CPCS Innocence Program, Somerville Office

The CPCS Innocence Program was created in 2010 as a result of a 2009 Wrongful Conviction Review Program grant award by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The purpose of the CPCS Innocence Program is to obtain exonerations for indigent Massachusetts state defendants who are actually innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted. The Program aims to: (1) identify potentially meritorious Massachusetts innocence cases; (2) assign experienced attorneys from the CPCS post-conviction panel to litigate such cases; (3) supervise and train lawyers on forensic issues and litigation skills related to wrongful convictions; and (4) administer an “Expert Funding System” that is used to support post-conviction investigation, forensic expert consultation and testing.

CPCS is seeking to fill a part-time Support Specialist position for the Innocence Program which is based in our Somerville Office.

Responsibilities: Responding to telephone and mail inquiries from indigent Massachusetts inmates seeking counsel to pursue claims of factual innocence; responding to CPCS panel attorneys seeking financial assistance from the Innocence Program Expert Funding System to hire investigators or experts needed to substantiate claims of innocence on behalf of the indigent Massachusetts defendants whom they represent on Direct Appeal or in post-conviction proceedings; gathering and maintaining performance data from attorneys handling active cases on behalf of the Innocence Program for inclusion in Semi-Annual Progress Reports; working with the Program Director to gather data to develop evidence-based practice guidelines for use in litigation of Massachusetts innocence claims, including claims brought under the newly enacted post-conviction access and forensic analysis law; working with the Program Director to develop training materials for upcoming post-conviction training programs; working with the Program Director to provide litigation support to attorneys working on active Innocence Program cases; working with partner staff at the New England Innocence Project to update pleadings and chart of litigation developments under new post-conviction access and forensic analysis law.

Requirements: Strong oral and written communication; strong organizational and detail skills; ability to gather, analyze, and evaluate information from attorneys regarding litigation issues; ability to work independently; ability to maintain confidentiality and to establish effective working relationships and to work as a team member; flexibility; and administrative and computer skills including Windows and MS Word, Microsoft Excel and other similar databases, Adobe Acrobat products. Experience with web design and/or creating and editing digital media a plus. Bachelor’s Degree and/or work or volunteer experience with other Innocence Projects will be considered a plus.

Please note that this is a grant funded position, and funding is only guaranteed through December 31, 2013. A new grant proposal with funding for the position has been submitted, but applicants will not be notified until fall 2013.  No benefits are provided.

Salary: The salary for this part-time (14 hours/week) position will be commensurate with experience, but will not be less than $17.59 per hour.

Application: A resume and statement of interest should be submitted to Jennifer Cermeno at jcermeno@publiccounsel.net by April 8, 2013. The position reports to Lisa Kavanaugh, Program Director.

This office is an equal opportunity employer.

The agency actively seeks to diversify its workforce.

Date of Posting: March 21, 2013

In that spirit, I have compiled some pictures and written brief descriptions based on my class schedule.   Enjoy!

• What the non-law students in my education law class have to learn
• I took a seminar about a trial with the expectation I wouldn’t have to haul around a heavy textbook
• A reading on the sports law syllabus (and that was before that website came to typify investigative journalism)
• Where my legal scholarship is heading (See e. i. 3)

Amazon Student Prime gets you free two-day shipping, no $25 requirement for free shipping, and free release-date delivery on video games, DVDs, books and more.  You also get access to the Amazon Prime Video service and Kindle book lending service, so long as you sign up for the paid student rate.  The normal price for Amazon Prime is $79, but Amazon Student Prime is being offered for $39.  This price is only good while you are a student with a .EDU email address.

