The Great Law School Time-Suck

By Michael Stone

It was December 2009. Being the proto-typical political science major, I devoured all the news I could get my hands on—university news, local news, state news, and national news. I engaged in op-ed warfare with a conservative person on the university newspaper staff. I would tell others: “You have a DUTY to keep up with current events!”

I lived and breathed this mantra. I balanced school, work, leisure, and news. I felt like Mr. Responsible Citizen, and I was more than a little smug.

It’s now April 2013. That guy from December 2009—yeah, that guy is a jerk. Yesterday I managed to listen to a podcast on my way to law school from my unpaid internship. I wasn’t really listening because I was mentally running a presentation on Fourth Amendment searches through my head. I disagreed with a comment on the class blog today—my uncle’s comment in fact. I’m too tired to fight with him. I keep telling myself, “You have a DUTY to do well in this internship and school in the hopes that you can secure some sort of job after law school.”

I drag my carcass around with this mantra. I devote most of my time to classes, preparation for classes, writing for classes, and the internship. I had to put a reminder on my Google calendar the other day to remind me to eat lunch. I prioritize an hour or two to spend with my fiancée.

I hear that news occurs—though I rarely see it. My name is Mr. Generic Law Student, and I am more than a little exhausted.

Baltimore's Costly Cars

By Dean Fleyzor


In 2011, Baltimore's Labor Day Weekend inaugural Grand Prix left the city in a tough financial position. Initially, the Baltimore Sun claimed that the races were a success because profits for hotel revenue in the downtown area increased by $270,000 and food and drink sales increased by $155,000 compared to 2010's Labor Day Weekend. Although the 160,000 attendees at Baltimore's first Grand Prix in 2011 brought money into the city, the event amassed $47 million due to the increased presence and spending of tourists. However, the races failed to bring in $23 million needed to meet the city's goal of $70 million from hotel, food, entertainment and shopping revenues.

2011 map (from Wikimedia Commons)

The impact of this past Labor Day Weekend’s Grand Prix may never be fully known. According to the Baltimore Sun, in September 2012, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Baltimore would not conduct an "economic impact study" of the race's revenues to the city.

Unofficial estimates report that the impact of the race in its second year was around $42 million, a 10% drop from the inaugural Grand Prix. While the official numbers may never reveal the failure of Baltimore’s second Grand Prix, there might have been some positive impacts to the city. Anirban Basu, owner of an economic policy-consulting firm in Baltimore, told ABC News that the Grand Prix "continues to be a risk for Baltimore but the reward may eventually be priceless."

The race could possibly grow in reputation in the coming years, and eventually see profit. Basu noted that if the racetrack could be redesigned to induce more people to walk to Federal Hill or Little Italy, the economic impact could dramatically increase. Some changes were already implemented after the Grand Prix in 2011, such as efficient exits for spectators and race times that increased the impact of tourism downtown. The city has a contract to host the Grand Prix races through Labor Day 2015.

Tom Noonan, President of Visit Baltimore, said he saw an increase in the number of organizations interested in holding conventions in Baltimore after the Grand Prix began. So there may be a silver lining in the underwhelming Grand Prix after all. If the races can attract the eye of more investors, the short-term financial loss may increase the chance that Baltimore will host more large events in the future.

The Top 5 Careers I Considered Dropping Out of Law School For

How Not To Report a National Bombing Attack

By Josh Swanner

Another act of senseless violence is currently impacting the nation, coming through on the news waves. And with it, another chance for hate mongers to spew their hate, and continue to contribute to a false, ignorant fear of the other.  Today, that “other” is people of Middle Eastern descent.

After hearing about the bombings, which took place during the Boston Marathon, I immediately went to the Internet to see what I could find. So I clicked through various blogs until I happened upon this headline on Drudge in bright red—“NY POST: Suspect apprehended… Saudi national under guard at hospital…”

I immediately smelled a rat. The NY Post is known for being a bombastic news rag, leaning to the right (owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch since 1976). And right before reading this I had just watched President Obama on CNN live at 6:10 PM, and on the bottom of the screen I read no suspect had been apprehended. Wait, what?

