View of Guatemala City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Katherine E. Schulte, Supervising Attorney, Domestic Violence Institute, Northeastern University School of Law

On Friday May 10, 2013, General Efraín Ríos Montt, the former dictator who ruled Guatemala during one of the most violent periods of the country’s 36-year civil war, was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.  In addition to charges that he masterminded the massacre of 1,771 Ixil Mayans, Ríos Montt was convicted of 1,485 acts of sexual violence and acts of torture.  The 86-year-old was sentenced to 80 years in prison, and victims and their families will receive reparations in various forms.

You might be wondering why I, a domestic violence attorney in Boston, would care about a genocide trial in Central America.  Viewed through the widest lens, this is a pivotal moment in the international human rights movement.  It was the first time that a former head of state was tried for genocide in his home nation in genuine proceedings in his home nation (despite several delay tactics, procedural roadblocks, and the lingering scent of corruption along the way).  Guatemala has been under the microscope since the trial began in March, as the nation was given a chance to prove to its citizens, and the rest of the world, that it could uphold the rule of law.  This was a true test for a country that has been grappling with a legacy of extreme violence since the armed conflict officially ended in 1996.

But my interest in understanding Guatemala’s sense of justice runs much deeper. I have relatives who live in Guatemala City, and I visited them a handful of times throughout my childhood.  However, it wasn’t until the last decade, as my awareness about Guatemala’s internal conflict evolved in step with my interest in advocating for survivors of domestic and sexual violence here in Boston, that I truly began to understand the struggles facing victims in Guatemala.

During the civil war, the Guatemalan army—commanded by Ríos Montt, and with financial and training resources from the United States—developed and implemented a series of plans designed to exterminate the Ixil Mayan population, believing that the counterinsurgency could only be ended by eradicating Ixil support of the guerillas.  Rape was one tool used by the military as part of the systematic and intentional plan to destroy the Ixil ethnic group; exercising violence on women’s bodies was seen as a way to destroy the social fabric and thereby stop the growth of the Ixil population. Although these crimes occurred more than 30 years ago, during the past several weeks the court heard testimony from dozens of survivors who described the extreme atrocities they suffered at the hands of the army.  Day 8 of the trial was dedicated solely to hearing the testimony of survivors of sexual violence perpetrated by the military.  [Trigger warning—link contains descriptions of extreme sexual violence]. 

The violence persisted in very real ways after the war.  As Giovana Lemus from the Guatemalan Women’s Group has stated, “Guatemala went from war to peace but came out with organized crime and clandestine groups who deny the rights and integrity of all women and act with impunity.”  Guatemala’s legal system was in no way equipped to deal with this; statutes criminalizing femicide and other violence against women did not become law in Guatemala until 2008. Add to this a pervasive culture of patriarchy and “machismo”… In short, what Guatemala was left with after the war was a justice system at best incapable—and at worst unwilling—to respond adequately to the rights of victims of violent crime, especially women.

So, what could this recent monumental verdict mean for victims in Guatemala?  Without a doubt, Ríos Montt’s conviction is necessary to encourage justice and healing in Guatemala.  As David Tolbert, president of the International Center for Transitional Justice, noted in a statement released after the verdict, “Today will be carved into history…as a victory for victims in the country, and for all who care about the state guaranteeing, rather than abusing, the fundamental rights of citizens.”

But as I contemplate this victory for Guatemala, I am drawn to compare the experiences of my clients, survivors of domestic and sexual violence here in Boston.  I am left with this question:  What does it mean for a state to truly protect its victims?  Here, our clients know that laws protecting them from violence exist, and police officers and prosecutors are aware of their obligations to enforce them.  But what does that actually mean for our undocumented clients, or those in communities of color, where there may be deep-seated distrust or fear of law enforcement?  In a city like Boston, with a troubled history of racism and xenophobia, can survivors really rely on the state to protect them?

As an attorney who has spent the past several years watching our students navigate the justice system with their clients, I do have faith that there is value in accessing the system.  I have seen clients emerge on the other side of the criminal justice process safer and more empowered, having helped send messages of deterrence and accountability to the perpetrator.  But there are just as many cases where law is not the answer.  And if the justice systems at home and abroad are as limited as they seem, it seems that the better question to be asking is:  What more can we be doing to stem the violence at its sources in our communities?

