Pro Se Litigant

Glossary of Legal Terms Pro Se Litigants Need to Know

2009-01-18T15:01:00.000-08:00

Action:: Case, cause, suit or controversy disputed or contested before a court of justice.
Affidavit:: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making it, before a notary or other officer having authority to administer oaths.
Affirmed:: In the practice of the appellate courts, the decree or order is declared valid and will stand as rendered in the lower court.
Allegation:: A claim or statement of what a party intends to prove; the facts as one party claims they are.
Amendment:: The correction of an error in any process, pleading, or proceeding.
Answer:: The formal written statement by a defendant responding to a complaint setting forth the grounds for his defense.
Appeal:: A review by a higher court of the judgment or decision of a lower court.
Appellee:: The party against whom the appeal is taken.
Authentic Legal Resource:: "An authentic text is one whose content has been verified by a government entity to be complete and unaltered when compared to the version approved or published by the content originator. Typically, an authentic text will bear a certificate or mark that conveys information as to its certification, the process associated with ensuring that the text is complete and unaltered when compared with that of the content originator. An authentic text is able to be authenticated, which means that the particular text in question can be validated, ensuring that it is what it claims to be." Source State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources
Brief:: A written statement of a party's position including a summary of the facts, a statement of the questions of law involved, and the arguments and legal authorities upon which the party relies. It serves as each party's principal submission to the court prior to its decision.
Challenge:: An objection to the seating of a prospective juror for a trial.
Challenge for Cause:: A challenge to a juror for which cause or a reason is alleged.
Peremptory Challenge:: A challenge to a juror without alleging any cause or reason; a limited number of peremptory challenges is allowed each side in any case.
Cite:: (1) To command the presence of a person; to notify a person of legal proceedings against him and require his appearance in the court, especially to face contempt proceedings.; (2) To read or refer to legal authorities in an argument or submission to a court. For example, to cite a case is to refer to a particular case in an attempt to persuade the Court to be guided by the decision reached in that case.
Civil Action:: Every law suit other than a criminal action; an adversary proceeding for the enforcement or protection of a legal right or the redress or prevention of a wrong.
Clerk of the Court:: An officer appointed by a court of justice who has charge of the clerical work; keeps the records and seal, issues process, enters judgments and orders, and gives certified copies of documents from the record.
Conviction:: A judgment of guild against a criminal defendant.
Costs:: An amount of money awarded to the successful party (and recoverable from the losing party) solely as reimbursement for certain of the expenses in prosecuting or defending the suit.
Counter Claim:: A claim which a defendant makes against a plaintiff.
Court of Appeals:: An intermediate federal court, inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court but higher than the U.S. District Court. Its function is to review the final decisions of the district courts, if challenged. There is a Circuit Court of Appeals in each of the judicial circuits.
Cross-Claim: A claim by one party against a co-party (a defendant claiming against another defendant, or a plaintiff against another plaintiff) arising out of the original complaint.
Cross-Examination:: After a witness has given evidence, the attorney for the opposing party examines or questions him about his testimony to verify or refute it or to further develop it.
Damages:: A monetary compensation which may be recovered in the courts by a person who has suffered a loss or injury through the unlawful act, omission or negligence of another.
Defendant:: The person defending or denying; the party against whom relief or recovery is sought in a civil action or suit; the party who is accused in a criminal suit.
Deposition:: An oral statement made by a person before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths. The attorney for the opposing party is notified to attend the deposition where he may cross-examine the deposed party. The deposition may sometimes be used later at trial, or it may be taken only to obtain discovery.
Discovery:: The disclosure by one party of facts, documents, or information to the opposing party who needs this material to properly prosecute or defend the case.
Diversity of Citizenship:: A phrase used with reference to federal jurisdiction, denoting a case in which the district courts have jurisdiction because all the persons on one side of the case are citizens of the states different from all the persons on the other side. The matter in controversy must also exceed a value of $50,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Document:: Generally refers to writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono records, computer records, pictures, maps, etc. Denotes any record such as deeds, agreements, title papers, receipts and other written instruments or data compilations used to prove a fact.
Entry of Judgment:: Recording the judgment; putting into the docket book a statement of the final judgment and entering copies thereof in the record of the case and the judgment book.
Evidence:: Any kind of matter, presented at trial through witnesses, records, or documents for the purpose of persuading the court or the jury of the correctness of the contentions of the parties.
Examination:: An interrogation or search. The examination of a witness consists of a series of questions asked by a party to the action or his attorney, in order to bring before the court or jury the knowledge which the witness has of the facts or matters in in dispute, or to further probe and sift previously submitted evidence.
Federal Question:: Refers to the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases involving the interprestion and application of Acts of Congress, the U.S. Constitution, and treaties. See 28 U.S.C. §1331.
File:: To put into files or records of the court; to file a paper is to place it in the official custody of the clerk. The clerk is to endorse upon the paper the date it is received and retain it in the record of the case subject to public inspection.
Habeas Corpus:: A writ that is usually used to bring a prisoner before the Court to determine the legality of his imprisonment. It may also be used to bring a person in custody before the Court to give testimony, or to be prosecuted.
Hearing:: A relatively formal proceeding similar to a trial in which evidence is submitted and witnesses are heard, with one or more legal issues to be determined.
Impeach:: To impeach a witness is to introduce evidence intended to contradict testimony or to question his/her credibility.
In Forma Pauperis:: In the manner of a pauper. The permission given to a poor person to sue without payment of court fees. See complete definition of in forma pauperis.
Injunction:: A temporary or permanent order of the Court prohibiting or requiring the performance of some specific act in order to prevent irreparable damage or injury.
Interrogatories:: Written questions asked by one party and served on an opposing party who must answer them in writing under oath as a discovery device.
Judgment:: The official and authentic decision of a Court adjudicating with finality the respective rights and claims of the parties to a suit.
Default Judgment:: A judgment rendered because of the defendant's failure to answer or appear.
Summary Judgment:: Judgment given on the basis of pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits presented for the record without any need for a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Consent Judgment:: The provisions and terms of the judgment are agreed on by the parties and submitted to the Court for its sanction and approval.
Declaratory Judgment:: A judgment which declares the rights and legal relations of the parties of a case.
Jurisdiction:: The power or legal authority of the Court to hear and decide a case.
Jury:: A certain number of persons selected according to law and sworn to inquire into matters of fact and declare the truth about matters laid before them.
Litigant:: A party to a lawsuit.
Litigation:: A case, controversy, or lawsuit.
Local Rules:: A particular set of rules for each court governing matters not determined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mandamus:: Literally, "We command." It is a command of a higher court to either a lower court or a public officer to perform a lawful duty.
Mistrial:: An invalid trial the result of which cannot stand because of some fundamental error. When a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again from the selection of the jury.
Moot:: A proceeding which seeks a judgment or ruling on a dispute which does not actually exist. For example, when one party brings a motion to compel the other to answer interrogatories and the other has already answered, tho motion is moot.
Notice:: Information or a warning usually given in writing, informing a person of some fact which it is his legal right to know.
Notice of Appeal:: Notice to the Court and to the other parties to the suit that a party intends to exercise his right to appeal. Filing the notice of appeal in the district court is the first step in making the appeal.
Oath:: A legal declaration or claim made under penalty of perjury (either orally or through a written document) stating that what you are about to say is true and correct to the best of your abilities. See complete definition of oath or to be under oath.

