Criminal Law Library Blog

On March 10, 2010 New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch released a fiscal reform plan which calls for a five-year plan to eliminate the State's structural imbalance and introduces a process by which annual budget balance is mandated, minitored and maintained. The plan calls for up to $2 billion in borrowing for the next three years and a financial review board consisting of five members, one each from the Assembly and the State Senate, two appointed by the Governor and one appointed by the New York State Comptroller.:

Ravitch Fiscal Reform Plan- Full Text

Mary Alice Baish, Director of Government Relations and Emily Feldman, Advocacy Communications Assistant (both of the American Association of Law Libraries, AALL), have been doing a tremendous job serving as advocates for high quality and highly accessible legal information on the web in a format that can be authenticated.

The following is an e-mail from Emily which mentions the work of the White House open government working group and includes a request for suggestions regarding specific types of information and datasets you would like to see agencies publish. Although Emily's e-mail is directed primarily to law librarians I am posting it here because of the value of this initiative to the entire legal community.

FROM: Emily Feldman
March 10, 2010

The White House’s open government working group has held several meetings with stakeholders, including AALL, to develop criteria to measure agency open government plans, which must be published by April 7. At a meeting last Friday, I was pleased to learn that the working group adopted Mary Alice’s suggestion that Executive Branch agencies be evaluated based in part on whether they commit in their plans to publish new information (e.g., reports and publications) on their Web sites, in addition to new high-value datasets in XML on Data.gov.

We’re looking for specific types of information and datasets that you’d like to see agencies publish. The working group is also very interested in any cross-agency datasets you’d like to see added to Data.gov (e.g., crime data from DOJ/DHS, health data from EPA/HHS).

Some of the suggestions we’ve received so far include:

· All historic content that agencies have digitized (presuming that agencies followed the Paperwork Reduction Act and didn’t make exclusive deals)

· All the legislative histories that have been digitized by the Department of Justice Library

· Dataset on "charges of discrimination" filed from the EEOC

Are there other information holdings or datasets that you’d like to see added? Please email me the title and name of the publishing agency by COB next Wednesday, March 17.

Thanks,

Emily

Emily Feldman
Advocacy Communications Assistant
American Association of Law Libraries
25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001

202-942-4233

Fax: 202-737-0480
efeldman@aall.org

http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash

103nd Annual Meeting & Conference / Denver, CO. / July 10-13, 2010

In an earlier posting on November 5 , 2009 we reported that on November 3, 1909 the criminal court building in Manhattan (bounded by Centre, Lafayette, Franklin, and White Streets) was declared unsafe for human occupancy and everyone in the building at the time was ordered to leave immediately. When the last man was out a squad of thirty policemen took charge of the building, roping it off on all sides and remaining on guard outside the building to forbid anyone to enter or even pass through any of the flanking streets".

On March 2, 2010 for very different reasons the present criminal court building in Manhattan was evacuated due to smoke and water damage caused by an electrical fire in the basement.. When the last people were out, policemen, firemen and court officers took charge of the building and for a time did not permit anyone to enter the building except for business related to coping with the emergency situation..

As noted earlier there were many differences in the two events. By most accounts the old criminal courts building was in very poor condition by 1909. The present Criminal Courts buiilding is perfectly safe and in good condition with lingering smoke and other residual damage from the fire causing the building to remain closed until March 8.

We do not know how the courts, the office of district attorney, and other departments functioned during the evacuation of 1909; but by all accounts work continued quite efficiently during the present evacuation with many working in adjacent buildings and some using computers to work from their homes.

Let's hope we don't have another evacuation during the next one hundred years.

You may have noticed that we have not posted anything about health care for awhile. Other topics have intervened but the health care debate keeps coming back. We are actually glad because for many of us health care reform in the United States is one of the paramount issues of our time.

The New York Times has been doing a good job keeping concerns about helth care alive through its ongong list of articles and editorials telling us what is happening and where they think we might be going. Here are links to a few:

Editorial:

If Reform Fails
Published: March 7, 2010

"There are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive health reform or continue with what we have."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html

This editorial is a part of a comprehensive examination {by the New York Times] of the debate over health care reform. You can read all of these editorials at: nytimes.com/edhealthcare2009

Recent Article:

Health
Prescriptions: A Handy Road Map for the Final Weeks
By By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: March 8, 2010
With the health care debate in the home stretch, the main action is now in the House.