The only downside to Amazon student prime is that you cannot share the benefits of the account with other members of your household.  With normal Amazon Prime, you can share the benefits, such as two-day shipping, with the Amazon accounts of other members of your household, which is not possible with Student Prime.  If you are a 3L, this will be your last chance to sign-up for student prime and you will only be able to get the benefits for one year.  If you are a 1L or 2L, you will be able to get the benefits for a while longer.  If you are on the fence, I suggest you at least try the service since you will have it available for free for six months.  If you are like me, you probably use Amazon for most of your purchases, so this is a terrific offer.  I have signed up and for $39 I believe the service is certainly worth it.

Try it for yourself: Amazon Student Prime

Racism is a very complex and sensitive subject for everyone involved.  Many people have very strong and emotion fueled stances, which can make it difficult to calmly discuss the issue.  This is unfortunate because exploration of the underlying concept, though very controversial, allows for better understanding among diverse groups and, by extension, a greater degree of empathy.  Obviously racism is bad, but what we need to keep in mind is that not every comment that is insulting or offensive is racist.  So, at the risk of antagonizing people who do not wish to even think about this controversial issue, we will take a look at racism from several points that are not often discussed.

Firstly, it would be extremely beneficial to establish the definition of racism that we will be using.  The following are a few definitions of racism that were pulled from other sources:

1)  The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race and subsequent…

2)  Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

3)  Views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

None of these definitions fully and accurately reflects all aspects of racism, though each certainly is relevant.  We will use the following as the functional definition of racism:

A belief that a person or people are inferior or superior (including but not limited to, some ability, action, view, belief, or right) based in whole or in part on the person or people’s skin color or ethnicity.

This definition is broad enough to cover all relative aspects of racism, while also containing limiting factors in order to get at the main focus of racism: prejudice and inequality based on skin color or ethnic background.  Each person is likely to have their own definition for racism.  Whatever definition you believe is the most accurate, it is important that you keep that definition in mind and reference it often when discussing what is or is not racist and why.

With our definition of racism in hand, let us take a look at some general categories of statements that may or may not be considered racist in general conversation.

Statements of Fact:  A statement of fact cannot be racist.  That is because facts are color and ethnocentricity blind.  A fact does not have any consciousness or awareness with which to attribute a belief.  Facts do not have beliefs or express beliefs; facts are statements of the truth (as understood at that time).  However, just because something is stated in the form of a fact, does not mean that it is a fact.

Facts can be subjective or objective.  An example of an objective fact is, “That wall is blue.”  When a person says that a wall is blue, it means they perceive a wavelength of light which corresponds to a place in the color spectrum that is linguistically designated as blue.  Aside from the person being mistaken or colorblind, both of which are flaws in the perception of the viewer, that statement is indisputably objective fact.

An example of subjective fact would be, “I like ice cream.”  So long as the person is being truthful, we can accept that a statement that depends entirely upon their own mental state and preferences is true for the speaker.  There could be extrinsic evidence that suggests they don’t like ice cream, such as a time in which they refused an ice cream cone, but there could be other reasons for their refusal.  Subjective facts rely on the belief of the declarant, and thus we must take the declarant’s perceived honesty into account when considering them.

Now let’s consider some statements that could be considered racist.  For the sake of trying to minimize heated emotions we will begin the hypothetical racist talk about a group of people that created specifically for this hypothetical situation: The Hypothet.

Imagine a person said, “The Hypothet people are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Greenland and Canada.”  That appears to be a statement in the form of a fact.  Assuming that it is true, despite how anyone feels about the statement (whether negatively or positively) that statement is incapable of being a racist statement, due to its truth.  Now, let’s consider a slightly more contentious statement of fact.  Imagine a person said, “Polygamy and open marriages are not uncommon among the Hypothet.”  Some people would consider the attribution of polygamy and open marriages to a group of people to be a negative trait.  As such, that statement of fact could be insulting to some people.  However, assuming the statement is true, the statement objectively reflects a verifiable commonality in Hypothet society: that there are polygamous and open marriages.  As such, an accurate statement of fact regarding that aspect of Hypothet society, regardless of whether it offends some people, cannot be deemed racist.  Again, the truth is never racist.

