Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

A Bold, but Optimistic Call for Higher Educational Achievement

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:May 23, 2012
Post category:Education & Law Marquette Law School Milwaukee Public Schools Public Speakers at Marquette

David P. Driscoll, who started his career as a math teacher, says that when it comes to improving education, he likes addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.

Driscoll, now chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, which runs the testing program often called “the nation’s report card” for elementary and high school students, brought a message to a conference at Marquette University Law School on Tuesday that was premised on that. He said Wisconsin faces major challenges as it raises the bar on student achievement, but he was optimistic and supportive in saying the challenge can be met.

With a capacity audience of education leaders filling the Appellate Courtroom in Eckstein Hall and with a roster of influential education figures also speaking at the conference, it sometimes seemed that Driscoll was the most optimistic person in the room when it came to prospect for great educational success in Milwaukee and across Wisconsin.

The heart of his message was that, whatever the political picture in Wisconsin and the challenges and problems, it is time to set aside what he called sideshows in education and come together to do the work of improving overall student achievement. He called for pursuing bold gains in achievement while staying away from the” subtraction” and “division” that often shapes education politics and policy making.

Who Will Lead the Fight for Access to Justice?

Post author:Michael Gonring
Post published:May 21, 2012
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Legal Practice Poverty & Law Pro Bono Public Wisconsin Law & Legal System Wisconsin Supreme Court

Jess Dickinson was on a roll, his Southern delivery infused with force and emotion. The Constitution is meaningless unless it is effective, said the presiding justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court. It is time, he said with rising voice, for judges to “stand up” and help insure that poor people have equal access to the courts.

The audience noted its approval with a standing ovation, but that result was never in doubt. After all, the occasion was the Annual Meeting of State Access to Justice Chairs last Saturday in Jacksonville, a gathering of 168 lawyers, judges and state supreme court justices from over 40 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, all of whom have signed on to the cause of equal access. There was an understandable enthusiasm for the justice’s remarks.

And the audience included the Honorable Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, making a rare but significant appearance at the meeting; significant because in Wisconsin, access to justice has not enjoyed the out-front leadership of the highest court as it has in many other states, including Justice Dickinson’s Mississippi.

The Wisconsin court, principally the Chief Justice, has been active in the cause of self-representation, striving to make the courts more user friendly to those who cannot afford a lawyer. The Court also approved changes to the rules of professional responsibility that paved the way for the expansion of brief advice clinics, and adopted a State Bar petition to create an Access to Justice Commission. The Chief Justice has led the way in promoting the study of limited representation, considered an essential step in addressing the problem of access to the courts.

Most significantly, the court approved the $50 annual assessment that goes to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation’s Public Interest Legal Services Fund, providing much needed funds as IOLTA income fell. (One of the more bizarre events I’ve ever witnessed is the State Bar Board of Governors actually debating a proposal to sue the Court because of the assessment.)

But it would be a stretch to say that our Court has been out in front, leading the way on access to justice issues in Wisconsin.

Speedy Trial Act Does Not Require Articulation of Ends-of-Justice Findings at Time Continuance Granted

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:May 21, 2012
Post category:Federal Criminal Law & Process Public Seventh Circuit

In general, the Speedy Trial Act requires federal criminal trials to commence within 70 days of the time a defendant is charged or makes an initial appearance (whichever occurs laters). However, the Act also permits continuances that do not count against the 70 days when a judge finds “that the ends of justice served by [a continuance] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). These ends-of-justice findings must be made on the record, either orally or in writing, but the statute does not specify when they must be made.

In United States v. Zedner, 547 U.S. 489 (2006), the Supreme Court indicated that the “best practice” is for the judge to articulate his or her findings at the same time that a continuance is granted. But are lower courts actually required to adhere to this “best practice”?

Earlier today, in United States v. Wasson (No. 10-2577), the Seventh Circuit affirmed that express ends-of-justice findings may await the defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.