Department of Justice Files Fair Housing Act Suit Against City of New Berlin

On Thursday, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against the City of New Berlin. The complaint arises out of a series of events that led to the City’s denial of a “workforce” housing development proposal made by MSP Real Estate, Inc. (MSP).  The DOJ alleges that the City of New Berlin ultimately denied the proposal on the basis of racial discrimination, in violation of Section VIII of the Fair Housing Act.

According to the complaint (which can be viewed here), on March 10, 2010, MSP submitted a development application to construct 180 units of affordable housing in what is known as New Berlin’s “City Center.”  The proposal stated that the development would include 100 elderly units and 80 workforce housing units.  The development was intended to be financed in part by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, a program that allows a developer to sell tax credits to investors in exchange for the promise that the developer will rent the apartments for below-market rates to tenants who qualify.  For this specific development, MSP was going to rent to individuals who made 40 to 60 percent of the median household income in New Berlin.  In New Berlin, the median income as of 2000 was approximately $70,000, which means the proposed development would rent to individuals who made $28,000 to $42,000 a year.

Continue ReadingDepartment of Justice Files Fair Housing Act Suit Against City of New Berlin

Marquette Law School Alumnae Honored as “Women in Law”

On Thursday, June 23rd, the Wisconsin Law Journal recognized its 2011 Women in Law honorees.  There were several MULS alumnae among the group: Elizabeth Blackwood, Michelle Fitzgerald, Mary Gerbig, Christine Liu McLaughlin, and Linda Meagher.  As you can read further on the Wisconsin Law Journal’s website here, these Marquette lawyers have compelling stories, have accomplished so much in their careers, and have served their communities with great distinction.

The other MULS alumna honored on Thursday night was our own Professor Phoebe Williams.  It is hard to properly describe the long and meaningful list of contributions that Professor Williams has made to the Law School, the Milwaukee community, and beyond.  Perhaps the clearest manifestation of the impact Professor Williams has had are her “living legacies” (the term Justice Scalia used to describe students at the dedication of Eckstein Hall).  Indeed, I have had countless students and graduates who have told me about the significant effect that Professor Williams had on their lives and careers.  So it was wonderful to be there on Thursday night to help celebrate Professor Williams’ much-deserved recognition.

Congratulations to all of this year’s honorees!

Continue ReadingMarquette Law School Alumnae Honored as “Women in Law”

Bullcoming Arrives, But Where’s the Path?

The Supreme Court continues to refurnish the modern courtroom with eighteenth-century antiques. Without the slightest glint of irony, or even humor, the Court assessed the admissibility of twenty-first century scientific evidence using legal doctrine crafted on parchment with quill pens in an age when mirrors were placed to direct sunlight into the face of the accused at trial. (Why the mirrors at a time when the accused could not testify in his defense anyway? That’s another story.)    

In its June 23, 2011 decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-10876.pdf the Supreme Court once again addressed the admissibility against the accused of lab reports prepared by analysts who do not testify at trial. The report was offered through a “surrogate witness.” Bullcoming was charged with drunken driving. A blood test pegged his BAC at 0.21, “an inordinately high level,” as the Court helpfully observed. At trial, however, the State did not call as a witness “Caylor,” the lab analyst who measured the BAC. Caylor, it seems, was enjoying an “unpaid leave for a reason not revealed” – always an intriguing “uh oh” when assessing credibility. Instead, the State called another lab “scientist” who had not observed Caylor’s testing of Bullcoming’s sample but who could talk about lab procedures and the reliability of the report in general. The Court tells us that a “startled defense counsel” objected. (N.B. How the Court knew she was “startled” is unclear, but it is abundantly clear that the confrontation right requires only a timely objection by counsel, startled or unstartled.)

Continue ReadingBullcoming Arrives, But Where’s the Path?