Online Official Legal Resource:: "An online official legal resource is one that possesses the same status as a print official legal resource." Taken from the State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources. See the report for a complete argument as to what constitutes an official online legal resource and why online documents need to be established as authenticated legal resources prior to their use in court.
Opinion:: A formal judicial statement of the legal reasoning upon which the judgment is based.
Parties:: The person or entities who prosecute or defend a lawsuit.
Plaintiff (or Complainant):: The one who brings the suit, asking for the enforcement of a right or the recovery of relief from a wrong.
Pleading:: The formal written statements presented by the parties in a civil case forming the basis for the lawsuit and defining the issues.
Pre-Trial Conference:: This is a conference attended by the attorneys for both sides to clarify the issues, set a schedule for discovery, motions and further proceedings and to discuss settlement, with the judge or magistrate judge presiding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
Process:: The summons or any other writ which may be used during the progress of the case.
Remand:: To send back. The act of the appellate court in sending a case back to the district court for further action.
Reversal:: The act of an appellate court annulling a judgment of a lower court because of an error.
Service:: The delivery of a summons, writ, notice, or injunction, by an authorized person to officially notify another party of a proceeding in which he is concerned.
Service of Process:: The service of writs, summonses, complaints or petitions to the party to whom they ought to be delivered.
Subpoena:: A command to a witness to appear and give testimony.
Subpoena Duces Tecum:: A command to a witness to produce at a trial or hearing documents or papers in his possession that are pertinent to the issues of a pending case.
Summons:: A writ to notify the person named that an action has been commenced against him in the court, and that he is required to appear and answer the complaint.
Temporary Restraining Order:: Prohibits a person from an action which is likely to cause irreparable harm. This differs from an injunction in that it may be granted immediately, without notice to the opposing party and without a hearing. It is intended to last until a hearing can be held.
Testimony:: Oral evidence given by a witness under oath.
Transcript:: The typewritten transcription of the court reporter's shorthand notes of the proceedings in a trial, hearing or deposition.
Venue:: The geographical location in which a case is tried.
Verdict:: The formal decision or finding made by the jury upon the matters or questions submitted to them at the trial.
Voir Dire:: The preliminary examination of a juror to determine his competency or impartiality to serve on a case.
Writ:: A formal written command, issued from the Court, requiring the performance of a specific act.