Camping out in the NUSL library.

Just a kind reminder for admitted students that the deposit deadline for the Class of 2016 is tomorrow, May 1st!

Here are the instructions for making your deposit:

1.  Go to https://commerce.cashnet.com/NEUSAO
2.  Select the “you know your NU ID Number but do not have the Password” option on the right. A sign-in screen will appear.
3. Enter your NU ID number (you should have received this number in your admissions packet) and your last name.
4. You will see many options for students making electronic payments at Northeastern University. Please select “Law School School Tuition Deposit – Non-Refundable.”
5. There are two payment options: ELECTRONIC CHECK or CREDIT CARD (Mastercard/Visa/Discover & American Express). Choose your preferred payment option.
6. Follow the check-out instructions to complete your transaction.

We can’t wait to welcome you to campus in the fall!

In need of further assistance? Just give us a call at (617) 373-2395 or send an e-mail to lawadmissions@neu.edu.

As part of the Boston community, we share the sadness of last week’s Boston Marathon bombings. Thanks to excellent police work and public cooperation, Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev were identified as the perpetrators and are reportedly unaffiliated with any larger terrorist network. But going forward, how can law enforcement increase its ability to identify would-be terrorists operating below the radar?

Experts point out that many terrorist groups like al Qaeda are increasingly decentralized, making them difficult to monitor and infiltrate. Experts also highlight the limited ability of the federal counterterrorism infrastructure to identify independent terrorist cells and lone wolf terrorists; the difficulty of identifying readers of extremist propaganda; and, most importantly, the challenges determining which individuals will turn to violent action. In this case, the FBI questioned Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, possibly about his interest in extremist Internet propaganda or ties to Chechnya, but apparently lacked sufficient information to detain him further. With this in mind, how can law enforcement gain the intelligence necessarily to stop potential terrorists before they act?

Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, has one proposal: he has renewed calls for increased surveillance of all Muslim communities. King asserts that this is the same practice used against Irish and Italian gangsters involved in organized crime. But that is simply not the case. Monitoring individuals suspected of involvement in organized crime is readily distinguishable from surveilling millions of American Muslims absent any reasonable suspicion criminal wrongdoing.

Moreover, there is now significant consensus among most intelligence experts that profiling based on religious affiliation is ineffective because it is too widely shared a characteristic to be a shortcut for identifying those who might engage in violence. Furthermore, as civil liberties experts have long argued, profiling based on religion unnecessarily alienates communities that could potentially serve as important partners for law enforcement in countering terrorism.

Rather than support Congressman King’s approach, we believe the Boston tragedy offers lessons to improve our national security infrastructure but remain more consistent with our democratic values of justice, fairness, and human decency.

In this case, it is now emerging from friends and associates of the Tsarnaevs that, upon reflection, they sensed something might have been amiss before the attacks. For example, Tamerlan Tsarnaev reportedly twice disrupted services at a local mosque. And there may be an additional trail of unusual speech or behavior — refusing to see friends or family, posting violent messages on the Internet, contemplating death — that would have alerted family, friends or community members to something being out of place. But whom could they have alerted to these concerns? Could they have confidence that information shared with law enforcement would be discreetly and professionally handled? Could they be assured that police would not overreact, but would instead rationally determine if there were genuine issues requiring further investigation? For law enforcement to benefit from voluntary community intelligence they must create trust relationships allowing community members to articulate concerns that may or may not indicate an intention to engage in violence. This also means incorporating collaborative, long-term community-police partnerships into the national counterterrorism strategy.

But partnerships are not easy to build. Partnerships are not achieved through coercion, force, or infiltration. They require voluntary engagement with communities through mutual trust and cooperation. This means winning the hearts and minds of communities so they become real partners in counterterrorism efforts and work collaboratively to address problems of common concern.

Partnerships have already been piloted in domestic counterterrorism efforts, and have been used for years in cities like Dearborn, Los Angeles, and London. And beyond the counterterrorism context, partnerships have achieved success in reducing gang violence in cities like Boston and Glasgow, and drugs sales in places like High Point, North Carolina. It is by relying on common sense that the national security infrastructure can be expanded to address some of its current limitations.

