Monthly Archives: September 2009

The Trial of Leo Frank: Journey Into Digital Resources (by Karen R. Schneiderman)

Ku Klux Klan warning

Ku Klux Klan warning

The 1913 capital murder case of  Leo Frank[1] is a wonderful way to explore Brooklyn Law School Library’s digital resources.

To some this murder trial is known as the “Murder of Mary Phagan,” others call it “The Trial of Leo Frank.”  It involves an Atlanta Jewish factory supervisor convicted of murdering a teenage girl who worked at his plant.

Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey faced defense attorneys Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold in the trial that began on July 28, 1913.  You can read Hugh M. Dorsey’s argument[2] and Reuben R. Arnold’s address[3]to the court.  These transcripts are part of Hein Online’s World Trials Library.

The Leo Frank Trial was marked by sensational press coverage.  Public sentiment in Atlanta turned strongly against Frank. The defense requested a mistrial because it felt the jurors had been intimidated, but the motion was denied.  In case of an acquittal, the judge feared for the safety of Frank and his lawyers, so he brokered a deal, Frank and his lawyers would not be present when the verdict was read. On August 25, 1913, Frank was convicted of murder.

Frank became the only known Jew in history to be lynched on American soil. After a series of unsuccessful appeals, the Governor commuted Frank’s sentence to life. But Frank died a violent death at the hands of mob violence. For information about the Leo Frank Trial consider an Hein Online e-book from the World Trials Library entitled The truth about the Frank case by C.P. Connolly.[4]

Frank applied for clemency from the departing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton.  Convinced that Frank was innocent, on June 20, 1915, Slaton commuted Frank’s sentence to life in prison, “assuming that Frank’s innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free.” On August 17, the “Knights of Mary Phagan” kidnapped Frank from his prison farm and  lynched him.  Frank’s body was eventually transferred to an undertaker and buried in the Mount Hebron Cemetery in Flushing, New York.

The history of the Klu Klux Klan can also be found in digital resources.  The Klan history in the United States has two periods.  The history of the first period can be found in an Hein Online e-book from the World Trials Library entitled Ku Klux Klan: its origin, growth and disbandment.[5] According to CQ Press, the Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army.[6] Groups spread throughout the South. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.  In 1915, the second Klan was founded, the same year Leo Frank lost his Supreme Court appeal and was lynched.

Finally, CQ Press’ Times Reference[7] reminds us of the importance of Franks habeas corpus appeals to the Supreme Court. The case of Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915)[8] marked a change in the way the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) approached state court criminal convictions. Although the majority denied Frank’s habeas, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes issued a pointed desent. He stated “habeas corpus cuts through all forms and goes to the very tissue of the structure. It comes in from the outside, not in subordination to the proceedings, and although every form may have been preserved, opens the inquiry whether they have been more than an empty shell.” [9] You can review Frank’s habeas brief through Hein Online’s World Trial Library.[10]


[1] The truth about the Frank case , C.P. Connolly, New York, N.Y. : Vail-Ballou Co. c1915, http://sara.brooklaw.edu/record=b248351~S0.
[2] Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, Solicitor General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, at the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, Hein Online World Trial Library, Atlanta, Ga. : Johnson-Dallis Co., 1914?,http://sara.brooklaw.edu/record=b248298~S0.
[3]The trial of Leo Frank: Reuben R. Arnold’s address to the court in his behalf / introduction by Alvin V. Sellers, Hein Online World Trial Library, Atlanta, Ga. : Johnson-Dallis Co., 1914?,http://sara.brooklaw.edu/record=b248298~S0.
[4]See Note 1.
[5] Check out this Hein Online title through the BLS Library catalog http://sara.brooklaw.edu/record=b248195~S0. Ku Klux Klan: its origin, growth and disbandment, J.C. Lester and D.L. Wilson; with appendices containing the prescripts of the Ku Klux Klan, specimen orders and warnings; with introduction and notes by Walter L. Fleming, New York, N.Y. ; Washington, D.C.: Neale Pub. Co., 1905.
[6] “18. Reconstruction (1865-1877).” CQ Press Electronic Library, Political History of America’s Wars Online Edition, polhis-ch18. Originally published in Alan Axelrod, Political History of America’s Wars (Washington: CQ Press, 2007). http://library.cqpress.com/phaw/polhis-ch18.
[7] “Early Developments.” CQ Press Electronic Library, TimesReference from CQ Press, nytsc-1079-48278-2099407. Originally published in Kenneth Jost, The New York Times on the Supreme Court, 1857-2008, TimesReference from CQ Press series (Washington: CQ Press, 2009). http://library.cqpress.com/tr/nytsc-1079-48278-2099407.
[8]Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). Use Hein Online Supreme Court Library to locate the digitial version of this opinion.
[9]Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 347 (1915).
[10] Leo M. Frank, appellant, against C. Wheeler Mangum, Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, appellee: Appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Georgia / Appelant’s argument. Louis Marshall, Henry C. Peeples [and] Henry A. Alexander, Apellant’s Counsel, Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1914,[S.l.] : Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1914?, http://sara.brooklaw.edu/record=b248266~S0.