The article goes on to say, “Investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national” who is a “20-year-old … under guard at an undisclosed Boston hospital.” And of course, like magic, “Fox News reported that the suspect suffered severe burns.”

I searched on Google to see what other news outlets were saying. Sure enough, many articles appeared citing the New York Post—here is one local Boston outlet.*

It also seems like I’m not the only one smelling a rat. Eric Wemple at the Washington Post blogged “Boston explosions: New York Post better have good sources.” He posted pictures of headlines of major news outlets, closing with the NY Post’s headlines, adding, “Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Boston Police Department is saying that authorities ‘haven’t been notified of any arrests or anyone apprehended.’”  

In the wake of a tragedy, the impulse to believe “they” did it is strong for those already pre-disposed to being Islamaphobic.

Naturally, then, “news” outlets leaning to the right are spreading signals to those who are primed to give into their hate—here the signal being the word “Saudi.”

"Saudi" implies Muslims, who have become the “other” in American society since 9/11. That “other-ness” has peaked since President Barack Obama’s rise to power in 2008.**

That’s truly disgusting. And what’s more so is the belief that being Islamaphoic is OK, evident through the rise of violence against Muslims in America. These strong beliefs are caused by a myriad of sources, but it sure as heck should not be from “news” reports. Media reports such as the one presented by the New York Post only further cake on layers of unconscious hate towards the “other” in our society. They do us no good.

Stop it New York Post, stop it Fox News. In America we have the luxury of having a free press. Stop being the engines of hate, and start being the purveyors of facts. You call yourselves journalists, don’t you?

-----
*As of 10:40 PM the news article now reads, "Federal officials told NBC News that Boston police were guarding a 'possible suspect' who had been wounded in the blasts, but they cautioned that there was no information at the federal level to consider that person a suspect." This was not what I read earlier, which tells me that in a rush to get a story online, news people tend to put up what they have, then go back later and clean up their tracks after getting all the facts.

**My theory on that phenomenon? Racists in this country cannot be outright racists against Obama, but they sure as heck can be Islamaphobic. So, if the President isn’t a Christian, but a Muslim, eureka! He’s a bad man. But that's a blog post for another day. 

Dream Criminal Law Exam: Hero or Menace – How Link Would Fare Under the Law?

By Michael Stone

Here is the final exam question: The well-intentioned Young Man races to the state prison in the pouring rain. A beautiful Senator sends a secret letter to Young Man, and asks for his help. She knows that the corrupt and well-connected Lieutenant Governor poisoned the Governor. And few know that Lieutenant Governor is actually Crime Boss’ lackey. Lieutenant Governor trumped up some criminal charges and had Senator arrested to silence her. He even bribed some judges to deny Senator bail and delay trial. However, Young Man sneaks into the prison, fights through the guards, and breaks Senator out. The two leave behind a trail of dead prison guards, including the warden. Young Man hides Senator in a nearby church—the preacher is a member of an underground organization that knows the truth about Lieutenant Governor. Discuss all of Young Man’s criminal liability.

*          *          *

I was a gamer before law school swallowed my free time. The exam question is basically the introduction to my favorite game, “The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.” The plot of the game involves Link (Young Man) traversing the land of Hyrule to search for objects to defeat Agahnim (Lieutenant Governor) and Ganon (Crime Boss), save Princess Zelda (Senator), and ultimately restore Hyrule by making a wish on the Triforce.

I bring it up because last spring break I had the chance to have a free thought: What would legally happen to Link as a defendant? Let’s assume that there is no magic involved, and let’s assume that all events occur in Maryland. How does our hero fare in court?

Defendant aka Link

According to the game’s official history, Agahnim “put the soldiers of the kingdom under his spell” after killing the King. This forces Link to fight every knight in the kingdom he encounters. The game actually includes wanted signs for Link’s arrest, and the knights actively attack Link on sight. I found a map and counted approximately 50 knights that Link would encounter in just one pass of Hyrule.