It is true that not all terrorist acts in the United States can be avoided, and unfortunately more will succeed. But by incorporating voluntary, partnership-based community intelligence gathering practices into our national security infrastructure, we can improve our chances of preventing some attacks.

(Reprinted with permission from Professor Ramirez. You can find original post here.)

Cooperative Legal Education (“co-op”) is like art. Its beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. For each student, it’s the opportunity to create a canvas of professional development and achievement. For each member of the faculty, it’s the opportunity to make teaching more vibrant. For each employer, it’s the opportunity to identify and benefit from each student’s passion, enthusiasm and knowledge. For legal education, it’s the opportunity to rethink how to prepare lawyers to serve clients now and in the future.

My introduction to Northeastern University School of Law came a couple of years ago when I was exploring options for the next phase of my career. Having graduated from law school in 1982, I didn’t follow the usual path, which centered on progressive advancement in a law office of some kind with a capstone as a managing attorney or judge. Instead, I have gravitated between teaching and practice or policy work, back and forth. This unusual approach to a career, at least for someone of my generation, mirrors the co-op experience. Back and forth, back and forth, in a clerkship, in practice, in a Ph.D. program, in advocacy jobs, in universities, in government, in a law school, all the while integrating these activities and experiences into a fulsome palette of a career.

Little did I know that I was rehearsing for a job at the most innovative and interesting law school in America. Like so many things in life, I wasn’t expecting this opportunity at Northeastern. But I was prepared for it because I had developed skills and knowledge that were useful. The value of not just thinking but also doing has begun to infiltrate a broader spectrum of education but it is not news to Northeastern. And since my career has been built on thinking and doing, over and over, it made perfect sense for me to come work in that environment.

I learned quickly that something special was going on at Northeastern. Steve Subrin, of the founding generation of co-op, quietly explained to me that I’d love it at Northeastern because people are helpful in ways that other schools can’t emulate.  Steve didn’t describe it all to me; this is after all a place of experiential education.

So I’ve learned quickly that students are busy learning through classes and co-op and activities, focusing on coursework and co-op while simultaneously looking forward to co-op and coursework, instead of being overly competitive or overly harsh. Combining thinking and doing, integrating classroom and co-op, Northeastern students immerse themselves in the reality of law and its practice in all possible settings in service to the public interest. Northeastern’s community, rooted in experiential learning and social justice, truly practices what it preaches.

There is no doubt that there are many challenges in the legal profession. But with challenge comes opportunity. As the delivery of legal services changes, today’s students will be able to influence the development of our profession and the system of justice in which it operates. My generation had great ambition but many problems remain to be solved. This generation of law students can avail itself of all the new cultural, technological, economic and social developments to help address the challenges and solve the problems. And they will create art while doing good for themselves and those around them.

Name: Julie Roberts
Class year: 3L

A little about Julie…

·         Where are you from?

I am originally from Wheeling, West Virginia. I attended undergrad at Ithaca College in Ithaca, NY where I studied film production and politics (I made political documentaries). After graduating in 2006, I moved to Santa Fe, NM.

 ·         What did you do before NUSL?

For four years prior to attending Northeastern University School of Law, I worked for the national nonprofit organization, Drug Policy Alliance, in Santa Fe. At Drug Policy Alliance, I worked with advocates, community organizations, state government employees, and elected officials to pass over a dozen innovative legislative initiatives.  I lobbied for the successful passage of legislation guaranteeing legal access to medical cannabis and establishing the first state-licensed production and distribution system to ensure patients receive a safe and secure supply of their medicine.  I fought for our nation’s first 911 Good Samaritan law, a law guaranteeing immunity from drug possession charges when people call 911 to save the life of an overdose victim.  I coordinated and worked with over a dozen community organizations to pass a statewide ban on bias-based policing, or racial profiling, in New Mexico. As I entered my fourth year at the organization, however, I felt a visceral need to continue to grow and learn as an advocate in order to improve the lives of the marginalized and underserved.

 ·         What do you do for fun outside of school?