Source: Definitions taken from A Manual for Pro Se Litigants Appearing Before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which was published by the District Executive's Office United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

How the Government is Using Fear Mongering to Pass Bad Bills in Congress

2009-01-16T11:08:00.000-08:00

Representative Brad Sherman (D. California) unveils how Congress is psychologically manipulated into passing Bad Bills which become law without being studied or truly analyzed.

Congressman Sherman affirms that the only way they can pass a bad bill is by creating a panic atmosphere that is not justified. Unfortunately, it looks like this panic atmosphere is more common than we would like to believe.

Congressman Brad Sherman says and I quote:

"Many of us were told in private conversations, that if we voted against this bill, on Monday the sky would fall, the market would fall 2 or 3 thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day. A few members were even told that there would be Martial Law in America if we voted No!"

"That's what I call fear mongering. Unjustified! Proven wrong! We've got a week, we've got 2 weeks to write a good bill. The only way to pass a bad bill: keep the panic pressure on."

5 Essential Questions That Must Be Answered Before Beginning Any Type of Legal Research

2009-01-10T21:11:00.000-08:00

Every legal case is different. However, many aspects of the law are common to all. The following set of questions will help you determine how to best approach your legal research, what type of process you should pursue, where to do so and why. Therefore, before beginning your research first ask yourself the following:

1. What is the exact legal question (or series of questions) that needs to be answered in your case?

Writing down this question or set of questions will help you narrow down the exact legal subject(s) or matter(s) that need to be addressed and examined.

Let's say you just underwent a divorce process and have a son or a daughter that will have to live with either you or your ex-spouse. You will need to look at both divorce law and child custody law in order to fight a child custody battle. Some potential questions that need to be addressed would be:

Is it legally in the best interest of the child to live with you or with your ex-spouse?
What is the procedure for claiming your child's custody?
What are your legal responsibilities as a parent and what are your ex-spouse's?
In the event that you are not given legal custody, what rights and responsibilities do you have concerning your child?
If you are given custody, what rights and responsibilities does your ex-spouse have concerning the child?

2. Does your case involve a civil or a criminal matter?

This question is pretty much self evident. If you were arrested or charged with a crime, be it a petty crime, misdemeanor or something more serious such as a Felony, then the case obviously falls under the criminal category.

If you are being sued or plan on suing a person, company, agency, institution, etc., or are fighting for child custody or any other family or business law matter then it is safe to assume that the case is civil.

3. Does your case concern Federal or State Law (or both)?

This is not always a simple question to answer and may not always be as obvious as you may think.

In the child custody case above for example, you could reasonably consider that a child custody case involves State Law. And under most normal circumstances it would. However, a child custody case could become a Federal Case if it could legally be established that the case involves interstate legal issues or commerce.

Keep in mind that there are an entirely different set of laws for both Federal and individual States. Any one particular case may have a more favorable set of laws in either Federal or State proceedings. So it is important to research both possibilities in order to establish the most beneficial setting for your particular purpose.

In other words, just because a type of case is normally handled by a State Court doesn't mean you can't pursue it in a Federal setting.

