Scales of JusticeAs we appreciate the historical significance of the Fourteenth Amendment throughout May, we can consider two lesser-known figures.  This is first the story of a man named John born in Kentucky in 1833 to a slaveholding family. His father was a loyal Whig political leader and lawyer, who served both in Congress and as Kentucky’s attorney general. The father wished the same political stature for his sons, and named this particular son for his favorite Supreme Court justice. This son indeed followed in his father’s footsteps, even attending law school before it was standard to a legal career. It wasn’t long thereafter that he himself was elected attorney general of Kentucky. Although John strongly supported efforts to keep Kentucky in the Unionleading up to the Civil War, he was staunchly opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation. But since the Proclamation only applied to rebel states and not Kentucky, he continued to be responsible for his family’s slaves after his father’s death. His pro-Union, pro-slavery position was politically precarious, and he lost his bid for the US Senate in 1867, as well as his bid to remain attorney general of Kentucky.

John retreated from politics into his law practice, but he was quietly undergoing a philospical metamorphosis. Specifically, he began championing ideas of racial equality which he had previously scorned.  Now affiliating himself with the Republican party, he soon embraced both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.  His passionate campaign speeches helped bring about the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, which led to his appointment by President Hayes to the Supreme Court in 1877. Thus began the epic high court career of John Marshall Harlan, with his reputation as the Court’s “great dissenter.” His famous dissents included the lone ones in both the Civil Rights Cases (1883) and Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896). We may see his opinions as heroic in our age, and indeed, his Plessy dissent was later regarded by a young Thurgood Marshall as his “bible” as he argued the case that led to the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision.  But Harlan was considered by his peers and contemporaries a contrary and eccentric  justice.

John Marshall Harlan’s dramatic political turnabout may be cause for speculation, but this Smithsonian article presents an interesting theory. John grew up in the presence of a “light-skinned, blue-eyed” slave named Robert, who was believed to be John’s half-brother. Indeed, John’s father treated Robert as his son, which he likely was. Robert grew up to have a keen business sense, operating both a barbershop and a grocery store in the 1840’s. The proceeds of these ventures allowed him to buy his own freedom when he was thirty-two. Robert traveled from place to place after the war, amassing a fortune in real estate and other ventures. He also became involved in Republican politics, and President Chester A. Arthur appointed him to the U.S. Treasury as a special agent. In 1886 he was elected a state representative. He and John stayed in contact throughout his life. It’s plausible that Robert’s quiet but dramatic success may have inspired John’s evolution into an early champion of racial equality. Robert James Harlan died one year after the Plessy decision. Justice John Marshall Harlan remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1911.

 

Does this Outfit Make Me Look Guilty?

Woman poses in dressThe Law Librarian has blogged about courtroom etiquette before, but this post looks at dressing for the occasion. Think this is a shallow concern that doesn’t apply to you? If you were spending hundreds of dollars on an attorney to represent you at your DWI trial, and he or she showed up dressed for yoga class, you wouldn’t appreciate it.  And you might just feel that you weren’t getting your money’s worth.   Further, the Rules of General Practice require attorneys to wear appropriate courtroom attire Most attorneys in any jurisdiction instinctively get this, but fashion history has given us some unfortunate exceptions.

The attire of litigants themselves is just as key. Jurors, being human, might easily pick up a guilty vibe from obvious lockup attire. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court basically held in Estelle v. Williams that orange would NEVER be the new black (or navy or charcoal gray) in that a defendant could not be compelled to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.03, subd. 2(b) thus state that “[a]n incarcerated defendant or witness shall not appear in court in the distinctive attire of a prisoner.”

