Life of the Law

Hundreds of people in cities throughout the US have been arrested for participating in Black Lives Matter protests.  In Chicago, a judge set one protestor's bail at $350,000. To "make bail" he will have to present the court with the money or property as s promise, a sort of collateral, that he will return for his hearing in exchange for his freedom while he awaits trial. When he appears for his trial, he will get his money back. "There really are two systems of justice. There’s one for people who can make bail, and one for people who can’t."- Josh Saunders, Public DefenderPossibly this protestor and others like him will have help raising the funds to post his bail. But what if a person who has been accused of a crime has been arrested and doesn't have enough money, or access to property, to make bail?  Each year some 45,000 people in New York City alone are arrested and sent to jail who can't make bail. That means they either stay in jail until their trial takes place, which can be months down the road, or they plead guilty without a trial.This summer Life of the Law presents the best and the brightest new voices in investigative reporting and audio production. This story is from Ariel Ritchin of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Ariel has taken a hard look at what it takes to make bail.PRODUCTION NOTESBail or Bust was reported by Ariel Ritchin and edited by Kerry Donahue and Nancy Mullane, with production support from Jonathan Hirsch and Kirsten Jusewicz-Haidle. Ceil Muller of KQED Radio in San Francisco was our engineer. Special thanks to WNYC and New York 1. Music in this episode is from Blue Dot Sessions and K2.This episode of Life of the Law was funded in part by grants from the Open Society Foundations, the Law and Society Association, the Proteus Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.Bail or Bust was sponsored by The Great Courses Plus.com/law.© Copyright 2016 Life of the Law. All rights reserved.

This summer, we’re changing things up a bit at Life of the Law. We’re presenting some amazing audio documentaries produced by at universities and colleges around the country. Our first story is from Aviva DeKornfeld of Pitzer College in Southern California. Aviva was curious about marriage. Marrying the person you love is the ideal, right? But what happens when you find your mate, your dream, your love...and you get married but then a few months later, the government tells never mind, your marriage doesn’t count. Aviva has the story… 

While North Carolina sorts out whether children who identify as transgendered should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, shots were fired inside a gay dance club in Orlando, Florida. Fifty innocent people were killed and dozens of others were seriously injured.The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals are more likely to be targeted for hate crimes than people who are part of any other minority group.The Human Rights Campaign reports more transgender people were killed in 2015 than during any other year on record.And the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs reports that black transgender women are the most at risk for attacks of extreme violence and murder.At Life of the Law, we want to acknowledge the formidable challenges faced by LGBTQA individuals with this bonus episode, the Life as Lady J.PRODUCTION NOTESThis Bonus Episode of Life of the Law was produced by Nancy Mullane and Jonathan Hirsch with production assistance from Kirsten Jusewicz-Haidle. Music by David Jassy.  This production was funded by grants from the Open Society Foundation, the Law and Society Association, the Proteus Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.© Copyright 2016 Life of the Law. All rights reserved.

What’s it like to be a scholar? You go to college, get graduate degree maybe a phd to study something about the law in our lives. Years pass. You live in the hallowed halls of academia.  Who are you now? Life of the Law traveled to New Orleans for the Law and Society Association’s annual meeting where more than 2000 law and social science scholars from around the world got together to share their work and personal stories about their lives. Host Osagie Obsaogie, a Law Professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco, and a member of Life of the Law’s Advisory Board takes us to center stage… 

There’ve been a series of terrorist attacks in Europe,  and now France, one of the countries hardest hit, is adjusting to the elevated threat.Since the shootings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo last year and the attacks that killed 130 people this year,  French people have been trying to cope with the fact that not only is their country a target for terrorism, but a few of the terrorists who engineered and even participated in the attacks were born and raised in neighboring Belgium and France.And now the French are asking a question Americans have been struggling with:How does a country balance civil-liberties with safety and security?Producer Emma Jacobs reports from Paris on how the French are answering the question...and the answer lies at the intersection of  French values, French fears and French laws.