Oregon County Law Libraries Planning Grant, Request for Proposals

"Summary: The Oregon Council of County Law Libraries (OCCLL), representing 36 county law libraries throughout the state, received a planning grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services through the LSTA, administered by the Oregon State Library. The OCCLL has administrative responsibility for implementing the grant project. The grant project team seeks the services of a professional library consultant who will guide the OCCLL through the planning process. The general duty of the consultant is to facilitate the accomplishment of project goals and activities".

Oregon Law Libraries RFP Rev4_1

For more information, contact:

Laura J. Orr

Law Librarian

Washington County Law Library

111 NE Lincoln St

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Phone: 503-846-8880

Email: lawlibrary@co.washington.or.us
URL: http://www.co.washington.or.us/lawlibrary
Oregon Legal Research Blog: http://oregonlegalresearch.blogspot.com/

The 2010 CyberSecurity Watch Survey, sponsored by Deloitte and conducted in collaboration with CSO Magazine, the U.S. Secret Service, and the CERT Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon, indicates that threats posed by cyber crime have increased faster than potential victims -- or cyber security professionals -- can cope with, placing targeted organizations at significant risk.

While we cannot provide you a copy of the actual Survey, the Deloitte whitepaper, Cyber Crime: A Clear and Present Danger reports on several of the survey findings and includes Deloitte's interpretation of key results. Quoting from the Introduction to the white papter: "By its very nature, interpretation goes beyond simple reporting of results...and may prompt disagreement and even controversy"

With that, we invite you to download the white paper from the link below, read it, and draw your own conclusions

Cyber Crime: A Clear and Present Danger

David Badertscher

Two days ago I posted information on this blog related to the New York Court of Appeals decision (Maron v. Silver, 16 ' Larabee v. Governor, 7 ; Chief Judge v. Governor, 18) addressing judicial compensation in that state within the framework of separation of powers. Today I have learned that the State of Connecticut is also confronted with separation of powers issues related to its judiciary. These issues relate at least in part to the unilateral reduction of Other Judicial Expense line items (where the law libraries are placed) by the Office of Policy and Management (Executive Branch) after the initial budget allocations have presumably been agreed upon.

Of special concern to many readers of this blog is the severe negative impact these judicial line item reductions are having on judicial law libraries in the State of Connecicut, as indicated in testimony of the Connecticut Chief Court Administrator to the Appropriations Committee included in this post and by the many expressions of concern among Connecticut citizens as reported elsewhere.

The Chief Court Administrator of Connecticut, Judge Barbara M. Quinn has argued before the Appropriations Committee on February 9 that the unilateral reduction of Other Judicial Expense line items by the Executive Branch infringes on the Separation of Powers and can be remedied by OPM simply transmitting the Judicial request unchanged to the legislature. Two sections of Judge Quinn's testimony are especially important and are highlighted below in this posting. The section on Law Libraries which highlights the importance of law libraries in Connecticut to both the Judiciary and the public has relevance both in Connecticut and throughout the nation. A second part of Judge Quinn's testimony highlighted below is her statement on "Concurrence in Allotment Reductions and Rescissions," which frames the issue nicely.

Sections of Testimony Highlighted:

Law Libraries
"The Governor's proposed budget provides no funding for law libraries. If this provision is enacted, it will be the second year in a row of zero funding. This is a critical gap; law libraries cannot function without updated research materials.

Let me explain something about law libraries that makes them different from your local library where perhaps you could curtail purchasing new books for a while and then start up again. Because the law is constantly evolving, the most up-to-date information must be made available to anyone who has cases pending before the court. Up-to-date legal research tools, in both electronic and printed form, are essential in order for judges to render rulings that are consistent with law and legal precedent because case law is only as good as the last case decided. And that case law is updated daily. This is what makes law libraries distinct from other libraries - just not buying the latest books is not an option"

Concurrence in allotment reductions and rescissions
Undoubtedly, the most critical budget reform that we seek is one that would curb the unilateral and increasingly untenable budget reductions that are imposed upon the Branch after the Legislature has adopted the budget. Virtually all of our budgetary problems over the past 2 years, and in particular this year, are the result of allotment reductions and rescissions about which neither the Branch nor the Legislature were consulted. I would respectfully propose to you that in the future, any post-budget adoption reductions that are made to the Judicial Branch should require the concurrence of the Legislature. The Branch will be submitting legislation for your consideration that would implement these vital budget reforms.

A bill, "An Act Concerning Funding For the Judicial Branch" (No. 5148) which seeks to correct the matter has recently been introduced in the Connecticut legislature.

