Lawyer 2 Lawyer

The Eighth Amendment protects people from cruel and unusual punishments in the United States but what does that mean? In the last 38 years, Americans used hangings, gas chambers, lethal injections, electrocutions, and firing squads to execute convicted murderers. Given the recent reports of botched lethal injections, some experts are calling for the return of the firing squad as the most humane form of capital punishment. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host J. Craig Williams interviews Judge Alex Kozinski from the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit, exonerated death row survivor Ronald Keine from Witness to Innocence, and M*A*S*H actor Mike Farrell from Death Penalty Focus. Together they discuss the merits of firing squads vs. lethal injections, corruption in the judicial system, and the morality of western society. Tune in to hear about the 144 exonerated death row survivors as well as Ronald Keine's near miss with the gas chamber. Judge Alex Kozinski sits on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit where he's served since his appointment on November 7th 1985. Prior to his appointment Judge Kozinski occupied other prestigious positions including Chief Judge of the US Claims Court and Office of Counsel to the President. He is married with three children plus three grandchildren. Ronald Keine is an exonerated death row inmate who was just 9 days from his execution in the gas chamber when the actual murderer confessed to the crime. Today, he an Assistant Director of Membership and Training for Witness to Innocence an anti-death penalty organization whose leading voice is that of exonerated death row survivors. Mike Farrell played Captain BJ Hunnicut for eight years on the hit television show M*A*S*H as well other roles like Jim Hansen in another series called Providence. In the 90s, he served for three years as a member of the State of California's Commission on Judicial Performance. Mr. Farrell is a life-long opponent of the death penalty and has been the President of Death Penalty Focus since 1994. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Although still illegal everywhere in the United States under federal law, Colorado and Washington have decided not to prosecute marijuana use or production at the state level. Despite this lack of enforcement, women who use marijuana during their pregnancies are being charged with child abuse shortly after giving birth. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Sabrina Fendrick from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Carla Lowe from Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana. Together they discuss conflicting studies and beliefs regarding the benefits, harms, and prohibition of marijuana. Tune in to learn more about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as well as the differences between THC, tobacco, and alcohol for pregnant women. Sabrina Fendrick currently serves as the Director of Strategic Partnerships for NORML the Washington DC-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. In 2010, she founded the NORML Women's Alliance and served as Director of Women's Outreach to develop multiple female-focused awareness campaigns to educate women, and empower them to speak out on behalf of progressive cannabis policies. Today Fendrick remains dedicated to increasing women's involvement throughout all aspects of the legalization movement, including parenting and child custody issues. Carla Lowe is the founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM). She has been a volunteer anti-drug activist since 1977. Carla co-founded Californians for Drug-Free Youth and Californians for Drug-Free Schools. In addition, she chaired the Nancy Reagan Speakers' Bureau of the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth. Lowe is a mother of five grown children, grandmother of nine, and former high-school teacher. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