When should a judge step aside? Most people can agree that when a judge’s family member appears in court, it’s the judge’s responsibility to bow out. Or, if a judge stands to profit directly from the outcome of the ruling — that’s pretty cut and dry, too. But what about this: can a judge remain impartial when a case concerns a person or group that contributed money, sometimes millions of dollars, to help that judge get elected? What then? As more and more money floods into judicial elections across the nation, states are grappling with this question. Perhaps none more than Wisconsin, where, like many states, the final decision whether or not to step aside is left for the judge to determine. Reporter Chloe Prasinos has our story.

“I feel like I need to do those things cause the court has to appear normal to the outside world, even though things are really abnormal inside, it's my job to keep a sense of normalcy and not to draw attention to the court.”--Chief Judge Keith Watkins, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of AlabamaThis year is an election year, which is already pretty rough going. Then in February, Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving an open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. More like a black hole. Senate Republicans immediately declared that they would not hold hearings or vote on anyone President Obama nominated to fill the vacancy. That it’s up to whoever is elected President in November to fill the seat on the highest court.  And it’s not just the Supreme Court that has an empty seat. There are dozens of unfilled judicial seats in federal courts across the country. Some seats have been empty for months, others for a years, and one for a decade. And while politicians argue about who should fill the seat, the judges on the bench continue to work day and night against an ever-growing backlog of cases.PRODUCTION NOTESThe Hold Up was reported by Ashley Cleek, edited by Annie Aviles, with sound design and production by Jonathan Hirsch.  Alyssa Bernstein, Kirsten Jusewicz-Haidle, Shani Aviram, and Nancy Mullane provided production support.Special thanks to the many federal judges who took time out of their very busy schedules to talk to us.The music in this episode is from Blue Dot Sessions.Full Transcript of The Hold UpSUGGESTED READING “The Impact of Judicial Vacancies on Federal Trial Courts” “The Potential Economic Benefits of Improving the Judicial Infrastructure in the Eastern District of Texas” “Wheels of Justice Slow at Overloaded Federal Courts” This episode of Life of the Law was funded in part by grants from the Open Society Foundations, the Law and Society Association, the Proteus Fund, the  Ford Foundation, and the National Science Foundation, and was sponsored by Squarespace and The Great Courses Plus. Be sure to use the promo code LAW at check out to receive special benefits as a Life of the Law listener.© Copyright 2016 Life of the Law. All rights reserved.

The law isn’t always black and white. Let’s say your neighbor wants to drill for oil in their backyard. It could be loud and it might even pollute the groundwater. You’re worried. Who has the authority under the law to determine whether your neighbor can drill for oil or not?People living in states like Ohio, want their local governments to decide… and have gone as far as to change the state constitution to grant local governments something called “home rule”, which gives locals the power to govern themselves, as long as local law don’t conflict with state and federal law.Seems clear enough. Or so it seemed for people living in Ohio, until the oil boom came to town pitting neighbors who wanted a piece of the oil action against neighbors who didn’t want to live next to an oil well. Question is, when it comes to oil and gas, who has the power to decide who can drill, and where?In part 2 of our series on a Fair Fight for a Fair Court, Life of the Law’s Jonathan Hirsch, has this story.

Hosted by Hal Humphries, our live show, Blood Sweat and Tears explores music and the law in “Music City”.We host live storytelling events that are unlike any other. All across the country, our Live Law shows showcase the stories of lawyers, judges, storytellers, and everyday people share their experiences and encounters with the law.So Not all stories about the law fit snugly into one of our feature investigative reports. Some stories have to be told live, in front of an audience, no editing and no backing out.This week we take you to Nashville, for BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS and stories about the blues, jazz, songwriters and a cabin in the woods. Harold Bradley a musician and studio entrepreneur helped create the "Nashville Sound" and served as President of Local American Federation of Musicians. Why do musicians need a union? Listen and find out. Loren Mulraine earned his JD at Howard University of Law, worked as a contracts attorney for the FAA, then moved to Nashville to practice entertainment law. A songwriter and gospel recording artist, Mulraine is a professor of Belmont School of Law. John Allen earned a scholarship to study classical guitar at Vanderbilt's Blair School of Music then headed to Music Row after college. He's worked at Capitol Records and bug Music and is now Vice President at BMG Chrysalis. Inspired by Beatles bassist Paul McCartney, Alison Prestwood followed her musical dreams to Nashville and became a session bass player, cutting her teeth recording with Blake Shelton and Trace Adkins. But when Music Row's fortunes flagged, she took up another instrument... the law.