4. If you determine that your case involves State Laws, what State's law is in question? If your case involves Federal Law, what Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over your case.

This may seem obvious as well, however it is not always so. Taking the child custody battle example used above, if parents live in different states then deciding what state has jurisdiction over your case may be tricky.

This is also true in a Federal setting. There are currently 13 Federal Circuits and determining which one has jurisdiction over any particular case may involve many aspects.

This is especially true in contract law, whereby many companies force customers to sign a contract stating that a dispute will be handled under any one particular State's court system. However, certain laws may allow you to file a case under a different state's court system than the one mentioned in the contract. Or a case may become Federal when it was stated that state courts had jurisdiction.

5. What Category of Law Does your case fall into?

Administrative Law
Admiralty Law
Appeals and Writs
Aviation Law
Banking Law
Bankruptcy Law
Business Law
Civil Rights Law
Computer or Technology Law
Constitutional Law
Construction Law
Consumer Law
Credit, Debt and Collections Law
Criminal Law (This category has a huge set of sub-categories)
Disability Discrimination Law (ADA)
Drunk Driving & DUI Law
Education Law
Elder Law
Entertainment & Sport Law
Environmental Law
Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption
Family Medical Leave Act
Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation
General Civil Litigation
Health Care Law
Immigration Law
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International Law
Investment Law
Juvenile Dependency
Labor and Employment Law
Landlord & Tenants
Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility
Legal Malpractice Law & Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Mediation
Medical Malpractice Law
Military Law
Native American Law
Discrimination Law (Age, Race, Sex, Gender)
Personal Injury Law and Tort Law
Probate, Trusts, Wills & Estates
Products Liability
Real Estate and Real Property
Securities Law
Sexual Harassment Law
Social Security Law
Tax and Taxation Law
Telecommunications Law
Traffic Law
Veterans Law
Workers' Compensation Law

Photo of The Butte County Public Law Library in California

Conclusions:

Answering the above 5 questions will get you well under way to beginning a much more effective approach to the legal research process.

What is an Oath or to be Under Oath?

2009-01-06T04:13:00.000-08:00

Let's define: To Be Under Oath

An "Oath" is basically a legal or official, solemn declaration made before a Court, a judge, a magistrate, or a duly authorized "official" like a Notary Public. It is basically a claim signed under penalty of perjury that the statement you just made, or are about to make, either orally or through a written document such as a sworn statement is true and correct to the best of your abilities.

Unsworn statements or testimony that has not been made under oath cannot be accepted as evidence by a court of law. Not even if it comes from a police officer or from another government official.

Today, since many Courts require the filing of documents electronically, filing them under oath may be a little tricky. In many cases only scanned documents are allowed. You must therefore always research the specific rules for filing in any particular situation. As a pro se litigant you may probably be exempted from electronic filling requirements however it is good to review the Second Amended Order Establishing Standards For The Electronic Filing, Signing and Verification of Documents.

The Instructions for Filing a Civil Action on Your Own Behalf in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is also a useful document with the rules that governs pro se civil action filings including under oath requirements for most Federal District Courts. However please find the instructions for your particular District to make sure you are following the correct procedures.

Define: In Forma Pauperis

2009-01-02T07:34:00.000-08:00

The word Pauper is Latin for Poor so in forma pauperis simply means filing in court in the form of a pauper or poor person. Simply put, if you are poor, you have the right to sue or defend yourself without prepayment of fees.

In order to proceed in Court without funds you must first file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That motion must be accompanied by an attached affidavit or declaration stating that you lack the funds to pay for filing fees and/or other costs associated with the legal proceedings.

Federal Rules and laws governing In Forma Pauperis proceeding

Different rules and statutes have been adopted by different States and different Courts of Law in order to handle in forma pauperis proceedings.

If you are filing for a Writ of Certiori before the US Supreme Court for example, you are governed by Rule 39. When filing a Writ of Certiori for example you can use this guide for indigent petitioners filing writs of certiori. Keep in mind that you will be asked to provide all your financial information (including your spouses financial information) under oath.

You can find the rules for proceeding in forma pauperis in an appeal, a habeas corpus petition or other appelate proceeding at the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure page from Cornell University.