Since we are ignoring magic, let’s say the soldiers are just following orders. Assuming knights are equivalent to police, a fully-armed Link is resisting arrest in each violent encounter. Each resisting arrest charge and conviction comes with a maximum three year jail term and/or $5,000 fine. That is 150 years of incarceration and $250,000—a lot for a guy that only carries $40 (according to this exchange rate).

But that is the least of his problems. Link must rob the knights for money, and he’s armed. So Link can be charged with and convicted of 50 counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon. This is a felony, and it carries a maximum of a twenty year sentence for each encounter. That is potentially 1,000 years in prison. By now he should be questioning whether Zelda was worth it.

It gets worse. Link kills every knight he encounters in Hyrule or dies trying. That is a lot of acts of homicide. Link could argue they were all self-defense because they are trying to kill him. But that might be tough considering Link is mute and can’t say he was in fear for his life. Also, he did rob the corpses. Worst-case scenario, the state charges Link with at least 50 counts of first-degree murder (homicide with the intent to kill). In Maryland, each count of first-degree murder has a mandatory minimum of life in prison. Ipso facto, Link could be facing 50 consecutive life sentences. Now facing the slammer, Link could really use some magic.

Of course this doesn’t include Link’s repeated burglaries of people’s homes, animal cruelty (Link attacks chickens for fun), or malicious destruction of property (he destroys people’s hedges and fences). Nor does it include his possession of destructive devices (bombs and other explosive devices), or harboring the escaped fugitive Zelda (let's not even begin to talk about the possible federal conspiracy charges since that crime probably involved by crossing state lines).

The gamer in me still believes Link is a hero. But the law student in me hopes he gets a good attorney.

There's a University of Baltimore?

By Rachael Dirzuweit

Photo by Daniel Lobo

Why, yes, there IS a University of Baltimore. It has nothing to do with the University of Maryland, either. As a graduate of the Jurisprudence program at the University of Baltimore, UB for short, I am asked about this all the time--and I'm sure quite a few people who didn't ask just assumed. There is in fact a University of Baltimore, right next to the University of Baltimore School of Law (yes, there's a law school, too). My undergraduate education prepared me more for law school than I could have imagined.

Aside from the glowing recommendations about UB that I got from various professors and practicing lawyers when I was at Harford Community College pursuing an Associate's degree in Paralegal Studies, I felt partially compelled to select UB from my undergraduate education based on one thing: early entry. 

You see, you when you take the Jurisprudence or History track to get a Bachelor's degree at the UB, UB Law will let you in to the law school if you have a high enough GPA and LSAT score BEFORE you finish your Bachelor's degree education. The last year of your Bachelor's education is waived, and you enter the School of Law to graduate with what is essentially a complimentary (but well-deserved) Bachelor's at the successful completion of the first year of law school. You get an entire year shaved off your cumulative total years of education, a year's worth of undergraduate tuition saved, and the opportunity to graduate law school a year sooner! Aside from that, if you don't qualify for the early entry option, the law school guarantees a seat in the entering law school class for you if you graduate from UB, provided you meet the minimum requirements. 

Lorraine Bright, a practicing attorney and my pre-law teacher in community college, best described UB's Jurisprudence program to me.  "It's like a watered-down version of law school." That's exactly what it was. The classes were taught using the Socratic method, which is used in law school. This saved me the awkward period of adjusting to law classes along with the other pressures of the first year of law school. The reading requirements, the exams, the substance of the classes--all watered-down law school. All I was missing was the law school's mandatory curve. 

When I entered law school, I had a basic knowledge of criminal law, constitutional law, contracts and courtroom procedure--all things many of my classmates struggled to understand. Knowledge of the law is only workable when it's built like a house, which requires a strong foundation. Otherwise, everything you put on top of it crumbles. In law school, each class builds on basic principles from previous classes; if you try to stack knowledge on top of a weak base, you'll never fully grasp what is going on and your legal education will crumble.

The University of Baltimore's Jurisprudence study program gave me the foundation I needed to become successful in law school. And because my foundation was already strong when I came to law school, I didn't have to spend valuable hours going back and filling cracks in with mortar.

Pit Bull Paralysis in Annapolis

By Michael Stone

The Maryland legislature needs to focus on fixing the Court of Appeals’ poor judgment instead of fighting over small details of how it’s done.

