For all of you who are a Twitter-er (and those of you who may want to look into it) OBCL Paralegals now have a page on twitter!
http://twitter.com/obclparalegals
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Ethics in 1925 (posted by Jessica)
A team of OBCL students/graduates has been working with Professor Rob Caprera for the past eight months on a research project involving the Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925. It was fascinating to study the trial transcript and to help prepare a presentation on the creation-evolution controversy from a legal perspective. In studying the trial, our team was surprised at the number of bizarre happenings, many of which have serious ethical considerations. Here is a sampling of some of the trial’s peculiarities.
1. Local businessmen in partnership with the ACLU concocted the whole trial as a way to get the town on the map and to attempt to overturn the anti-evolution law.
2. The Defense never put John T. Scopes (Scopes), it’s client, on the witness stand.
3. The Defense coached the Prosecution’s witnesses in what to say.
4. One of the prosecution attorneys was a personal friend of Scopes. He knew that Scopes had not taught evolution in the classroom.
5. The indictment was read while one member of the jury was absent and before any of the jury had been sworn in.
6. The attorneys attacked each other with verbal insults and kept interrupting each other’s speeches.
7. The defense wanted to have the judge act on a motion even though the prosecution had not been furnished with a copy and the judge had not read it.
8. Attorney Clarence Darrow insulted the judge to his face and was held in contempt of court with a $5000 bond. Yet after a lame apology he was allowed to continue on with the case.
9. One of the defense attorneys said in open court, “Your Honor, every single word that was said against this defendant, everything was true.” They wanted to lose so they could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court and get the law declared unconstitutional.
10. William J. Bryan, one of the prosecution attorneys, was called to the witness stand and examined by Clarence Darrow.
11. The trial should have been an open and shut case of whether the defendant had violated the law or not. Instead the defense team spent nearly a week in turning the case into an evolution vs. creation controversy by bringing in all sorts of “experts” and outside “reports” to fill the record for appeal.
12. Many of their supposed “proofs” of evolution have since been proved to be inaccurate or hoaxes.
What ethical violations were you able to identify in the strange happens listed above? If you are interested in reading the full lecture and learning more about the research project, you are welcome to join the team’s Googlegroup: http://groups.google.com/group/scopes-project?hl=en
1. Local businessmen in partnership with the ACLU concocted the whole trial as a way to get the town on the map and to attempt to overturn the anti-evolution law.
2. The Defense never put John T. Scopes (Scopes), it’s client, on the witness stand.
3. The Defense coached the Prosecution’s witnesses in what to say.
4. One of the prosecution attorneys was a personal friend of Scopes. He knew that Scopes had not taught evolution in the classroom.
5. The indictment was read while one member of the jury was absent and before any of the jury had been sworn in.
6. The attorneys attacked each other with verbal insults and kept interrupting each other’s speeches.
7. The defense wanted to have the judge act on a motion even though the prosecution had not been furnished with a copy and the judge had not read it.
8. Attorney Clarence Darrow insulted the judge to his face and was held in contempt of court with a $5000 bond. Yet after a lame apology he was allowed to continue on with the case.
9. One of the defense attorneys said in open court, “Your Honor, every single word that was said against this defendant, everything was true.” They wanted to lose so they could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court and get the law declared unconstitutional.
10. William J. Bryan, one of the prosecution attorneys, was called to the witness stand and examined by Clarence Darrow.
11. The trial should have been an open and shut case of whether the defendant had violated the law or not. Instead the defense team spent nearly a week in turning the case into an evolution vs. creation controversy by bringing in all sorts of “experts” and outside “reports” to fill the record for appeal.
12. Many of their supposed “proofs” of evolution have since been proved to be inaccurate or hoaxes.
What ethical violations were you able to identify in the strange happens listed above? If you are interested in reading the full lecture and learning more about the research project, you are welcome to join the team’s Googlegroup: http://groups.google.com/group/scopes-project?hl=en
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The rule of awwwww? (Posted by Gabe)
You're no doubt following all that is going on in D.C. as the Sotomayor nomination kicks into high gear. Some of the rhetoric surrounding this nomination got me thinking - and to be perfectly honest, got me rather worried.
If you care to read my thoughts, you can do so here: The Rule of Awwwww.
If you care to read my thoughts, you can do so here: The Rule of Awwwww.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
