Legal Research Blog
Citing cases involving gangs, drug rings and other organized crimes, prosecutors working on a recent case in the Federal District Court of Manhattan raised a number of concerns to the presiding judge. Although they find no problem in releasing information related to the crime-scene, weapons and other more fact-based materials, the prosecutors on the case were appalled at the request by the defendant to bring the testimonies to his cell for reviewal over the weekend. Evidence known as 3500 materials include statements from witnesses scheduled to appear in court, available for the judge and jury’s viewing so there is no confusion over whether or not the truth is being told. According to one prosecutor on the case, 3500 materials are, “confirmation that someone has cooperated” and insists that it poses a risk for anyone who has agreed to provide testimony.
With the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games just a week away all eyes are turned towards Beijing in what is becoming unwanted attention for the government. Eager to impress the hundreds of nations participating, China has been making improvements to the capital city for a number of years. From building facilities to house the games and limiting car travel to ease pollution, the Chinese government has been made several adjustments to make Beijing as visitor friendly as possible in time for the August 8th opening. Unfortunately, it looks like China may be going a bit too far to mask some of their existing problems.
The communist country already faces criticism for their extreme censorship of the media, internet and their own people so becoming the epicenter for sports entertainment for the next several weeks is not helping their case. Initially, members of the media were told they would enjoy uncensored internet access while reporting on the Olympics leaving the world under the impression that perhaps China was finally opening up to some well-deserved criticism. Instead, reporters have been disappointed to find that although they can access the internet, a number of sites addressing human rights grievances have been blocked. A report from the BBC also notes that Chinese citizens are being detained, without trial, for showing opposition to the government’s response to the recent earthquakes that took thousands of lives including many children. Critics abound since the quake and subsequent collapse of several school buildings, questioning whether school buildings were ever up to standard or if more could have been done to prevent the deaths.
China appears to be avoiding these topics through simple censorship of any site that may spark a controversial conversation. In spite of their greatest hopes that hosting the World’s games would change their reputation, many are already frustrated and discouraged by their way of turning a blind eye. Additionally, groups like Amnesty International are now pressing even harder, reminding the world of promises China made during their bid for the Olympics in 2001 to improve conditions for all people in time for the start of the games. With one week left, it looks like those promises are pretty empty.
While it will no longer be considered a necessity for all students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, they will have to provide a note from parents in order to invoke the new right. The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has delivered a somewhat indecisive opinion about the lawsuit brought against a Florida school system for not allowing students to remain seated during the pledge. A Florida teen introduced the lawsuit after he was reprimanded for his lack of respect for his country and sent to the office for the remainder of the school day all because he remained seated during the Pledge of Allegiance. In his eyes, the decision to stand or remain seated is an important expression of individual rights, one that was violated when he was given the limited options to either stand or leave the class.
Instead of answering yes or no to the question of where rights of the individual end and allegiance to our country begins, in this instance, the court is leaving the decision up to parents. A law drafted in 1942 requires all public schools to lead students in the pledge at least once a day but in the year following, the Supreme Court established that no student could be forced to recite it. Atlanta’s circuit court faced quite the dilemma as allowing all students to remain seated could potentially cause a lack of pledge participants while forbidding them to sit could have been considered a threat to their religious beliefs. In light of this conflict, parents, one of the strongest decision-making bodies in a teen’s life, will be responsible for determining their child’s stance during the pledge. As for the precedence in this case, it looks like as long as you’re living under their roof, you really do need to follow their rules.