For these reasons, it is probably the non-inmate that needs to take the most care in dressing for court.  If you have a lawyer, they’ll likely remind you to dress conservatively.   If you don’t, the Courts’ webpage advises you to “dress conservatively” with “shorts, T-shirts, plunging necklines, and torn clothing” NOT being appropriate Also, rare is the juror or judge that will be impressed by your tattoos or underwear.  For more detailed guidelines, consult this dress code ordered by the Judges of Kent County, Delaware for what to avoid.  Also, the Teen Court of Crowley, Texas offers a great visual guide to court-appropriate attire for younger litigants.  And one last factor to keep in mind:  Even if you outfit isn’t “inappropriate,” bored jurors may become distracted from the merits of your case by the bold details of an unusual outfit.  So play it safe by keeping it simple and understated!

 

PencilsIt was big news earlier this year when Harvard Law School announced that it would no longer require applicants to submit LSAT scores, but would also accept GRE scores as well. The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) has long been a mainstay of law school applications alongside the undergraduate transcript. In acknowledging that many students already take the GRE (Graduate Record Exam), Harvard’s position is that accepting the GRE  scores reduces the financial burden on applicants who would otherwise be required to prepare and pay for an additional test would be alleviated.   It is too early to know whether or not other schools might follow this example, for the LSAT is still mandated by the bulk of US law schools.

An interesting history of the LSAT can be found here.  Obviously there was once a time when even law school itself unnecessary for a successful career in law. (See this prime example!)  Even after law school became standard, greater social stratifications before World War II managed to keep applicants to a minimum,  with less need to evaluate them against each other.  But the war and the GI bill made educational dreams much more achievable for many, so the selection process had to be sharpened. Schools also wanted a tool to address to the wide variation in college records of their applicants.  This led to administration of the first LSAT in 1948.

The Harvard move now begs the question of how useful is the LSAT is for modern purposes.  Does it serve to broaden the applicant pool or constrict it?   The underlying rationale for the use of the LSAT is to avoid the biases that come with more arbitrary methods of selection, and yet the biggest criticism against the LSAT is that it is likewise biased.  There is also assertion that LSAT scores do not accurately predict a law student’s grades.   And even though the test costs $180, preparatory classes to maximize one’s score can easily reach into the thousands.  Yet opponents of the Harvard decision assert that law school is already is seen as a default choice by undergraduates uncertain of their next career-building step.  Thus, the LSAT presents a purposeful obstacle, requiring the potential student to consider carefully if law school is a worthwhile investment of their time and money.

 

 

 

Our Law Day Event is Coming Up – Save the Date!

Law Day 2017 - The 14th Amendment - Transforming American Democracy

Be aware that our annual Law Day CLE event is coming up, which you will want to attend.  The theme of this year’s ABA-inspired event is The Fourteenth Amendment – Transforming American Democracy.”  Our event, held in partnership with the Ramsey County Bar Association, will be held at 3:00 PM on Thursday, May 4 in the Ramsey County Court House.  We are proud to have Minneapolis attorney Donald M. Lewis as our speaker for this event!  He will be sharing his knowledge and experience with us in his presentation “Equal Protection of the Laws: The Journey from Jim Crow to Gay Marriage.” His presentation will consider the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equality and a “top ten” review of such U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  It will also consider the shortcomings of those decisions in improving social, economic and political outcomes. Historic applications of the clause in Minnesota cases will also be noted.  This presentation is free to attend and open to the public.  (Read here for more details about attorney CLE fees for this program.)

For a little background, the Fourteenth Amendment contains the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, The Due Process Clause, the Enforcement Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.   One of the three Reconstruction Amendments, its first section was drafted by Representative John Bingham of Ohio.  After its passage through Congress, President Johnson made a speech stating that submission of this groundbreaking amendment to the states for ratification was “purely ministerial.”  He seemingly sought to reassure Americans and their state legislatures that they were under no pressure from him to act on the amendment.  Enough states did act however, and it was ratified on July 9, 1868.  Nearly 150 years later, the amendment has become one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Roe v. Wade (1973), Bush v. Gore (2000), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).   Check out this fascinating timeline from the ABA website detailing the events leading up to the ratification of Fourteenth Amendment and its subsequent “transformation on American democracy.”

