Why Is This Guy Being Prosecuted? Seventh Circuit Orders New Trial for Forklift Operator Swept Up in Drug Sting

As part of a drug sting, an undercover federal agent drove a truckload of marijuana to an industrial park in McHenry, Illinois, on March 18, 2008. The agent had arranged to deliver the drugs to Irineo Gonzalez, a target of the sting. Although Gonzalez showed up to meet the agents, there were some difficulties with getting him to accept and unload the shipment. After a time, the owner of one of the businesses at the industrial park, Cardenas, decided to check out what was going on. He apparently had no connection to Gonzalez or the government, and simply assumed that the truck was carrying legitimate goods. In order to assist with the unloading, he summoned three of his employees, including Leobardo Lara. After the truck was opened, however, it immediately became apparent to everyone what the contents were. Cardenas ordered the truck off the premises, but the federal agent — seeing the opportunity for a successful sting slipping away — refused to go. Cardenas then left the scene to call the landlord. The agent tried without success for several minutes to convince the three employees to unload the truck. Gonzalez also tried, offering to pay them with marijuana. Still, they refused. Finally, the agent called the landlord, who (unbeknownst to Cardenas or his employees) was being paid by the government for the right to use his industrial park as the site of the sting. The landlord reassured the employees that it was fine for them to unload the drugs and that he would “take responsibility” for whatever happened. Only then did the employees help with the unloading, receiving no payment for their work. Lara, who contributed his forklift to the unloading operation, was then arrested and eventually convicted of possession with intent to distribute — even though the government conceded he had no connection to the drug shipment before his employer summoned him to unload the truck.

I’m hard pressed to see a good justification for this prosecution.

Continue ReadingWhy Is This Guy Being Prosecuted? Seventh Circuit Orders New Trial for Forklift Operator Swept Up in Drug Sting

Diversity in Legal Education

[Editor’s Note: This month, we asked a few veteran faculty members to share their reflections on what has changed the most in legal education since they became law professors. The first two posts in the series are here (Kossow) and here (Bradford).]

In the early 1970’s, the American Bar Association and the American Association of Law Schools were prodding law schools to diversify their faculties and their student bodies. Indeed, many schools did not provide equal opportunities to diverse groups in either admissions or in employment. The consequences of such discrimination were harmful to legal education and to the profession. The demands of the ABA and AALS created a sense of urgency and law schools quickly responded. Initially, the response focused on the need to provide access to women and to racial minorities. This focus was not surprising given the strength of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s and the momentum of the women’s movement in the early 1970’s.

Prior to 1970, Marquette University Law School adhered to the traditional pattern of the academic community. Diversity, in any meaningful sense, simply did not exist in the student body or on the faculty. But the administration and the faculty were not indifferent to the urgent need for change. I was offered a teaching position at the Law School in the fall of 1974 and was the first woman appointed to a full-time tenure-track faculty position.  

Continue ReadingDiversity in Legal Education

Bipartisanship? Cooperation? Will These Ideas Fly?

Republican State Sen. Dale Schultz of Richland Center and Democratic State Sen. Timothy Cullen of Janesville did two things a few months ago that were quite remarkable in the light of the super-charged, partisan atmosphere in Madison (and elsewhere) this year.

For one, they had lunch together. And for another, they decided to spend a day in each other’s districts, trying to get a better grasp of the perspective of people who lived different lifestyles and had different views from the people in their own districts. Schultz represents a strongly rural state Senate district, while Cullen’s district, which includes Beloit, is more oriented toward cities and factories.

Schultz and Cullen agreed on quite a few things: The legislative process in Madison had become too divisive. Good policy requires the support of at least half the people of the state and not just people on one side. Both parties were guilty of pushing through momentous decisions without significant support from the other party – in the case of the Republicans in Wisconsin, it was the collective bargaining bill that triggered an uproar in Madison earlier this year, in the case of the Democrats in Washington, it was the health care bill passed in 2010.

The two decided they should work together on an idea that could change things. They settled on trying to reform the way state Supreme Court justices are selected so that process is less partisan and less subject to influence from special interests.

And they decided to go on the road around Wisconsin with what they labeled their common ground tour.

Continue ReadingBipartisanship? Cooperation? Will These Ideas Fly?