Last week, we published STERILIZED, Reporter Jess Engebretson's disturbing story of Rose Brooks and Lewis Reynolds, two of more than 60,000 men and women forcibly sterilized in the United States by doctors working in state hospitals. The doctors and nurses who performed the vasectomies and salpingectomies weren't breaking the law.Throughout the 20th Century, state legislators passed laws that allowed these surgical procedures. It was all part of the early 20th century eugenics movement. But, you might ask, how could this happen? How could the law deny tens of thousands of men and women the right to have children?Life of the Law invited scholars who have studied eugenics to join us in the studios at KQED in San Francisco to talk about eugenics, past and present.Osagie Obasogie is Professor of Law at UC Hastings San Francisco, author of Blinded by Sight.Marcy Darnovsky is Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley.Alexandra Minna Stern is Professor of American Culture at the University of Michigan.Milton Reynolds is Senior Program Associate at Facing History and Ourselves.PRODUCTION NOTESThis Bonus Episode was produced by Nancy Mullane and Jonathan Hirsch. Special thanks to Osagie Obasogie, Marcy Darnovsky, Alexandra Minna Stern, and Milton Reynolds for their contribution to this production.This episode of Life of the Law was funded in part by grants from the Open Society Foundation, the Law and Society Association, the Proteus Fund and the National Science Foundation.© Copyright 2016 Life of the Law. All rights reserved.

Beginning in 1907, states in the US began to forcibly sterilize over 60,000 Americans -- people considered by scientists to be “unfit” -- the mentally ill, the disabled, the morally suspect. Now, a few states are trying to figure out what they owe to the program's survivors.

In Kansas, public schools are at the heart of a debate about how much money the state should budget for education -- a debate that comes down to a fight over nothing less than  the balance of power among the three branches of government.

All over the country, critics argue that ID laws discourage voter participation--particularly among poor and minority voters. This is particularly true in Texas, which passed a voter ID law in 2011. By 2050 the state’s population is expected to double--and most of that growth will be come from the Latino community. How are all of these voter ID laws impacting who votes today in the US, and who will have access to the polls in the future?This episode of Life of the Law is sponsored by Squarespace. 

In 2011 the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center released their Gang Threat Assessment, which listed Juggalos as a “loosely affiliated hybrid gang.” Juggalos, who are more commonly known as fans of horrorcore rap and the Insane Clown Posse, say that this designation has been unfairly attributed to them based on the actions of a few violent outliers in the community.  In 2014 the Juggalos teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI to remove the gang classification. This case, Parsons v U.S. DOJ, is still making it’s way through the courts. But what does this mean for an average Juggalo who is now a gang member? And how does a group of fans become a gang?Life of the Law Episode 76 "Juggalos" was sponsored by Squarespace and Casper. 

In 2012, the Obama Administration signed a memo addressing all branches of the Department of Homeland Security, which granted undocumented immigrants who migrated as minors to the United States a renewable deferral of deportation. It’s called Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals. DACA, for short. Luis Perez Morales is one of those children. He crossed the border with his family when he was 8, and has been living in the U.S. since then. When he heard about the program, Perez Morales scheduled an appointment with an immigration attorney to apply for DACA. An encounter with Border Patrol agents, a week before his scheduled meeting with an attorney, changed everything. Life of the Law Episode 74 "UnDACAmented" was sponsored by Squarespace.