 

This Week is National Library Week!

NLW

This week the Ramsey County Law Library joins with libraries all across the nation in celebrating National Library Week. The purpose of this event is to celebrate the contributions of libraries and librarians everywhere, as well as to promote library use and support. National Library Week is a brainchild of the American Library Association (ALA), and our library is committed to the principles established in the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights.

Please come visit our library this week. Besides picking up a free pocket Constitution, you can register to win one of these three excellent legally-inspired books (links below)  We will draw the winners at the end of the day Friday (April 14), so register win this week!

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson

Separate is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and Her Family’s Fight for Desegregation by Duncan Tonatiuh

Hillbilly Eulegy by J.D. Vance

 

Police officer writes traffic citationWe are proud of our local involvement with local criminal expungement resources, but expungement is not the last word in “second chances.” For instance, you may have recently watched HBO’s Rock and a Hard Place, a documentary about Miami-Dade County offenders facing long prison sentences who get the chance to participate in a 16-week bootcamp-style regimen instead.  Each of the cadets on this show has been given a choice by their judge: incarceration or rehabilitation. From crew-cuts to pushups, this correction program is modeled on a tough, military-style code of discipline and order, which later includes anger-management instruction and vocational skills training. Creator Dwayne Johnson based this documentary on his own run-ins with the law as a youth.  See this excellent review of the show.

We are sometimes asked if Minnesota has such a boot camp-inspired penal model, and he answer is yes! Minnesota’s Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP) provides a similar military-style boot camp experience for offenders, which can potentially shave years from total time to be served.  Unlike the Miami model, the state Commissioner of Corrections selects these offenders, not all of which are eligible.   A 2006 evaluation showed Minnesota’ CIP to reduce an offender’s chance of reoffending with a new crime by 35%, and also to have reduced costs by over $18 million.

A similar but simpler “second chance” program was featured in last week’s news, this one meant for those with suspended drivers licenses due to unpaid tickets. In these cases, the offenders cannot afford to pay their traffic tickets, which leads to revocation or suspension of licenses. Faced with the choice of not being able to get to work or driving illegally in order to put food on the table, many offenders predictably choose the latter.  This Driver Diversion Pilot Program allows offenders to take special driving classes and schedule a payoff for their fines. In return they get their drivers license and insurance reinstated. This pilot program was launched by the legislature for selected cities in 2008, and there is currently a movement to get this program statewide and permanent. The hope is to keep a single traffic infraction from being the factor that ultimately pulls a person down to the point that they no longer have a job and now have a court record to hold them back. This kind of downward spiral is a significant problem, and was considered a major source of the tension behind the Ferguson riots.

 

DoorwayAnyone familiar with our work knows that we promote local criminal expungement resources. We host the Second Judicial District’s criminal expungement forms clinic and also direct people to VLN’s expungement seminars held throughout the community. By sealing eligible criminal records, expungement allows people get jobs or other opportunities that they couldn’t otherwise.

