommended that Chatman’s case be run through the DNA testing system. The results of these tests pointed away from Chatman. This was not an easy venture for a judge who was appointed to take felons off the streets. Many in the Dallas County community felt that Judge Creuzot was mis-spending tax payer dollars by doing DNA tests on cases that were decades old. Judge Creuzot also risked his political future by ignoring the voices of his constituents and doing what he felt he had a moral obligation to do, which is to free those who have been wrongfully convicted.

One of the largest reasons why Judge Creuzot has been successful in rectifying some of the wrongful convictions is the Dallas County’s crime lab willingness to review about half of the state’s DNA cases. Is what’s happening in Dallas County, Texas unique? Not really. The same review occurred in Illinois a few years ago. In 2003, after some thirteen (13) inmates under the death penalty were exonerated, Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted all death sentences to life in prison. This decision affected some 156 inmates. While Illinois Governor Ryan was heavily criticized at the time for his decision, he stated at a speech at Northwestern University, “Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error: error in determining guilt and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die. What effect was race having? What effect was poverty having?” Even though Illinois Governor Ryan knew he would be heavily criticized for this decision, he felt it was a “burden” that he was willing to bear to ensure those who are innocent receive justice under our legal system.

Like Illinois Governor Ryan, Judge Cruezot has burdened himself with the hopes and expectations of the family members of those who have been wrongfully convicted by the Texas Penal system in Dallas County, Texas. He has made ground breaking progress in correcting injustices that have lingered in the Texas justice system for some thirty (30) plus years. His hope, like mine, is that the progress of Dallas County, Texas does not become the exception, but it becomes the norm. Perhaps the time has come where every county in every state must review its system of jurisprudence and attempt to correct the wrongs that have destroyed the nucleus of family members accused of wrongdoing for decades. For those who struggle to find a hero in today’s climate of capitalism and commercialism, one need not look further than Judge John Creuzot.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Did Liz Trotta Commit a Federal Crime for Hoping for Barack Obama's Assassination?

Did Liz Trotta from Fox News Commit a Federal Crime by
Stating that She would "Take Out" Senator Obama if she could?

US Code 18 Chapter 19, Section 373(a) of the Federal Criminal Code reads as
follows:

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of
another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in
such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of
imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half
of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or
both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death,
shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

Please join the YourBlackWorld Protest Against Bill
O'Reilly and Fox News