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance Reform

Today the US Supreme Court hears re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The outcome of the case will have a major bearing on future congressional and other elections. The limited issue before the Court is the power of government to bar corporations from using funds from their own treasuries to support or oppose candidates for elected offices. The case involves Hillary The Movie a 90 minute documentary produced by Citizens United, a conservative non-profit research organization. The film, released in advance of the November 2008 presidential election, was highly critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The case came before the Court in March 2009 after the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by Citizens United to enjoin the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) against it. In June, the justices decided to hold another session to consider the more important issue of whether to overturn two of its past rulings that limit direct corporate and union financing of campaigns. The Questions Presented includes “Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the broadcast “ads” at issue in McConnell, 540 U.S. at 126, or whether the movie is not subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.” The two US Supreme Court precedents that now limit the amount of corporate and union money in elections are McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). The outcome will depend on the willingness of two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, to overrule the earlier decisions. Movie supporters argue federal law is wrongly preventing corporations and unions from airing their views.

The NY Times’ Room for Debate section from September 8 titled Free Speech and ‘Hillary: The Movie’ has more discussion on the issues in the case including a section called Gagging Political Criticism written by Brooklyn Law School Professor of Law Joel M. Gora, long-time lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. Prof. Gora addresses the three key arguments in favor of continuing government regulation of corporate electioneering:

  • Only people should have free speech, not corporations;
  • Corporations have so much money that they will overwhelm the political process if they can spend it freely criticizing politicians; and
  • Corporate spending on political speech can corrupt our politicians.

Regardless of one’s views on the merits of regulating express candidate advocacy by corporations – the issues of campaign finance regulation and the question currently being addressed by the Court are highly complex. Those formerly in the minority, including Justices Roberts and Alito now have a potential opportunity to re-make the law.

The BLS Library has in its collection these items on the subject of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002:

Legislative History of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002‎ edited by Manz H. William (Call #JK1991 .L44 2003)

and

Life after Reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Meets Politics, edited by Michael J. Malbin (Call #JK1991 .L54 2003)

Labor Day 2009

The US Department of Labor web site on the History of Labor Day states that “Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” It goes on to say: “The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy.“

Sadly, there remains a large segment of the labor force that does not share in many of those social and economic achievements. A new report, Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s Cities states that more than two-thirds of low-wage workers were paid less than what they were legally owed for the work they did. The report is based on a survey conducted the National Employment Law Project (which is part of Brooklyn Law School’s Public Service Law Program). The survey of more than 4,000 workers in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles exposes a world of work in which the core protections that many Americans take for granted—the right to be paid at least the minimum wage, the right to be paid for overtime hours, the right to take meal breaks, access to workers’ compensation when injured, and the right to advocate for better working conditions—are failing significant numbers of workers.

The Executive Summary states:

In 2008, we conducted a landmark survey of 4,387 workers in low-wage industries in the three largest U.S. cities—Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. We used an innovative, rigorous methodology that allowed us to reach vulnerable workers who are often missed in standard surveys, such as unauthorized immigrants and those paid in cash. Our goal was to obtain accurate and statistically representative estimates of the prevalence of workplace violations. All findings are adjusted to be representative of front-line workers (i.e. excluding managers, professional or technical workers) in low wage industries in the three cities—a population of about 1.64 million workers, or 15 percent of the combined workforce of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.

The report makes three major findings:

  • Finding 1: Workplace Violations Are Severe and Widespread in Low-Wage Labor Markets
  • Finding 2: Job and Employer Characteristics Are Key to Understanding Workplace Violations
  • Finding 3: All Workers Are at Risk of Workplace Violations

The section of the report dealing with solutions states that everyone has a stake in addressing the problem of workplace violations and identifies three key principles that should drive the development of a strong policy agenda at the federal, state and local levels.

  1. Strengthening government enforcement of employment and labor
  2. Updating legal standards for the 21st century labor market
  3. Establishing equal status for immigrants in the workplace

Major Historical Acts of Congress

From the BLS Library’s recent New Book List is an item worth reading: The Laws that Shaped America: Fifteen Acts of Congress and Their Lasting Impact by Dennis W. Johnson (Call #KF352 .J64 2009). It tells the story of historical and landmark acts of Congress, and will appeal to those interested in history and politics. Highly readable, it is exhaustive in its research. The list of landmark legislation is set out in the chapter titles:

  • Westward expansion: the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Louisiana Purchase ratification of 1803
  • Slavery and the territories: Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
  • The promise of land: the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862
  • Women’s right to vote: the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1919)
  • Protecting the working family: the National Labor Relations Act of 1935
  • The grand contract: the Social Security Act of 1935
  • The promise to America’s veterans: the GI Bill of 1944
  • The recovery of western Europe: the Marshall Plan of 1948
  • Ribbons of highway: the Interstate Highway Act of 1956
  • Justice, equality, and democracy’s promise: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
  • Medical care for the elderly and poor: the Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965
  • Protecting the environment: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

The usual problem that arises with the making of any short list is the certainty of omitting important items. For example, the author might well have included the National Prohibition Act (1919), the Securities Act of 1933, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Freedom of Information Act (1966), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967) and many more. For those interested in a more complete listing of major acts of Congress, see the web site http://lawsandacts.com/ which has an alphabetical listing of United States Congress Major Acts with links to text explaining each act, bibliographies as well as the relationship of each act with other laws.