Maryland used to be part of a dwindling minority of U.S. states that followed what is commonly referred to as “the one-bite rule”—a common-law rule adapted from English law that shields a dog owner from liability for the dog’s first bite. Most states follow a different rule, holding owners strictly liable to victims of their dog’s bites. In other words, the majority of the country requires owners pay to for the injuries caused by their dogs on their first bite, rather than give owners a free pass.

But in April 2012, the rule in Maryland changed. The Court of Appeals ruled that pit bulls were different than other dogs—they were “inherently dangerous” because of their “aggressive and vicious nature and [their] capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries.” The Court applied the new rule to “purebred” pit bulls, and held that owners of the dogs, and landlords of the property where the dogs were kept, were strictly liable for any pit bull bites.

This rule is inherently unfair because it makes liability dependent on the dog’s breed. First, there is significant disagreement as to what exactly a “pit bull” is. The ASPCA states a pit bull “can refer to just a couple of breeds or to as many as five—and all mixes of these breeds.” Additionally, the organization mentions several breeds commonly misidentified as pit bulls, including “the Boxer, the Presa Canario, the Cane Corso, the Dogo Argentino, the Tosa Inu, the Bullmastiff, the Dogue de Bordeaux, the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog and the Olde English Bulldogge.” Given that the pit bull isn’t one particular breed, even DNA tests can fail to identify one.

Second, breed doesn’t necessarily correlate to the temperament of any particular dog. The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), in a joint study with the CDC and Humane Society of the United States over 20 years, reported dog bites revealed that no one breed of dog was “inherently more dangerous than others.” The study even showed that “the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally.” In fact, the CDC recommends education as the most effective means of preventing dog bites. The same report states that breed-specific dog regulations result can actually “result in a false sense of accomplishment.” Such regulations fail to protect citizens because they overstate the source of dog bites, and understate effective prevention methods. This makes a rule singling out pit bulls not only unfair, but misguided.

The current rule exposes pit bull owners to serious consequences. It places the burden on renters to choose between their home and their pet, and inevitably means that some dogs will be killed for unfair and misguided policy. The Humane Society of the United States reports that the impact has already been felt:

[L]andlords have sent warning notices to renters with pit bull-type dogs, condominium associations and homeowner’s associations have considered changing their policies, local governments have scrambled to address liability at city dog parks and other public spaces, and animal shelters have braced for an influx of pit bull-type dogs.

On August 21, The Washington Post reported  “one 1,500 [unit] apartment complex in Baltimore had already ordered that pit bulls would have to be removed from the premises immediately.”

The state legislature has yet to remedy this problem. The House of Delegates passed a bill that would overturn the Court of Appeals ruling. According to The Baltimore Sun, the bill struck a balance between victims of dog bites and owners, making owners presumptively liable to victims for dog bites.  But the bill allowed the owners to avoid that liability by showing the dog had no history of dangerousness. It also removed the strict liability for landlords.

Reports indicate, however, that passage of the final bill is threatened by a dispute over how much proof is required to avoid liability. The House bill requires dog owners prove the dog has no history of dangerousness by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning owners must show that it is more likely than not their dog isn’t dangerous.

However the Senate bill would require dog owners to prove lack of dangerous history by the higher standard “clear and convincing evidence.” The Baltimore Sun reports  that Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons of Montgomery County argues that the Senate bill “expose[s] hundreds of thousands of owners of other breeds of dog to substantially the same strict liability standard as the court applied to pit bulls.”

“Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, an Eastern Shore Republican, expressed concern that the Senate's position could result in an impasse that leaves the court decision in place,” reports Mike Dresser of The Baltimore Sun.

The legislature must act to pass a law that fixes the Court of Appeal’s mistake. Breed specific laws are bad policy, especially those that single out dogs that are not an actual breed.

This is dog discrimination plain and simple.

Dog owners should not be forced to choose between their beloved pets or their homes. Both houses appear to understand this. To let a different standard of proof derail that fix, when the worst it does is place Maryland on par with the majority of the country, is dysfunctional.