Subjective facts are much more difficult.  Imagine a person said, “I don’t like the Hyopthet people.”  Based on the above definition of racism, that is not a racist statement.  It states no belief that the Hyopthet people are inferior based on their race or ethnicity.  It is an accurate statement of fact, the speaker is simply stating their preference which we can assume to be true.  The truth is not racist.  However, it is possible that though this statement of fact is not racist, it was conceived and stated because of racism.  If the reason that the declarant doesn’t like the Hypothet people is because of their skin color or ethnicity, then the declarant is racist.  Thus the statement of the declarant’s preference can be based upon racism, but since the truth cannot be racist, the statement itself is not racist.

Finally, there are non-facts, which can be stated as facts.  Imagine a person said, “The Hypothet people are a bunch of thieves because their culture is based around stealing.”  Assume this is not true.  Even though it is stated in the form of a fact, that does not make the statement truthful or factual.  Such statement’s are capable of being racist since they are not true.  If the statement is predicated on the declarant believing something negative about the object of the statement based on object’s race or ethnicity, then the statement can be considered racist.  If the statement is not predicated on the declarant believing something negative about the object of the statement based on the object’s race or ethnicity, imagine in this case if the declarant had been improperly taught in school that the Hypothet society promoted theft but the person had no belief in the inferiority of the Hypothet people based on their race or ethnicity, then the statement would not be racist.  The statement would be merely misinformed and offensive.  Ignorance is not racism, though ignorance may be a cause of racism.

From these examples, and from the prior established definition, we can see that racism depends on a person’s beliefs.  A person can make non-racist statements while still being racist, and a person can make statements that sound suspiciously racist, but are not.  The beliefs of the declarant determine whether or not the declarant and/or the declarant’s statements are racist.

Now we come to a slightly more contentious section, addressing specific instances of common racist statements.

“Asian people are good at math.”

At first glance, one might say, “yeah, it’s a broad generalization about a group of people, but it is a GOOD generalization.  We are saying they are good at something, not bad.”  This line of thinking overlooks a few aspects of this statement.  Firstly, by giving a broad generalization about a group of people, the speaker is dividing people into two groups: Asian people and non-Asian people.  Comparing this statement to our definition of racism, we find that this is a statement that expresses the superiority of a group of people based on their race.  This is racist.  The non-racist version of this sentiment would be: “The educational polices employed in many Asian countries emphasize math. This, in conjunction with societal valuation of a strong work ethic, has helped produce high scores on standardized math exams.”  Perhaps that was the intent of the speaker, but they simply did not want to have to make such a long statement.  In that case, the speaker would not have been racist, but made a statement that sounds racist.  Further, this statement creates unrealistic expectations that can be harmful to Asians.  If whenever you have a math problem, you expect an Asian person to be able to solve it for you and they can’t, it makes that person look bad and puts them in an awkward position.

“White people can’t dance.”

This has been spoken of for a very long time and has long since lost its humor.  Clearly the statement is making a negative assertion about white people.  It is doubtful that there are any white people who actually take offense to this statement, but there are many people who believe this statement.  Whether or not anyone is offended by this statement is immaterial, what does matter is that there are people who hold such beliefs for racist reasons.

“Hispanic people are lazy.”

Again, we have a negative belief about a group of people based on their ethnicity.  Let us assume for a moment, that people who believe this statement would say, “But it is not racist because it is true.”  It is true that truth would be an affirmative defense against a claim of racism.  However, the manner of the statement makes it highly unlikely that it is true.  This statement regards all people of Hispanic descent.  The chances that all people of Hispanic descent would be considered “lazy” is so outlandish that actual proof would be required.  For example, if there was a study that compared the average work hours, work product, and quality of product of a large number of countries (or populations of ethnic groups) and it turned out that Hispanic countries (or Hispanic groups) ended up being at or near the bottom of the list then the statement “Hispanic people tend to produce less/inferior work output,” would be substantiated.  Absent that, such a sentiment is unfounded and racist.