Seminar Paper Workshop (posted by Kathy Darvil)

Seminar Paper Workshop Fall 09

At the start of every semester, Professor Fajans and I conduct a two hour workshop to help upper level students prepare to research and write a seminar paper.  This semester the workshop will be held on September 17, 2009 from 4:00 pm-6:00 pm in Room 504.  Topics which will be discussed include research strategies, finding and selecting a topic, developing a thesis, framing arguments, footnoting and plagiarism.  

All are encouraged to attend.  For those students who cannot attend, the workshop will be recorded and made available electronically.  After the workshop, copies of Professor Fajans and my handouts will also be made available electronically.  Check back to this post for future updates.

Is Social Media a Fad?

A newly published book that lawyers, law students and other legal professionals might add to their reading lists is Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business by Erik Qualman, The author, a columnist for Search Engine Watch, the leading guide to search engine marketing and search engine optimization, discusses how, from a business perspective, social media has demonstrated an ability to influence how products are marketed and sold, suggesting that it also can eliminate inefficient marketing middlemen and make better products that are cheaper for the consumers.

The legal community may well consider the effects that social media has on a whole range of issues from law firm marketing to law students’ job seeking and the kinds of information that law practitioners post on web 2.0 sites. Take note of an article titled Facebooking Judge Catches Lawyer in Lie, Sees Ethical Breaches from this summer’s ABA Journal. It seems clear that the legal profession is embracing social media. See Lawyers and Law Firms on Facebook posted earlier this year at JD Supra.

Please read this book. While not in the BLS collection, it is available at the Brooklyn Public Library Business Library at 280 Cadman Plaza West. Let the BLS reference librarians know if we should add the book to our collection.

The book has an accociated YouTube clip that has a great deal of statistical information, much of which is difficult to verify. Nevertheless, it raises some interesting questions about the impact of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media for the future.

The library has a limited number of resources on information literacy in the internet age. See Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0 edited by Peter Godwin and Jo Parker (Call #Z674.75.I58 I54 2008). This book is divided into four parts: Pt. 1. The basics; Pt. 2. Library 2.0 and the implication for IL learning; Pt. 3. Library 2.0 and IL in practice; and Pt. 4. The future.

Legal Technology Survey Report

The ABA’s newly released 2009 Legal Technology Survey Report is in the BLS Library collection. The findings of the survey are presented in six volumes: Technology Basics, Law Office Technology, Litigation & Courtroom Technology, Web & Communication Technology, Online Research, and Mobile Lawyers. The BLS Library has the single volume combined set. The section on Online Research reveals that the percentage of respondents using free online research services continues to grow each year. However, the Online Research volume of the 2009 survey also reveals satisfaction (or lack thereof) with the features and functionality of the free online resources versus fee based online research service.

There are features of the Online Research section of the Survey Report that are available online: for example, the Online Research Index and an excerpt with the Table of Contents from the 2009 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Online Research. Readers interested in more particularized survey results, such as the percentage of U.S lawyers who use a Smartphone or a BlackBerry for doing legal research, will have to use the print version available at the Reference Desk in the library. However, see this observation in a post titled Google Mobile App: What Might It Mean for Legal Research? in today’s Law Librarian Blog:

Smartphone use by U.S. lawyers is widespread. In the latest ABA Survey, 64% of responding lawyers reported using a smartphone or BlackBerry for legal work. Of these lawyers, almost two thirds reported using a BlackBerry, and 14% an iPhone. These lawyers seem likely to use GMA. Further, in the ABA Survey almost one fifth of lawyers reported regularly using smartphones to conduct legal research outside the office. (However, in another portion of the ABA Survey, only 2% of lawyers reported using PDAs, smartphones, or BlackBerrys for legal research outside of the office; the reason for this discrepancy, which ABA Legal Technology Resource Center is reviewing, is unclear.) Although I haven’t found current data on law professors’ or law students’ use of smartphones, recent statistics on mobile device use on U.S. university networks indicate very high rates of iPhone use, which may suggest similarly high rates of use among U.S. law students and faculty. Though the ABA Survey did not appear to measure smartphone use by paralegals or law librarians, anecdotal evidence suggests that such use is common.