Outside of law school, I prioritize spending time with my fiancé, Michael. We had never been to New England before, so we enjoy exploring Boston and other parts of the region, especially the beaches north of the city. I also hang out with my new law school friends at our favorite dive bar, Punters, which is right down the street from the law school. Additionally, I volunteer on the Board of Directors for an international nonprofit organization, Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Julie’s NUSL experience…

·         Where have you co-oped?

Because I moved to Boston with my fiancé, I decided to complete all of my co-ops in the Boston area. My first coop was at Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) where I worked on race and national origin discrimination cases with a particular focus on voting rights. The co-op was a perfect balance of public policy advocacy, legal research and writing, and client communication. Next, I worked with Judge MacLeod at the Massachusetts Superior Court. I absolutely loved working in the courthouse. Throughout the co-op, I gained exposure to a range of legal issues (everything from medical malpractice to personal injury to sexually dangerous persons classifications) and observed lawyers in motion sessions and trials. For my third co-op, I worked for the Committee for Public Council Services (CPCS), Youth Advocacy Division (the public defender for juveniles) in Roxbury, MA. I originally came to law school with a predisposition towards criminal justice reform and criminal defense. Working for CPCS provided me with direct in-court experience representing juveniles during bail and arraignment hearings, which was challenging and incredibly fulfilling. Working for the public defender confirmed my excitement, passion and dedication to criminal defense, particularly working with indigent clients. For my last coop, I decided to pursue my interest in criminal defense and also gain new work experience by co-oping in a small law firm, Zalkind, Duncan and Bernstein. The law firm specializes in criminal defense and civil litigation, including employment discrimination, personal injury, academic cases, and family law cases. The co-op has been amazing so far and a great balance between criminal defense and civil litigation.

·      Are you involved in any student organizations? Did you participate in any clinics, moot court, law journal, etc.?

I enrolled in the Prisoners’ Rights Clinic during my Winter 2012 academic quarter. In the clinic, I represented a man serving a second-degree life sentence for murder during his parole release hearing. My client had been incarcerated for over twenty years. During the clinic, I visited my client in prison every week, collected and investigated records related to my client’s underlying offense and his life while incarcerated and prepared the overall legal strategy for his parole hearing. The clinic provided a great opportunity to work closely with a supervisor and get constant feedback on my work. This past winter quarter I was selected as a teaching assistant and supervised two clinic students in preparation for their clients’ hearings in the Spring of 2013.

Throughout law school, I maintained my interest in drug policy reform and advocacy through volunteer work.  In November 2011, I was elected to serve on the Board of Directors for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, an international nonprofit organization based in Washington D.C. that mobilizes and empowers young people to get involved in the political process. As a grassroots organization, our work is mainly achieved through hundreds of chapters established at colleges and universities across the world. Our student members are concerned about the impact drug abuse has on our communities, but also know that the War on Drugs is failing our generation and our society.

Based on this involvement at the national level, I then decided to co-found the law school’s chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and currently serve as the co-President of the group. Through this student organization, I have helped to coordinate multiple meetings and events each quarter on topics ranging from medical marijuana in Massachusetts to harm reduction strategies to reduce the spread of HIV through injection drug use to the impact of drug war policies on communities of color. The group is also involved in policy change at the campus and state legislative level. In 2012 our group helped to pass a campus-wide ballot initiative that proposed equalizing the penalties between on-campus violations for underage drinking and marijuana use and possession. At the state level, our members promoted the passage of the Question 3 ballot initiative, which established a medical cannabis program in Massachusetts; our members have stayed involved in monitoring the regulatory process as the state Department of Public Health implements the new law. Our members also advocated for the passage of overdose prevention legislation, which was signed by Governor Deval Patrick last year. The new law includes a 911 Good Samaritan provision (providing immunity from drug possession charges when someone calls 911 during an overdose) and a provision authorizing the distribution and providing protection for the administration of the life-saving medication, naloxone, which immediately reverses an opioid (i.e., heroin, oxycodone) overdose. When lobbying state legislators for this bill, I had the opportunity to testify in front of the Massachusetts Joint Judiciary Committee. The leadership, educational and public policy opportunities I’ve gained through this student group have been an amazing aspect of my law school experience.