“Black people are criminals.”

This falls under the same reasoning as the previous statement.  You have a broad, sweeping, offensive generalization about a group of people.  Again, an affirmative defense of truth is always allowable, but let us look at the “truth” of the statement.  There have been numerous studies that there is a higher incarceration rate among black people than white people, within the United States. (SEE: State Incarceration Rates By Race from “The Sentencing Project” and Incarceration and Race from “Human Rights Watch”)  People assume this means that criminal propensity is linked to race.  People fail to take into account many factors: bias in the criminal justice system, bias in law enforcement, propensity to press criminal charges, access to education, access to wealth, discrimination in hiring practices, the list goes on and on.  All of these are factors in contributing to a higher rate of incarceration for black people.  But none of these prove causation of criminal behavior based upon genetic predisposition.  The non-racist, accurate version of this statement is, “In the United States, on a proportional basis, black people tend to be convicted of crimes more frequently than people of other races.”  This is an accurate statement of what has been shown by statistical studies, and it makes no claim about inferiority based on race.

“I can use racial/ethnic slur X because I am a member of that race/ethnicity, but you can’t because you aren’t a member of that race/ethnicity.”

Pretty much every racial/ethnic group does this.  The prime example of this is use of “the N word.” Most people agree that it is a word that should not be used anymore because of how offensive it is.  However, there are a surprising number of people who maintain that it is acceptable to use the word if you are black.  For example, rap lyrics are riddled with the word.  But it is considered acceptable because the rappers employing the lyrics are black.  This has been referred to as “reverse racism”, but there is no such thing as “reverse racism.”  This example is covered by the definition of racism.  Is it something that one group is allowed to do that another is not allowed to do, and the deciding factor is race?  If so, then the belief is racist.

At the end of the day, no one likes to be looked down upon based on something outside of their control, namely race or heritage.  If you do not like being looked down upon, if you think it is wrong for other people to treat you differently based on your heritage, why should you feel it is acceptable to treat others in that manner?  It is the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated.  The corollary to that is known as the silver rule: do nothing to others you would not have done to you.

In the last post of the series, we’ll look at the roles played by the MLB Players Association and Marlins Owner Jeffrey Loria in the stadium scheme. A recent story from deadspin.com is more visually instructive about the issue of public financing of stadia.

MLB Players Association

Make no mistake: the MLBPA is well aware of the score. They don’t mind, because it is good for business. The MLBPA’s job is to keep player wages on the rise, and if they do their jobs really well, it is to keep the player’s percentage of profits on the rise. By either standard, the best scenario for the MLBPA is for the MLB owners to continue to make more money. The status quo perpetuated by the Office of the Commissioner keeps the largest material cost (stadia) mostly off of ownership’s balance sheet. Cable television is baseball’s biggest revenue source; stadia have been manipulated into being its most downwardly controlled cost, due to the competition between local governments that fight over who will pay more to host a team.

Marlins Owner Jeffrey Loria

The Marlins owner is not an outsider that fell into the right market. He is the league’s best manipulator when it comes to stadium construction. Loria was the guy who sold the Montreal Expos to Major League Baseball’s other 31 owners because he could not get the city of Montreal to pay for a new stadium. In the process of this sale, Loria purchased the Marlins from John Henry, who purchased the Boston Red Sox. (No monopolistic practices to see here, move along folks.)  This sale led to the team being relocated to Washington DC and rebranded as the Nationals. Loria threatened Central Florida similarly with uprooting the Marlins, and won.