Some lawyers even claim that a Corporation appearing before a Federal Court could be considered a Poor Person if it lacks the funds to proceed.

Defending Yourself in Court - When Does Becoming a Pro Se (Self Representative) Litigant Really Make Sense?

2009-01-02T05:31:00.000-08:00

They say that he who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client. This may indeed be true, however, I personally believe that a well informed "fool" as they would like to call him, can actually be more effective in Court under certain circumstances, especially if he puts all his heart into it.

Under What Circumstances is Self Representation a Wise Move

When you believe in your abilities more than in your lawyer's
If you possess enough confidence in yourself and are willing to make mistakes, even if they could represent a potentially unpleasant ending.
If you are willing to spend long hours, days, months and even years in the law library working harder than you have ever worked in your entire life.
When a lawyer refuses to ask for something, file a motion or submit any petition that you believe is essential to making your case in court.
If you don't have enough money to pay for effective legal representation. The word "Effective" should be the focus here.

Keep in mind that many times you can ask for free or low cost expert legal assistance by filing an in forma pauperis petition requesting government appointed legal representation. There are many good lawyers at the public defenders office. There are also many bad ones who just try to flip cases like if they were flipping burgers without really caring what happens to their client, so you have to be the judge.

The Criminal Justice System and Mandated Sentences Part 4

2008-12-30T06:22:00.000-08:00

This is part 4, or the last part of an interview series about injustices in the US criminal justice system. You should first see part 1, then part 2, part 3 and finally this part 4.

Important Notes from part 4 of the Interview of Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen by Dr. James Haney

DBK: They wanted more police officers on the street to fight this war on drugs. And they got their 100,000 more police officers.

There were a hundred thousand more police officers put on the street and those police officers were put in primarily, minority communities. To look for drug users and drug dealers; and they found them.

From there what I wanted to look at was from 65, where we stopped basically, before we started talking about what happened once freedoms were given that had been deserved and fought for, for so many years.

Once those freedoms were given, all of a sudden you see the arrest rates of African Americans which had remained at about 25 percent (anywhere from 25 and 30 percent) from 1934 when the UCR started collecting arrest rate data.

From 1934 'til about 1966 arrest rates remained at about 25 to 30 percent for African Americans. And their prison population was about 25 to 30 percent, so it matched their arrest population.

Well, from the middle sixties on, what happened is, you still have an arrest rate of African Americans that runs from 25 to 30 percent on a given year but yet their prison population is made up:

65 to 70 percent of our prison population is African American Now!

And if you look at the Federal Prisons and people who are in Federal prison for non-violent drug offenders: It's 85 percent of non-violent drug offenders who are in Federal prison are African Americans. And this is because of this war on drugs.

What my concern is, it's because of the whole issue of privatization of prisons as well, coming right along side of this.

Ok, we're arresting all the drug dealers. And of course the drug dealers are African Americans, which we know they're not. And they're not arrested any more; they're looking for the African American drug dealer, but they can't find him because they still only have an arrest rate of 25 to 30 percent but they've got all these police officers looking for them; they can't find them. So obviously that's not who's dealing drugs and not who's using it.

At the same time you've got these disparities and arrest vs. incarceration rates which it should be like this:
(Photo: Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen making a gesture with her hands of how the arrest vs. incarceration rate should be but telling us that it is not really that way)

but it's not. You've got privatization of prison. So you've got all these prisons opening up. And one in particular has opened up in Northern Virginia that used to be one of the largest slave plantations back in the 1800s in the United States.

They're taking all the prisoners from Washington D.C., which primarily is going to be about 90 percent African American and putting them in that prison in Virginia, which used to be slave plantation lane. They're doing and they're in private prisons doing labor for free -- In this private prison in Virginia -- African American males who are in there for non-violent drug offenses.

JH: This has also been a part of the system in the State of Tennessee as well, has it not? The private criminal systems and efforts on the part of some peoples to increase their numbers? Is that true in reference to your statement here?

DBK: Right. Correctional Corporation of America is probably one of the biggest prison systems. We have a -- Correctional Corporations is here in Nashville -- a parting place. And they are housing a lot of inmates.

The reason why people are voting for, and agreeing with, and not screaming about this privatization of prison looking a lot like slavery, is because it's coming under the umbrella of, well it's saving the tax payer's money. And we don't want to pay taxes to keep people locked up, so if the private prison can do it cheaper, let 'em do it.