That is why we took interest in the decision handed down last week by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  In the case of S.A.M.  v. State of Minnesota, the petitioner  plead guilty to second-degree burglary back in 2003, and this felony conviction was deemed a misdemeanor for sentencing under Minn. Stat §609.13.  Petitioner was released from probation less than three years later, having completed all court-ordered conditions.  He petitioned for expungement of this offense in 2015, almost immediately after Minnesota’s expungement law was reformed. (To the casual observer, S.A.M. appeared to be the ideal expungement candidate:  With no other criminal history since the burglary, he had since gotten his bachelors degree, purchased a home, stopped drinking, stepped up to raise his child, and had long ceased contact with his co-burglars.) But the district court denied his petition, stating that he was ineligible under Minn. Stat. §609A.02, since he had not technically been “convicted” of a misdemeanor, and could not apply for expungement under subd. 3(a)(3) of the statute.  (Burglary is not on the list of expungible felonies, so S.A.M. could not petition under subd3(a)(5).)  The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court analyzed the expungement statute and Minn. Stat §609.13.  Writing for a tight 4-3 majority, Justice Anderson concluded that the expungement statute and its “was convicted” language requires a court to look at a petititioner’s status at the time he “was convicted.”  S.A.M. was thus not entitled to seek expungement through the misdemeanor option.  It also held that the Legislature could not have intended for its incrementally-listed, successively harsher, expungement options to be upended by stayed impositions that get called misdemeanors only by virtue of Minn. Stat §609.13.  Justice Lillehaug wrote a forceful dissent, asserting that by the plain words of Minn. Stat §609.13,  petitioners felony conviction was “deemed to be for a misdemeanor.”  He further wrote that the expungement statute created multiple “doorways” for seeking expungement, which are not themselves”destinations.”  The law still required district courts to consider the severity of the underlying crime and any mitigating or aggravating factors.  And due to the ambiguity of the expungement statute, “was convicted” could just as easily be read through the lens of the “deemed” language of Minn. Stat §609.13.  Justice Lillehaug concluded with his hope that “the Legislature will clarify the expungement statute to reopen this door.”

The impact of this decision could be huge.  An amicus brief in the case noted that district court judges across the state granted more than 26,000 stays of imposition from 2008 to 2012, but some of these might have involved otherwise-expungible felonies.  If you have ever read the expungement law and found it unclear, this decision shows that you are not alone. If you are interested in seeking expungement and not sure how this decision affects you, it is all the more reason to come to an expungement clinic and discuss your case with a lawyer.

 

For Women’s History Month, let’s consider an oddly sexist chapter in our local past. As this blog has pointed out before, our state and community have not always been so progressive and forward-thinking as we may like to think.  In this particular chapter, the St. Paul City Council had passed Ordinance No. 8604 back in 1945*, which prohibited women (except licensees, wives, or managers if the licensee was serving in the military) from working as bartenders.  (One can only speculate as to the council’s motives, but V-E Day had been declared only three days earlier.)  Clara Anderson had worked as a bartender at the Frederic Hotel in St. Paul for nine years, but was barred from continuing due to this ordinance.  Ramsey District Court Judge Carlton McNally denied her request for a temporary injunction to delay operation of the ordinance, which Ms. Anderson claimed was unconstitutionally discriminatory.  In the resulting case of Anderson v. City of St. Paul et al., the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the ordinance in a tight 4-3 decision The Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously held that selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes was not a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  But it also applied the standard Fourteenth Amendment equal protection litmus test for discrimination, holding that the council need only meet the standard of having a “rational basis” in making its gender-based distinction, and that it had so met this need.

This case illustrates an earlier interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause where gender is concerned. The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t establish a heightened scrutiny standard against gender discrimination until Craig v. Boren, wherein the Court struck down an Oklahoma statute allowing 18 year-old women to purchase 3.2 beer, but not 18 year-old men.  Offending Ordinance No. 8604 has since been stricken from the books, for St. Paul Ordinance Sec. 183.01 now declares that “…[t]he public policy of Saint Paul is to foster equal opportunity for all to obtain employment, education, real property, public accommodations, public services, contract and franchise without regard to their race, creed, religion, sex, sexual or affectional orientation, color, national origin, ancestry, familial status, age, disability, marital status or status with regard to public assistance, and strictly in accord with their individual merits as human beings.”

Attorney Don Lewis

Attorney Don Lewis

The American Bar Association has designated “The Fourteenth Amendment: Transforming American Democracy” as this year’s Law Day theme.  At this time we are pleased to announce that our own Law Day CLE event will take place on May 4 at 3:00 PM here in the Court House in partnership with the Ramsey County Bar Association (RCBA)We are extra-pleased to announce that Minneapolis attorney Don Lewis will speak on Equal Protection of the Laws: The Journey from Jim Crow to Gay Marriage.  Mr. Lewis is no stranger to the Second Judicial District, having grown up in St. Paul and recently serving as a special prosecutor for the Ramsey County Attorney’s office.  Visit the RCBA website for more information, then mark your calendars for this engaging event!