The only strange thing was why Miami cared. The truth was, it didn’t. The Marlins fan base is meager by any standard, despite multiple incarnations of World Series Champions in a short 20 year history. The Champions were built up and stripped down immediately thereafter, extinguishing any nascent fanbase multiple times. The whole history of the Marlins is like a funhouse mirror of brand management. Spending on the roster varied greatly, with temporary massive outlays followed by fire sales. This past offseason was the latest massive outlay, with big money spent on Jose Reyes, Heath Bell, Mark Buerhle and Manager Ozzie Guillen in attempt to open their new ballpark with a competitive team. In case you hadn’t noticed, it didn’t work.

The fire sale didn’t happen immediately, as the Marlins only sent former cornerstone Hanley Ramirez packing in a trade to the cable gold rush team of the moment, the Los Angeles Dodgers. The real purge went down on November 13, 2012, as the Marlins dumped every large contract except third starter Ricky Nolasco’s. Bell had been sent to the Arizona Diamondbacks weeks ago, but one trade to the Blue Jays sent Reyes, Buerhle, young ace Josh Johnson, speedy utilityman Emilio Bonifacio and catcher John Buck for a laughable package of prospects with the disappointing ex-prospect Yunel Escobar as the centerpiece of the deal. Loria gutted the team, and he will make a profit next year. The Marlins payroll for the 2013 season (with several roster spots to fill and arbitration cases still to be decided as of November 13) is only $16,000,000.

Loria’s continuing profits are bad enough. The other rationale of MLB’s cartel economics is that the restrictions on the supply of teams are there not only to encourage bidding wars between cities, but also between owners. Not many seats open up at the tables of government sanctioned monopolies, and the prices owners sell franchises for continue to rise exponentially. Loria will be handsomely bought out when he’s ready to leave, and the next owner will be vetted to make sure he fits in with America’s oldest club of robber barons.

I wasn’t the most resourceful of job seekers during my last year of law school, but I did spend my 3L summer and 3L year working for a solo practitioner in downtown Boston.  As a BCLS alum, he was happy to discuss EagleiOnline from time to time and my role in managing the site.  By chance, a lawyer to whom he sometimes referred cases talked to him about planning to start a second web site for his firm to market its bread and butter practice, representing whistleblowers under the False Claims Act.  I took a position with that firm in August that year.

Although the lion’s share of my work in the first several months was on this previously-contemplated False Claims Act web site, I expanded my focus to other marketing efforts thereafter (@falseclaimsatty), and I now spend most of my time working on the firm’s False Claims Act cases.  I love working on contingent fee cases at a firm that keeps a comparatively small case load, because the result is a priority on excellence and the work can be done at a steady pace.  It’s easy to get out of bed in the morning and stay motivated when you pursue fraud as egregious as the conduct we see regularly.

At this point, I manage the firm’s new site with the help of law students, and the site remains an important part of my firm’s marketing efforts.  I could write a post-length piece about why I believe blogs to be an important part of most law firms’ web presence, at least on the plaintiffs’ side.  Suffice it to say that to rise in search engine results, having fresh content is important, as is having a quiver of narrowly-tailored web pages that are likely to result in traffic for years down the road.  I have to believe that when small firms look to hire, they will be looking for someone to help implement a web marketing strategy; or, at the very least, they would be very interested if a prospect brought that up on their own in an interview.

I join Eaglei’s editorial board in encouraging current BCLS students to engage with extracurriculars, becoming more well-rounded or well-oblong along the way.  It can give your cover letter or resume a hook, and maybe lead to valuable connections.  When I was involved in the Sports and Entertainment Law Society, the vast majority of speakers who came to campus sang a common refrain: they didn’t set out to practice in sports or entertainment, but through one client or opportunity, their specialty materialized or shifted gradually.  Luck plays a role within the profession, but also plays a role for those entering it.

I also encourage current BCLS students to join EagleiOnline, as a regular columnist, an occasional contributor, or even as a very occasional contributor.  In seeking students to work for my current firm, I look for experience – every employer is looking for “strong writing skills,” but few prospects have demonstrated that they enjoy writing enough to write on their own time, and the latter bit has entered into my own hiring deliberations.  With a line on your resume to match, it can prove helpful to market yourself as a part time marketer as well as a full time lawyer.