What they don't understand is that the private prisons are incarcerating people for profit. They're going into these prisons and they're making clothing and they're booking their airline flights and they're getting credit card information off of people who are calling in to buy things. And prisoners are on the phone booking your airline flight and getting your credit card information. Which isn't a big concern to me because you know they're not going to do anything with that information.

JH: This is still an exploitation of labor.

DBK: Yeah. That was my concern. It's not that they were getting information. It's that they're doing labor, making profit for corporations.

JH: Which use them to expand the system itself.

DBK: If you're incarcerating people for profit, then you're going to want to put more and more people in prison. You're not going to want to solve crime. You're going to want to lock people up.

JH: That's what it's all about.

DBK: Right.

The Criminal Justice System and Mandated Sentences Part 3

2008-12-29T06:20:00.000-08:00

This is part 3 of an interview series about injustices in the US criminal justice system. You should first see part 1, then part 2 and after viewing part 3 finally see part 4.

Important Notes from part 3 of the Interview of Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen by Dr. James Haney

Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen is talking about the Criminal Justice System in the United States.

JH: ...We continue talking about the institutionalization of racism. ...the whole issue is a part of the real sense of our society...

DBK: Where I kind of left of was the fact that, all of a sudden the civil rights legislation was passed. There are new freedoms for African Americans and other oppressed members of our society. But it was 1970. I mean, it wasn't even 5, maybe 6 years after this that the Nixon administration put an all out front on the war on drugs.

The war on drugs became a criminalization of black people. Drugs meant blacks, black meant crime. Drugs and crime meant let's lock up black people. It was never this intent until the 70s.

What concerns me about that is once the juror segregation and discrimination is gone, now all of a sudden you've got institutionalized racism.

You've got the menial portrayal that people who do drugs are African American. They're the people to fear as a group! Not just, we've got to fear a person who does drugs but we've got to fear the black male. Because the black male is the drug dealer, who's out killing people for drugs or killing people to sell drugs. And that's what we've got to be careful about.

So all of a sudden we've got a bunch more police officers on the street looking for the drug dealer who is African American male. Supposedly, but that's not reality. Reality is not that that's who was selling drugs.

Self report studies on drugs sales and drug use from 1970s on, which was data collected by the Michigan Alcohol and Drug Survey said that -- self report studies say that white European American males are the ones who are the drug dealers and the drug users at a much higher rate than African American males.

But the images of the media and the image of the political arena was that it was African American males. The African American males became a threat to the white population and the white politician and the white criminal justice system.

So once that happened, more legislation continued to be passed that was about the war on drugs. Every President, from Nixon on, that's what they fought for up until Barack Obama's administration.

The war on drugs wasn't really mentioned much at all in this because the economy was so bad. I think that people wanted to hear other things beside the war on drugs. But any politician who ran for office from the seventies on could not "not talk about" the war on drugs and not talk about crime and.

JH: Troubled cities

DBK: Right, or troubled cities. Or they would not had gotten elected. You had to say: what am I doing about crime. And you had to say, what am I doing specifically about the drug dealers on the street that are shooting each other.

That image of the drug dealer was a Black African American Male. So what are you doing about the inner city streets of America? What are you doing about the Detroits? What are you doing about the Chicagos? What are you doing about the L.A.s?

Ever since then, we've had legislation that's been passed, that's been revolving around this particular interest. I think the most damaging was the "Crime Control Bill" which said, If you've got just 5 grams of crack cocaine, you've got a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison vs. 500 grams of heroin, vs. 100 grams of regular cocaine.

We all know that cocaine is cocaine, whether it comes in the form of powder cocaine or rock. But we focused on, OK, we've got to get the people who've got crack -- and they're going to get for 5 grams of crack, -- they're going to get the same time as someone who has 100 grams or 500 grams of heroin.

The person who we saw as the crack dealer, specifically in the 80s, was the black African American male. So all of a sudden we've got all these people out on the streets -- looking for the crack dealer -- who was ONLY looking in African American communities. That's were the law enforcement officers were put.

Clinton's administration in the 90s also passed crime control legislation, put 100,000 more police officers on the street. Of course that crime control legislation: 100,000 more police officers went where?