On July 1st a new law took effect in Tennessee that allows prosecutors to pursue criminal assault charges if the mother uses illegal drugs during pregnancy. Although it had widespread bipartisan support and is designed to fight Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, some believe it to be an unconstitutional infraction on privacy, equal protection, and due process. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host J. Craig Williams interviews Tennessee House Representative Mike Carter and Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee Thomas Castelli. Together they discuss maximum penalties, the law's effect on demographics, and treatment based defenses to punishment. Tune in to hear why the Tennessee General Assembly believes this law is their only option and the reasons the ACLU is fighting it. Thomas H. Castelli is the Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. Prior to joining the ACLU, he provided litigation counsel to businesses and law firms with Counsel on Call and was a founding partner with Castelli and Knox, LLP, a small general practice firm with an emphasis on employment discrimination and wrongful discharge. He also worked as an associate at Schulten, Ward and Turner, LLP as well as Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, LLP, where he focused on employment, construction, bankruptcy and general business litigation. He is a native Tennessean who grew up in Murfreesboro. The Honorable Mike Carter is a House Representative in the Tennessee General Assembly. He is a life-long resident of Ooltewah, Tennessee and practiced law for twenty years before being appointed as Judge, now retired, in 1997 by then Governor Don Sundquist. In 2009, Mr. Carter served as Special Assistant to then County Mayor Claude Ramsey. In 2012, he ran unopposed as a State Representative to serve the people of the newly created 29th District of Tennessee. Carter serves on the House Civil Justice Committee, House Finance Ways and Means Committee, and the House Ethics Committee. He also serves on TACIR (Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations) and the House Judicial Oversight Panel. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby invokes passionate debates and fiery discourse. At the spearhead of exchange are questions about reproductive, First Amendment, and healthcare rights. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings light to these issues along with Emily Martin from the National Women's Law Center and Elizabeth Slattery from the Heritage Foundation. Together they discuss the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act vs. invoking a Constitutional argument centered around the First Amendment. Tune in to learn more about the 4 debated methods of contraception, Justice Ginsburg's dissent, and religious rights of corporations. Emily Martin is the Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women's health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and served as a law clerk for Senior Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia. She has served as Vice President and President of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a non-profit organization in New York City. Elizabeth Slattery is a senior legal policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. She researches a variety of issues such as the rule of law, the First Amendment, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions. Ms. Slattery also studies and writes about cases before the Supreme Court, judicial nominations, and the proper role of the courts. She manages the Meese Center's appellate advocacy programs, including moot court sessions to prepare litigators for oral argument before the Supreme Court. Ms. Slattery's analysis and commentary have appeared in The Washington Times and The Washington Examiner, as well as outlets including National Review Online, The Daily Signal, The Daily Caller and U.S. News and World Report. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Since 2009, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended crossing the U.S. border has sharply increased. The journey for these children is long, expensive, and dangerous. What is the cause of this sudden influx of young immigrants? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute and Elizabeth Dallam from Kids in Need of Defense (otherwise known as KIND). Together they discuss the immigration numbers, reasons for seeking asylum, and suggested policy changes. Tune in to learn how immigration is affected by Central American gangs and the War on Drugs. Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. Previously he was the immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Among many publications, his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Houston Chronicle, and Boston Globe. He has appeared on Fox News and numerous television and radio stations across the United States. He received his B.A. in Economics from George Mason University and Masters in Economic History from the London School of Economics. Elizabeth Dallam is the National Legal Services Director at Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) which is a program providing pro bono legal services to children who arrive "unaccompanied" or alone to the United States. Previously, she served as the Senior Protection Officer at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Washington, DC. During her tenure at that organization, she acted as the agency's focal point on unaccompanied children and advocated for systemic reforms in law and policy to better protect children. Prior to that, Elizabeth was the Executive Director of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona, where she started a children's representation project. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Imagine a computer thousands of miles away recognizing you in a camera at an intersection. Furthermore, consider being tracked and monitored from your home to your place of work every day. Facial recognition technology makes this type of identification possible and it is being rapidly developed for country defense and law enforcement purposes. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host J. Craig Williams interviews Ed Tivol from EWA, Government Systems, Inc. and Jennifer Lynch from Electronic Frontier Foundation. Together, they discuss the paradox of security vs. privacy when it comes to biometric modes of identification. In addition, they deliberate on how this data is being collected, who is collecting it, and for what purpose. Tune in to hear about your evolving First and Fourth Amendment Rights in the face of national security, crime prevention, and the private sector. Jennifer Lynch is a Senior Staff Attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and works on open government, transparency, and privacy issues as part of EFF's Transparency Project. She is a writer and frequent speaker on government surveillance programs, domestic drones, intelligence community misconduct, and biometrics. Lynch has testified about facial recognition before Senate Subcommittees and prior to joining EFF, she was the Clinical Teaching Fellow with the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law. Ed Tivol is the Vice President of the Intelligence and Operations Division for EWA, Government Systems, Inc. a defense contractor actively developing facial recognition technology for the Federal Government. He is a 1964 graduate of The Citadel and served in the Army's Military Intelligence branch for 24 years. Tivol completed two tours in Vietnam and retired with the rank of Colonel in 1990. In the same year, he began his work with EWA and has been there ever since. Ed holds master's degrees from University of Maryland and the Army War College. Today Mr. Tivol and his wife raise racehorses and Angus cattle outside of Bowling Green, Kentucky. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

