Naomi Shatz writes an article for Huffington Post about parental leave in a different context than we usually see in our employment practice.”Why Don’t We Have Family Leave Policies for High School Students?” discusses the implications of insufficient legal protections for teen parents, and steps some lawmakers are taking to help them maintain educational opportunities.
On a recent episode of BUTV’s On That Point, ZDB’s Naomi Shatz spoke about how colleges handle sexual assault cases. When asked how university procedures differ from criminal procedures for sexual assault Shatz said the difference “is like apples and oranges,” pointing to the higher burden of proof placed on the prosecutor trying to make a sexual assault case than the one schools must meet to find a student responsible for sexual assault, and procedural protections for defendants in criminal cases that are lacking in school procedures.
The full episode can be viewed here.
Quoted by The American Bar Association Journal in a newly-published article, David Duncan elaborates on the inadequacies of the many recent changes to the rules and procedures of handling sexual assault in higher education institutions. Read Attorney Duncan’s words, as well as the full article, here.
It will be difficult for prosecutors to meet the standard for causation in convicting 18-year-old Michelle Carter of manslaughter, says David Duncan in a recent Boston Herald article. The teen stands accused of encouraging her late boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to carry out his attempted suicide. Read the full story here.
Harvey A. Silverglate, of-counsel to ZDB, writes a revealing WGBH News article with his paralegal, Timothy C. Moore, on prosecutorial and police coercion of witnesses and their testimony in criminal trials. Mr. Silverglate uses the ongoing perjury trials in Hampden County Superior Court of Nathan Perez and Giselle Albelo to shed light on the ongoing problem of detectives’ threatening and improper conduct when questioning witnesses. Perez and Albelo, whose testimony was crucial in convicting Charles Wilhite of murder in a December 2010 case regarding the October 2008 fatal shooting of Alberto Rodriguez in Springfield, eventually recanted their incriminating testimony, stating that they falsely testified due to intimidation and misconduct by detectives. These recantations led to a new trial in January 2013 for Charles Wilhite, in which Wilhite was acquitted of the murder charges. Following Wilhite’s acquittal, Perez and Albelo were indicted for perjury. The complicated and messy nature of Perez’s and Albelo’s perjury trials illuminates why, according to Mr. Silverglate and Mr. Moore, all suspect and witness interviews (not just the currently-required custodial interviews) should be recorded. Read the full article here.
On February 4, 2015, Norman Zalkind argued before the Supreme Judicial Court that a murder charge pending against his client Timi Wallace should be dismissed because the Commonwealth violated his client’s right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment to the Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The argument can be viewed here. The briefs in the case, including an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Mr. Wallace by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, are available here.
The client was facing serious sexual assault charges that, if he had been convicted, could have resulted in prison time and his registration as a sex offender. Following a jury trial, the client was convicted of a single misdemeanor charge and received a short probationary sentence.
Zalkind Duncan and Bernstein is proud to announce that partner Inga Bernstein recently received Corporate LiveWire’s highest recognition with a Global Award in Civil Rights – Massachusetts. Last year, Corporate LiveWire also honored Inga as Lawyer of the Year 2014 for Civil Law – Boston, Massachusetts.
On December 22, 2014, Monica Shah won an appeal in the Single Justice Session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for a physician who was challenging the revocation of his medical license due to alleged false answers on his renewal application. The Court ordered a remand to the Board of Registration in Medicine because the Board failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for its sanction and why it departed from the typical sanction granted in such circumstances. The physician was granted a new hearing on sanctions and mitigating circumstances.
The ZDB attorneys will write weekly on criminal, employment, and academic issues. Check out their latest posts at http://bostonlawyerblog.com.
Boston Lawyer Blog