The Criminal Justice System and Mandated Sentences Part 2

2008-12-28T05:28:00.000-08:00

First See Part 1 of this interview, then watch this video, and finally go on to part 3 and part 4.

Important Notes from part 2 of the Interview of Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen by Dr. James Haney

JH: We're talking to Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen from Tennessee State University and the topic is the Criminal Justice System from the United States.

...Were going to continue talking about what we call police brutality...

DBK: ...They had a publication and a march called "October 22" out in Southern California, where people would protest actual police brutality cases. And they published a book that was literally this thick:

(Photo: Dr. Burris-Kitchen making a gesture with her fingers showing that the book was about an inch and a half thick, full of police brutality cases.)

DBK: Talking about people that had been shot by the police. And these were NOT cases were the person was challenging the police officer or threatening the police officer. They were cases where the person did not have a weapon, the person's back was to the police officer. Obviously they were not threatening the police officer in any way and they should not have used that type of excessive force.

So that's why I wanted to talk about that. It's because I think there's still some obvious problems. If you have a group that can come up with that many people who have been victims of that type of crime, EVERY YEAR, and protest; literally hundreds of thousands protest this on October 22, then it's a problem.

I wanted to kind of go back to the legal code and how it came out of the European history because I think that's going to lead up to our final discussion as far as racial disparity is concerned. We'll talk about that in just a little bit.

When we talk about coming out of the legal code: The first laws that were written were basically to protect property rights owners in the United States. And those property rights owners were European Americans.

So, Excluded from protection from the legal code were obviously Native Americans, African Americans who were brought here: they were not US citizens or United States Citizens.

Because of that, the laws that were written to protect property rights were usually written as repressive laws against those who didn't have access to the ownership of property. Whether it was Native Americans, or whether it was people who were brought here from Africa against their will.

Because of that legislation, people of color were criminalized very early in our history. And continue to be criminalized throughout American history up until the 1865, 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery which passed.

Once they abolished slavery, they put in that "with exclusion" act.

Ok, slavery is abolished but with the "Exclusion" of those who have been convicted of a felony offense. And slavery could be used in the form of a punishment.

They still use that part of the legislation to enslave! Predominantly African American people who were convicted of crimes that they did not get their due process for. So it would go into court, and of course they would NOT get a jury. If they did, they certainly did not get a jury of their peers.

It was one's person's word against another's and of course, the white person's word was the word of the law. So the person of color was convicted of the particular crime and probably put back on the plantation that they were freed from a few years prior.

JH: That's similar to what you would call the "Chain Gang System" that many of these individuals had some how gone against the law, but it might not be legal. Legal in the terms of what they did but in the end they would be placed back into a situation where they would basically "enslave you" once again.

Is that the so called "Chain Gang System"?

DBK: Yes. That would be part of the chain gang system.

Many of the people were put right back on the slave property that they were on, prior to being freed from the 1865 legislation. So absolutely. And then of course, we had it in our legal code that sever but equal.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was saying also that it was illegal for an African American to go into white establishments, or sit at the front of the bus, or whatever it was that they were segregated from; the school systems...

So that was in place until Brown vs. the Board of Education back in 1954. So we've had a legal segregation, we've had legal discrimination in this country for years. In which, African Americans have been prosecuted because of this legal written documentation.

It wasn't until probably 1964, 1965 that civil rights legislation started putting it into place that legal segregation and legal discrimination was "almost" completely abolished.

The criminal justice system has always been, or had repressive laws against people of color in American History. And then once you look at, not only the laws, but the Court system and the fact that due process has never been a part of African American or Native American History, or anyone that wasn't a "white European American"...

JH: When you say Due Process, enslavement?

DBK: A jury of your peers, a fair trial, a speedy trial, this stuff was never accessible until probably 1960s legislation for African Americans or other people of color, or women, or different groups that have been discriminated historically up until that point.

So I think that's an important history to understand before we get into the racial disparities because without that history then it's going to be difficult to understand where we came from as far as once the civil rights legislation was passed. What's happened since then, that's lead to even more racial disparities, which you would think would be the opposite...

JH: In other words, it's almost a continuation of what it already had been. It really should not be surprising, I would imagine, to a person involved in the criminal justice system, like yourself, that this has happened. This is deja vu in many instances.