Ryan P. Morrison is a former Editor-in-Chief of Eagleionline, and currently works as an Associate at the False Claims Act firm of Greene LLP.  He can be contacted with Eaglei, web marketing, or False Claims Act queries or qualms at rmorrison/AT/greenellp.com.

In the first post of this series, we highlighted the reckless actions of Miami-Dade County. This post will examine the roles of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig

Major League Baseball operates as a cartel. The Office of the Commissioner would take issue with this characterization, but the facts and the law support it. MLB’s league offices make sure the number of teams is always less than the number of cities that want a Major League team. This is not fair competition amongst all challengers; this is a business that makes money by tipping the scales in its favor. The number of cities demanding teams is always above the supply of teams dictated by the league office, and the league supports owners who threaten to relocate their franchise to a new city that wants in on MLB. The result is a bidding war. If Miami hadn’t given the Marlins $500,000,000, another city (Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, take your pick) would have. Why is this a bad thing? Even if the money is exorbitant, and the teams don’t need it, isn’t this just a great business model based on the free market?

Congress and the Supreme Court’s ruling of stare decisis

The trick is that baseball doesn’t operate under free market principles. The aforementioned cartel characterization is not a myth; it is a system unique to baseball sanctioned by the Supreme Court. A series of rulings, (Toolson, Federal Baseball, Flood) had established baseball as initially not being interstate commerce, and as such, not subject to antitrust laws. This was back in the days when the only paying customers were those who entered the park, so state boundaries were not crossed in the game’s commerce (dubious in itself, but much more plausible than today). The economics of modern baseball are defined by interstate commerce, as the television contract of the Marlins shows, and that interstate commerce becomes more apparent for larger clubs like the Yankees, who broadcast the YES Network nationwide for subscribers’ fees. The courts have refused to overturn this exemption, ruling in stare decisis, and essentially asking Congress to make the change themselves. Congress has more important things that it fails to achieve, so this will never happen. From Flood:

“[S]ince Toolson and Federal Baseball are still cited as controlling authority in antitrust actions involving other fields of business, we now specifically limit the rule there established to the facts there involved, i. e., the business of organized professional baseball. As long as the Congress continues to acquiesce we should adhere to – but not extend – the interpretation of the Act made in those cases. . . If this ruling is unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical, it is sufficient to answer, aside from the distinctions between the businesses, that were we considering the question of baseball for the first time upon a clean slate we would have no doubts. But Federal Baseball held the business of baseball outside the scope of the Act. No other business claiming the coverage of those cases has such an adjudication. We, therefore, conclude that the orderly way to eliminate error or discrimination, if any there be, is by legislation and not by court decision. Congressional processes are more accommodative, affording the whole industry hearings and an opportunity to assist in the formulation of new legislation. The resulting product is therefore more likely to protect the industry and the public alike.”

I find the last line to be the most enlightening. The result does not protect the public at all. The public is pitted against each other, bidding over which local government will siphon money away from essential government projects and legitimate budgetary needs to provide the monopolistic MLB owners a massive stadium at a discount for no reason other than its forced scarcity. The courts show such willful blindness to the effects of their insistence on upholding a ludicrous exception that it borders on aiding and abetting.

Of course, this article is being written by a person who has only updated her status once or twice. In a recent job interview, I was asked about my feelings as to constant status updates. While, of course, I found the question odd, I answered with “some things should stay personal.” The results of the MPRE exam is one thing that should stay personal.

A recent Utah Valley University study demonstrated that the more time one spends on Facebook, the more one believes his or her life pales in comparison to others. Facebook users present themselves in their best light. This makes perfect sense, as I have yet to see a status of “Failed the MPRE” or the like.

How do you feel about status updates? Is some information best kept private or only shared with close friends?