By Jim Bleeke
After a successful jury trial in May and a favorable bench trial result in June, I was just reflecting on the difference between the two.
Jury trials are more fun, more unpredictable, more of a strategic match of wits and thus more exhilarating. Choosing the jury, finding ways to keep the jurors engaged and trying to educate them while letting them “find the answer” themselves is more what most trial lawyers envision as what they really do.
On the other hand, bench trials, in front of a well-informed and contentious judge strike me more like being back in law school engaging in legal banter with a favorite professor. When the judge thinks out loud together with the attorneys for each side in trying to reach the best result, we can actually observe the cogs of the wheels of justice working. It is less mysterious than a jury trial, but satisfying in a different way.
Both forms of trial remind me how blessed we are to live in America, where we have such a great system designed to reach to reach the fairest resolution to disputes among our citizens.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Play Ball Indy
By Milton Thompson
Perhaps you caught the front page article in the July edition of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) about a “Diamond in the Rough.” It is an article about the development plans of a local non-profit, the Indiana Amateur Baseball Association which does business under the name of “Play Ball Indiana.” The plan calls for the building of baseball and softball diamonds with other amenities in the heart of the city of Indianapolis pursuant to a grant of land to the organization from the Citizens Energy Group. It was a vision of mine nearly thirty years ago when I co-founded the organization to create meaningful programs for children in Indiana using the wonderful summertime activity of baseball as the platform.
Our organization started small and grew quickly. It grew too quickly and became its intended launch for competitive baseball but also outgrew its other intended purposes to expose the opportunity to those who perhaps lacked the means to join the competition. We were leaving out kids who could benefit most from our program. We took corrective action with the help of committed individuals, companies, and foundations to create “Inner City Baseball and Softball” for the underserved. This direction culminated in a relationship with Major League baseball and its’ RBS program (Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities) in 1997. Since then, we have seen an incredible growth in activity for those boys and girls to not only play, but to be mentored by outstanding coaches and other supportive adults. The “Citizen’s Field of Dreams” when completed will further extend opportunities for children in and around our new facility.
Of course, the complex is still only an unrealized dream until we can secure the financial resources to build and maintain the facilities at a first class level.
This is a truly remarkable opportunity and will not only cement “Play Baseball Indiana” as a permanent community development resource, but will enable our children a chance to learn and grow in character through the great teachings of the game of baseball. Please help us see this vision through.
Perhaps you caught the front page article in the July edition of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) about a “Diamond in the Rough.” It is an article about the development plans of a local non-profit, the Indiana Amateur Baseball Association which does business under the name of “Play Ball Indiana.” The plan calls for the building of baseball and softball diamonds with other amenities in the heart of the city of Indianapolis pursuant to a grant of land to the organization from the Citizens Energy Group. It was a vision of mine nearly thirty years ago when I co-founded the organization to create meaningful programs for children in Indiana using the wonderful summertime activity of baseball as the platform.
Our organization started small and grew quickly. It grew too quickly and became its intended launch for competitive baseball but also outgrew its other intended purposes to expose the opportunity to those who perhaps lacked the means to join the competition. We were leaving out kids who could benefit most from our program. We took corrective action with the help of committed individuals, companies, and foundations to create “Inner City Baseball and Softball” for the underserved. This direction culminated in a relationship with Major League baseball and its’ RBS program (Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities) in 1997. Since then, we have seen an incredible growth in activity for those boys and girls to not only play, but to be mentored by outstanding coaches and other supportive adults. The “Citizen’s Field of Dreams” when completed will further extend opportunities for children in and around our new facility.
Of course, the complex is still only an unrealized dream until we can secure the financial resources to build and maintain the facilities at a first class level.
This is a truly remarkable opportunity and will not only cement “Play Baseball Indiana” as a permanent community development resource, but will enable our children a chance to learn and grow in character through the great teachings of the game of baseball. Please help us see this vision through.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Constitutional Law Update: Second Amendment Now Applicable To States
By Chris Simpkins
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court, per Justice Alito’s majority opinion, held by a vote of 5-4 that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court rendered a Chicago ban on private possession of handguns in the home unconstitutional and verified that the Second Amendment is applicable to state governments as well as the federal government.
Admittedly, after the Court’s watershed decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which originally established the individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense, the McDonald decision was not extremely surprising. The more interesting debate was focused on which path the Court would take to arrive at their determination. Would they again use the Fourteenth Amendment? Or, would they upset nearly 130 years of precedent and base their holding on the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Indeed, the petitioners devoted the substantial portion of their brief and oral argument time towards making the case for a much bolder interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
In the end, the Court again preferred the more familiar path of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed that self-defense is a basic right and a central component of the Second Amendment. Because self-defense is of the utmost importance in ones home, citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense in their own residence.
Not to be outdone, the Chicago City-Council quickly passed new gun regulations by a vote of 45-0 four days after the Supreme Court’s decision. Chicago’s new law is only marginally weaker than the gun ban that was tossed out by the Supreme Court on June 28, and will likely find its way back to the Supreme Court very soon.
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court, per Justice Alito’s majority opinion, held by a vote of 5-4 that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court rendered a Chicago ban on private possession of handguns in the home unconstitutional and verified that the Second Amendment is applicable to state governments as well as the federal government.
Admittedly, after the Court’s watershed decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which originally established the individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense, the McDonald decision was not extremely surprising. The more interesting debate was focused on which path the Court would take to arrive at their determination. Would they again use the Fourteenth Amendment? Or, would they upset nearly 130 years of precedent and base their holding on the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Indeed, the petitioners devoted the substantial portion of their brief and oral argument time towards making the case for a much bolder interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
In the end, the Court again preferred the more familiar path of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed that self-defense is a basic right and a central component of the Second Amendment. Because self-defense is of the utmost importance in ones home, citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense in their own residence.
Not to be outdone, the Chicago City-Council quickly passed new gun regulations by a vote of 45-0 four days after the Supreme Court’s decision. Chicago’s new law is only marginally weaker than the gun ban that was tossed out by the Supreme Court on June 28, and will likely find its way back to the Supreme Court very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