 

*Updated May 2020:  the St. Paul City Council amended the St. Paul Legislative Code in June of 1970 and removed the provision that prohibited women from working as bartenders.  For more information about Clara Anderson’s case, see the article written by Judge John Guthmann, Clara Anderson v. City of St. Paul: A Woman’s Fight to Save Her Job in the Face of Discrimination in the Spring 2020 issue of Ramsey County History Magazine.

 

Homeless woman and shopping cartThis week brought the sad news that despite improvements in the rest of the metro area, poverty rates in Ramsey County and St. Paul have been rising.  Specifically, “[s]lightly more than 40 percent of St. Paul residents live within 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold, earning less than $44,875 for a family of four in the period studied (2011 to 2015),” an increase from 38.7 percent in the previous five-year period.  This report comes from the Metropolitan Council, and is available online.  And yet this news report on local poverty levels is not surprising next to last year’s news that homelessness was also rising in Ramsey County

Poverty and homelessness are large and overlapping problems without easy solutions, both for the community and for affected individuals.  But there is at least a local tool that can assist those seeking emergency shelter.  Ramsey County Coordinated Access to Housing and Shelter (CAHS) provides housing services and support for Ramsey County families, single adults and unaccompanied youth who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless.   With CAHS, families seeking emergency shelter and supportive housing in Ramsey County no longer need to contact every shelter and housing provider for openings.   Rather, by completing a CAHS assessment, homeless families and individuals can get direct assistance in finding an available emergency shelter.  Access CAHS by calling United Way 2-1-1, and they can help you get the most appropriate referral for housing program support based upon the needs of your family.  In addition, if you are a Ramsey County resident facing eviction due to a legal issue with your landlord, our Tuesday afternoon legal clinic is available for you! 

 

 
Reporters at the Minnesota State Law Library


Some of these early reporters at the Minnesota State Law Library show fire damage.

For Minnesotans, March 1, 1881 is perhaps a “day that will live in infamy,” for it was on this date that the Minnesota Capitol burned to the ground.  And although though the law librarian profession has no official hero or mascot, this date marks the true story of someone who might be deserving of such an honor.

This disaster took place toward the very end of the legislative session, when both the House and Senate were in late evening sessions trying to get legislation wrapped up.  This was likely why no one had noticed that the outside common areas had filled with flames.  Someone hollered a fire alert to the Senate, but the House only got the message after a flaming ember fell down from the ceiling.  Nearly 300 people managed to escape by a single narrow stairway, while others had to escape via windows with ladders and ropes. The entire story is dramatically captured in this old article from the Minneapolis Tribune, reprinted in the Star Tribune.

Predictably, many books and irreplaceable records were lost in this fire. “The most serious loss…is the state library, which contained 12,580 volumes. But a few lucky books did survive, due to the heroism of a one-armed janitor named Charles Chappel.  He hauled loads of books out of the burning building in his single arm.  When a falling beam hit him in the head he grabbed one last armful and finally left the building for good.  Unfortunately, little information about Mr. Chappel survives today.  With the help of ancestry.com, a federal census report from 1880 lists a 26-year-old Chas E. Chappel that was marked as “maimed, crippled, or otherwise disabled.”  Another from 1920 lists a 76-year-old Charles E. Chappel living in St. Paul that worked as superintendant of the State Capitol.  Though it’s very likely, it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that these records refer to our heroic book rescuer. Nonetheless, today we can give a moment of appreciation for this unsung champion of what was probably Minnesota’s earliest government law library.

********

Additional Sources:

Darrell Ehrlick, It Happened in Minnesota (Twodot, 2008).

Ben Welter, Minnesota Mayhem:  A History of Calamitous Events, Horrific Accidents, Dastardly Crime & Dreadful Behavior in the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes (The History Press, 2012).