Life after NUSL…

·         What are your post-grad plans?

After graduating in May, I will stay in Boston and study for the Massachusetts bar exam. After taking the bar, I will be moving to Martinsburg, West Virginia for a federal clerkship in the Northern District of West Virginia. I am so excited for the opportunity to work at the trial court level and gain additional legal experience working in a federal court. The majority of cases that come before the judge are criminal cases, which is perfect for my interest in criminal defense. The civil cases are mainly prisoners’ rights and civil rights discrimination, which are both areas I am thrilled to explore. Following the one-year clerkship, I plan on looking for employment both in Boston and the Washington, D.C. area.

 ·         Did anything about your NUSL experience surprise you?

Attending NUSL has completely exceeded all of my expectations for a successful law school experience. I have made excellent friendships that will surely last for the rest of my life. I studied with amazing professors and was engaged and challenged by the range of curriculum offered at the school. I gained real world professional experience in four different legal jobs and a school-based clinic. I worked one-on-one with clients and got to make a difference in their lives. I pursued my passion for drug policy and continued to grow as an advocate for change.

Three years ago when I first started law school I knew I was embarking on a life-changing adventure, but I never could have guessed how amazing the experience would actually be. I am so thankful for the skills I gained at Northeastern and will forever be filled with gratitude for the amazing personal, academic and professional growth I experienced over the last three years.

This is an exciting day for me to be writing an admissions blog for the School of Law because the Supreme Court of India has just issued a landmark decision rejecting a patent application for a Novartis cancer medicine, Glivec.

Wait a minute, you might ask, how can it be important what a court in India does about something as esoteric as a patent on one drug.  Well, because India, like many countries previously, did not grant patents on medicines from 1972-2005, it developed a robust generic industry capable of producing medicines to global quality standards.  India became the “pharmacy of the developing world” thereafter, particularly with respect to AIDS medicines where its companies supply nearly 90% of the antiretrovirals used to treat 8 million HIV-infected people in low- and middle-income countries. Even when India was forced to become compliant with the WTO agreement addressing intellectual property rights, it adopted strict (high) standards of patentability designed to prevent so-called secondary patents on minor variations of existing medicines.

I have worked with an international coalition of AIDS activists for 13 years who have, among many other things, worked for the adoption of these strict standards of patentability in India and to preserve those protections.  Novartis, on the other hand, has filed successive court suits against India’s strict standards of patentability, first challenging them as unconstitutional and contrary to international law.  That case was thrown out in 2007 by the Madras High Court.  More recently, Novartis raised a more technical argument that attempted to eviscerate India’s strict patent standards on pharmaceuticals by arguing either that they don’t ordinarily apply or that the standard should be reinterpreted to cover such issues as solubility and shelf life rather than therapeutic efficacy.  In a decision, now celebrated around the world, the Supreme Court of India rejected that challenge, labeling it essentially frivolous.

The threat to Indian generics, which for AIDS medicines cost .5% of what they cost in United States, is not over.  Both the European Union and the United States are proposing terms in “free” trade agreements that would make high standards such as those in India unlawful.  The U.S. is putting intense diplomatic pressure on India both with respect to these standards and with respect to other lawful flexibilities that India has incorporated into its patent law.  I got up at 5:00 this morning to read the opinion, to contact journalists, and to write on activists listserves about the decision.  This is the kind of issue that brings passion to my scholarship, service, and teaching at Northeastern.

by Professor Mary E. O’Connell

Spending a semester sitting in property law.  Sound exciting?  Well, do you know who owns your spleen?  Do you think you do? Well, hang on to it.  When John Moore’s spleen was removed during cancer surgery, cells taken from it were turned into a cell line that earned a lot of money for the University of California.  Did Mr. Moore own the cells that had been taken from his body? Nope.  Did he get any of the proceeds from the Mo cell line – ironically given his name? None.