May 17th, 2014 marked the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court Decision that held state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students as unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Today, some six decades later, many parents and teachers are still worried that America's children are not receiving equal access to education envisioned in that case. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams shed light on this issue with guests Christian D'Andrea from the MacIver Institute and Kyle Serrette from The Center for Popular Democracy. Together they discuss private schools, charter schools, and homeschooling vs. the community school model. Tune in to learn more about funding concerns, oversight issues, and the proper role of teachers unions in the school choice debate. Christian D'Andrea is an Education Policy Analyst with the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy in Madison, WI. He earned his Master's of Public Policy degree at Vanderbilt University and has previously worked for the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice as a State Policy Director and Policy Analyst. He is the author of several studies that examine the fiscal and personal impacts of educational reform, and his work has been featured everywhere from the Huffington Post to EducationNext. Kyle Serrette is the Director of Education Justice Campaigns at The Center for Popular Democracy and works with their partner organizations to strengthen their public education coalitions, develop strategy to help close the opportunity gaps, and coordinates national and regional campaigns that work to bolster our public education system. Prior to joining The Center for Popular Democracy, Kyle spent over 10 years working on corporate campaigns with groups such as Service Employees International Union, Change to Win, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. He was awarded the 2010 Joe Hill Organizing Achievement Award by the LA Fed and the Los Angeles Orange County Organize Committee. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

On May 5th 2014, the Supreme Court decided Greece v. Galloway, a landmark case about the right of prayer in government assemblies. Both sides of the argument invoked the First Amendment to make their case, but who is right and why? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings this issue to the forefront with opposing counsels Douglas Laycock, for the respondents, and David Cortman, for the petitioner. Together, they discuss the relative merits of their cases, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. Tune in to hear more about the future of legislative prayer and your First Amendment rights. Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court. David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Due out this week is the 10th edition of Black's Law Dictionary. With 16,000 new definitions, 900 new maxims, and terms dated back to their first English usage, Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition is touted to be the most comprehensive and relevant collection of legal terminology to date. But what goes into making this legal reference and how does it stay relevant in today's world? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Black's Law Dictionary's editor-in-chief Professor Bryan A. Garner. Together they discuss the army of 300 professionals and scholars who deciphered true meanings from historic documents, ancient language, and modern usage. Tune in to hear Garner describe what goes into updating Black's and why he believes attorneys will continue to use it for generations to come. Bryan A. Garner is a U.S. lawyer, lexicographer, and teacher who has written several books about English usage and style, including Garner's Modern American Usage and Elements of Legal Style. He has served as editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary since 1995, and coauthored two books with Justice Antonin Scalia: Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, and Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Professor Garner is a prolific lecturer, having taught more than 2,500 writing workshops since the 1991 founding of his company, LawProse, Inc., and he is a distinguished Research Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.

In its landmark 1963 decision Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court mandated the right to counsel in federal and state criminal proceedings. Fifty-one years after that unanimous decision, some question whether Gideon's promise has been fulfilled, as public defenders struggle against heavy caseloads, limited resources and low pay. On this episode of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Jonathan Rapping, founder of the Atlanta-based public defender training program Gideon's Promise, and Dawn Porter, director and producer of the documentary Gideon's Army. Together they discuss the daily rigors faced by public defenders in the south, their personal beliefs about unequal access to justice, and their ideas about how to better deliver on the promise of Gideon. Jonathan Rapping is the president and founder of Gideon's Promise, a training and support group for public defenders in the south aimed at creating greater access to justice for indigent defendants. He is also the director of the Honors Program in Criminal Justice at Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, where he teaches criminal law and criminal procedure. Rapping is the former director of public defender training programs in the District of Columbia, Georgia, and Louisiana. He is the recipient of the Lincoln Leadership Award from Kentucky's Department of Public Advocacy, the Sentencing Project Award from the National Association of Sentencing Advocates and Mitigation Specialists, and the Gideon's Promise Award from the Southern Center for Human Rights. Dawn Porter is a lawyer and the founder of Trilogy Films. She was the director and producer of the award-winning Gideon's Army, a documentary about public defenders associated with Gideon's Promise, which premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and aired on HBO Documentary Films. Prior to beginning her film and television career, Porter worked as an attorney at Baker and Hostetler and ABC Television Network. Among her many projects, she directed "Spies of Mississippi," a documentary on PBS about celebrity Chef Alexandra Guarnaschelli; produced "Serious Moonlight" starring Meg Ryan and Timothy Hutton; and produced "The Green," an independent feature starring Cheyenne Jackson (from 30 Rock) and Emmy-winning actress Julia Ormond. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.