DBK: That they wouldn't find new repressive laws to make sure that a population that has been discriminated against historically continues to be discriminated against. Absolutely.

So when we look at "The War on Drugs" specifically, that's what I want to get into a little bit later.

When we look at the war on drugs specifically we can see that that's what's been the repressive law of today; of contemporary society: To make sure that there's over representation of people of color that are coming through the criminal justice system. Just like the juror segregation was used in the past to make sure that the criminal justice system was flooded with African Americans.

JH: ...It broadens our point of view in terms of problems that we will have to face, in terms of challenges. As you've indicated, this has always been a part of the American experience. I think that the more people recognize that this has been a part of the system, then it's easier to deal with it, when you think in terms of trying to move forward.

I think the system CAN be reformed. I think that there HAS been quite a bit of reform in the system but still, it's a real problem. Of course we'll talk about that as an issue. Later on, during this fine segment.

The Criminal Justice System and Mandated Sentences Part 1

2008-12-26T06:48:00.000-08:00

This is part 1 of an interview series about injustices in the US criminal justice system. After viewing it and reading the transcript you should then see part 2, part 3 and finally part 4.

Important Notes from part 1 of the Interview of Dr. Deborah Burris-Kitchen (hereinafter DBK) by Dr. James Haney (hereinafter JH)

JH: Let's look at the Criminal Justice System from Dr. Burris-Kitchen's perspective

DBK: Three Aspects of the Criminal Justice System

1. Policing (Looking for People who are committing violations against our legal code)
2. The Courts (Those who prosecute those who are accused)
3. Corrections (The people who are responsible of taking care of the people who are sentenced under the criminal justice system)

Where the disparities lie is from the Courts into the sentencing aspect, then into incarceration. We've also got probation and parole. Parole is where they come out of the system. Probation is where they are basically at the front end. They are given probation as opposed to being sentenced to a prison system when they're convicted on an offense.

Our legal system came basically from the English Common Laws. So we're still a system that looks a lot like what was brought over by the English when they came to the United States.

JH: And so the whole aspect of the Criminal Justice System in the United States is really an extension, almost, of the English System?

DBK: Right! And when we get to that part of the discussion, that's going to play a big role, and why the system looks like it does, as far as it being somewhat discriminatory against different racial groups in our society.

JH: ...We've heard quite a number of people complain, quite recently about what they call Police Brutality. I don't think that it is as prevalent really today as it had been, I think in the past but is that a real issue today, in the criminal justice system

DBK: There's a lot more control over what goes on with Law Enforcement Officers, because they have cameras in their car now and they are constantly being watched. There's a lot more surveillance now than there ever used to be for police officers. But I still think that there is some police brutality that goes on. And one of the projects that I worked on out in Southern California was related to police brutality and they actually had a book that was published, it's called October 22, where they published all the different people who were actually killed by the police.

United States Court of Apeals Districts

2008-12-22T19:18:00.000-08:00

There are currently 13 Different Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals in the United States. Each circuit Court of Appeals is in charge of hearing cases from a set number of States in the Union.

United States Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals hear appeals from Federal civil cases as well as from Federal Criminal cases. They also hear appeals from bankrupcy courts, tax courts and decisions made by Federal Administrative Agencies. The list of States that belongs to each Federal Circuit is determined by Title 28 U.S. Code, § 41.

The 13 Circuits

First Circuit Court of Appeals:

Main
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Puerto Rico

Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

Conneticut
New York
Vermont

Third Circuit Court of Appeals:

Delaware
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Virgin Islands

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals:

South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Maryland

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Louisiana
Mississippi
Texas
Panama Canal Zone

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
Tennessee

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals:

Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Arkansas
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Missouri

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Arizona
California
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
Oregon
Washington State
Alaska
Hawaii
Guam

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Colorado
Kansas
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals:

Alabama
Florida
Georgia

Judicial District Court of Appeals:

District of Columbia

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals:

Covers all Federal Judicial Districts

Each of the above United States Courts of Appeals are in charge of hearing appeals from a set number of Districts assigned to them. There are currently 94 districts. 89 of those districts are found within the 50 states. The other 5 districts are for cases stemming from locations such as Guam, The Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia.

You can find what District you belong to as well as the specific Court you need to file your initial case in, by simply typing in your zip code in the www.uscourts.gov search filter.