How about the rain?  What if, being pretty green, you decide that putting out a rain barrel and catching the rain to use it on your garden an eco-friendly way to go. Great idea?  Well, stay east of the Mississippi River.  Once you venture into the high desert, things get a little dicey.  Colorado would be safe. In 2009, the Colorado legislature passed two new laws to make legal what had been illegal since Colorado became a U.S. territory in 1861—collecting rain as it fell from the sky.  The laws were needed because under Colorado’s “prior appropriation” water system, every drop of water in the state is owned by someone, and a raindrop was just somebody’s water on its way home.  Utah held out longer, but as of 2011, you can take your rain barrel there too.  But an Oregon man who built three reservoirs on his land to catch rainwater went to jail last year. He didn’t have a water rights permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department.

“Ownership” may sound like a technical concept – and in some ways it is.  And defining and regulating ownership is one of property law’s major tasks.  If someone can own it, it’s property. But what is property?  The mind-bending part of the property course is that the definition is always changing and law is usually running to keep up with science, technology – and the weather.  Before the science developed to grow human cells in self-replicating cell lines, Mr. Moore’s spleen would not exactly have been a prize.  And when the earth seemed to be full of fresh water, only deserts – like Oregon and Colorado – treated it as “owned” as it fell from the sky.  But who owns the water is likely to be one of the great property debates of the 21^st century.  Japan, with a shrinking population and substantial fresh water, is selling some of its water rights to China.  The United Nations recently warned that by 2015, two-thirds of the earth will be “water stressed”.  The wars and ecological disasters that our thirst for petroleum brought us (BP is being tried for gross negligence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster as I write this) may pale in comparison to the coming water wars.

And speaking of petroleum, the receding ice cap at the North Pole is opening access to parts of the sea bottom that have been encased in ice throughout human memory.  The U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all made the claim that their territory extends under the sea into the polar region – rich with, of course, petroleum.

Can sensible people of good will make rational plans for allocating the earth’s resources? Can we harness the promises of science without stripping individuals of their rights and their dignity?  Ah, well, just another day in property class!

(Photo credit: Wikipedia/Creative Commons Use)

We understand that some prospective students are still having difficulty utilizing the Law School Admission Council website. If you are encountering problems (technologically-speaking) trying to apply to Northeastern, give us a call at (617) 373-2395 and we will see what we can do to help. Do not panic; we will work with you submit your application!

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Professor Daniel S. Medwed

I sincerely hope that you decide to join us in the Fall! One of the wonderful features of studying here is that Northeastern University School of Law faculty members often seek to share their research passions with you and work on joint scholarly projects.  I teach and write in the area of criminal law, with a special interest in the topics of wrongful convictions and prosecutorial ethics.  My recent book, Prosecution Complex: America’s Race to Convict and its Impact on the Innocent (NYU Press, 2012), explores how discretionary decisions by prosecutors can inadvertently contribute to the conviction of innocent because of cognitive biases and an overly-deferential regime of legal and ethical rules.  In Chapter One, “Charging Ahead,” I focus on how prosecutors might become consumed by “tunnel vision” after reviewing an arrest file and then develop a firm hypothesis of guilt despite evidence to the contrary.  This could lead to the filing of criminal charges against innocent suspects or, at a minimum, the filing of excessive charges in cases where the suspect may be “guilty” but perhaps not deserving of severe punishment.

In recent weeks, Carmen Ortiz, the chief federal prosecutor in Massachusetts, has come under attack for a series of dubious charging decisions in her office.  Most notably, observers have criticized her office’s vigorous pursuit of renowned internet activist Aaron Swartz for allegedly hacking into a proprietary database and disseminating legions of scholarly articles to the public.  The weight of the pending criminal charges may have played a role in Swartz’s decision to commit suicide earlier last year.  The publicity surrounding the Swartz matter has prompted investigative journalists and lawyers to dig deeper into her office’s practices — and the results are startling.  A joint investigation by the local NPR affiliate, WBUR, and the journal Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly exposed that Ortiz’s lieutenants have apparently sought indictments in a number of borderline cases.

Being a prosecutor is undoubtedly a tough job, among the toughest in the legal profession.  As a result, we must defer, on some level, to their exercise of discretion.  But deference does not necessarily mean acceptance.  We need to scrutinize the decisions of our nation’s top law enforcement officials to make sure they are not overreaching and exceeding the boundaries of their vast powers.  Please come to NUSL and help me do this!