Below are links to the full text of both the Testimony and pending legislation referred to in this posting.

Testimony of Chief Court Administrator to Appropriations Commett

An Act Concerning Funding For the Judicial Branch

On February 23, 2010 a divided Panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, New York Supreme Court ruled in People v. Correa (2010 NY Slip Op. 01533) that the 2004 merger of the criminal courts in the Bronx into a single court with jurisdiction to handle both felonies and misdemeanors is unconstitutional.

In the absence of a stay, misdemeanor cases will again only be assigned to judges who have been appointed to the New York Supreme Court. The plan is for judges to continue sitting in hybrid parts, with misdemeanors being heard as Criminal Court cases and felonies as Supreme Court matters.

In dissent, Justice Rolando T. Acosta warned that the majority's "unbridled judicial activism effectively upends tens of thousands of mesdemeanor convictions in Bronx County over the past five years."

Those who need additional background information are referred to the link below to the New York City Bar. Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts, June 2009.

ABCNY Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts, June 2009

The webcast of Eben Moglen's speech 'Freedom in The Cloud' is proving
to be one of most popular ever, and has received over 20,000 hits
representing about a 1000 views since Feb 14. In the talk Eben
challenges the tech community to provide the public with the means to
recapture its privacy from social media/cloud juggernaut through the
development of personal social media servers operating in a robust
distributed network.

Note that free DVDs of this talk are available to libraries,
educators, and other interested in running screenings - email
dvd@isoc-ny.org and ask for DVD1710.

http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=1338

From: ISOC-NY Announcements February 23, 2010

February 23, 2010

In a 5 - 1 decision the New York Court of Appeals found that the legislature and the executive branches had undermined the independence of the judicial branch by tying judges pay raises to unrelated legislation, including bills to raise legislators own salaries, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. The last pay raise for New York judges was in 1998.

In his dissent Judge Robert S. Smith stated that while he shares his colleagues' dismay at the Legislature's behavior in dealing with, or rather failing to deal with, judges' salaries, he "cannot agree that any of its actions or inactions are unconstitutional...."

The current Chier Judge of the Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman, recused himself from the deliberations because he was a plaintiff in one of the cases the ruling addresses.

Public Statement of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, delivered on February 23, 2010 at 1:PM.

Here are excerpts from the beginning and end of the decision:

PIGOTT, J.:

"The constitutional arguments raised in these judicial compensation appeals are premised upon, among other things, alleged violations of the New York State Constitution's Compensation Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine."

Conclusion
It is unfortunate that this Court has been called upon to adjudicate constitutional issues relative to an underlying matter upon which all have agreed; namely, that the Judiciary is entitled to a compensation adjustment. By ensuring that any judicial salary increases will be premised on their merits, this holding aims to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature. Therefore, judicial compensation, when addressed by the Legislature in
present and future budget deliberations cannot depend on unrelated policy initiatives or legislative compensation adjustments. Of course, whether judicial compensation should be
adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature. It should keep in mind, however, that whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court (see Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 [1803]). We therefore expect appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration.

Accordingly, In Maron, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for - 35 - No. 016; 017; 018 - 35 - further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, and as so modified, affirmed.

In Larabee, the order of Appellate Division should be modified, and in Chief Judge, the judgment of Supreme Court and the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring that under the circumstances of these cases, as a matter of law, the State defendants' failure to consider judicial compensation on the merits violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and by allowing for the remedy discussed in this opinion, and, asmodified, affirmed.

SEE FULL TEXT OF DECISION AT:

New York Court of Appeals Judicial Compensation Decision February 23, 2010

Continue reading "New York Court of Appeals Decision Regarding Dispute Over Judicial Compensation" »

Summary

The President's health care proposal as released on February 22 purports to put "...American families and small business owners in control of their health care. To help those who are following this issue we are providing in this post, links to a 10+ page Summary prepared by the White House. This document provides a good overview and discussion regarding provisions in the proposed legislation.

SUMMARY

Exploring the Proposal

This is a link for those who want to really explore the President Obama's Health Care Proposal through more comprehensive Section by Section analysis .

Both of the above links will lead you to very useful information. We would urge everyone to explore these documents.

The quest for health care reform continues. According to Roll Call the White House has developed its own version of a merged House-Senate health care reform package and plans to have it online for public review by Monday in advance of a bipartisan health care summit scheduled for Feb. 25. As reported, the White House has taken what it considers the best of the House and Senate bills and come up with their own proposal.

Roll Call article.