Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

This is indeed the season for presenting awards. The ABA Silver Gavel Awards honor those in media and the arts that foster a better understanding of the law. All are invited to the Gavel Awards presentation at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on July 7 at 5:00 p.m. The event is preceded by a reception and registration is required [http://www.abanet.org/publiced/gavel/presentation.shtml

Here are the event details sent to us by the ABA:

Event Details Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:00 – 6:30 P.M.

Catherine Lemann, President of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) has announced the winners of the 2010 AALL awards that will be presented at the AALL Annual Meeting in Denver. These awards provide recognition to achievements of law librarians based on services to the library profession and contributions to legal literature and materials. AALL is to be commended for this Awards Program. We offer our congratulations to all the winners.

Here is a list of the AALL Awards and nmes of the recipients::

The Marian Gould Gallagher Distinguished Service Award

On October 1, 2009 I posted an appalant brief for U.S.A v. Justin K. Dorvee on this blog. The Brief was prepared by Paul F. Angioletti, attorney for the defendant-appellant.

Mr. Angioletti has now informed me that the Court of Appeals Second Circuit issued an opinion on the Dorvee appeal on May 11, 2010. In this posting we are including a paragraph from the Second Circuit decision which summarizes the conclusion that the sentence imposed on Dorvee by the District Court was “substantively unreasonable”, therefore vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the District Court for resentencing.;

EXCERPT FROM OPINION:

According to George Prager, Head of Cataloging at the NYU Law Library, the examples offered by the Library of Congress illustrate differences between Anglo American Cataloging Rules Second Edition (AACR2 )and Resource Description and Access (RDA). Some examples have only a few fields; others are more complete. Some are made-up examples. Some examples illustrate more than one category but only appear in one category. RDA citations and other comments accompany some examples.

To see the various categories of examples offered, with commentary, go to:

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdaexamples.html

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
May 31 – June 4, 2010.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 01, 2010 Carr v. US, No. 08–1301 The Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of defendant’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in Indiana under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is reversed where 18 U.S.C. section 2250 did not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA’s effective date.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 01, 2010 Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08–1470 In a murder prosecution, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where the state court’s decision rejecting petitioner’s Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s more deferential standard of review because petitioner’s silence during his interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 02, 2010 US v. Roa-Medina, No. 08-2490 District court’s denial of defendant’s motion to modify his sentence of 72-months for crack and other drug related offenses is affirmed where: 1) defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that was “based on a sentencing range” of 120 months to 135 months, and his reduced sentence represented a 40% deviation from the bottom of that range; and 2) defendant’s sentencing range has not been “lowered” within the meaning of section 3582(c)(2).
Continue reading

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
May 31 – June 4, 2010.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 01, 2010 Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., No. 09–223 In an action by independent natural gas marketers (IMs) who offered to sell natural gas to Ohio consumers against the Ohio Tax Commissioner (Commissioner), alleging discriminatory taxation of IMs and their patrons in violation of the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s dismissal of the action is reversed where, under the comity doctrine, a taxpayer’s complaint of allegedly discriminatory state taxation, even when framed as a request to increase a competitor’s tax burden, must proceed originally in state court.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 03, 2010 Chaparro v. Ruiz-Hernandez, No. 08-1989 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by a group of twenty-two contract employees against a Puerto Rican municipality and its officers, a grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of continued employment; 2) a one-year term of employment with Puerto Rican government bodies is generally considered a protected property interest for procedural due process purposes; and 3) defendants’ claim that plaintiffs were not deprived of protected property interests without due process of law because the process Puerto Rico provided was adequate is rejected.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 04, 2010 Harrington v. Cty. of Suffolk, No. 09-3911 In an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 asserting that defendants deprived plaintiffs of a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause by conducting an inadequate investigation into their son’s fatal traffic accident, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiffs had no property interest in an adequate police investigation.
Continue reading

Jaclyn McKewan, Virtual Services and Training Librarian at the Western New York Library Resources Council in Buffalo writes:”People not picking up instant messages is continuing to be a problem, so I created a 7-minute Camtasia video that shows people what to do when they get that message on the screen saying “New IM has arrived.” It covers receiving the message, sending, and a bit of info on transferring patrons. I originally created it for our Ask Us 24/7 librarians, but figured that everyone else may find it useful as well”

Actually Jaclyn is being very modest regarding her efforts. As important as the Instant Messaging component is it is only a small part of this fine resource that she has created. Areas covered include receiving and sending instant messages (IM), finding articles online, finding books online, reference sources, and search techniques. It is a multi-featured resource, useful to all librarians (both experienced and inexperienced) involved in any type of virtual reference and research. After reviewing her material I contacted Jaclyn and am posting it here with her permission.

David Badertscher

In an earlier posting on this blog we reported that on February 23, 2010 a divided Panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, New York Supreme Court ruled in People v. Correa (2010 NY Slip Op. 01533) that the 2004 merger of the criminal courts in the Bronx into a single court with jurisdiction to handle both felonies and misdemeanors is unconstitutional. That Appellate Division ruling has now been overturned by the New York Court of Appeals in a single 6-0 opinion on June 3, 2010 that decided three cases–People v. Correa, People v. Fernandez, and People v. Mack, upholding administrative experiments that have New York State Supreme Court judges presiding over misdemeanor cases as well as felonies within a merged Bronx Supreme Court Criminal Division and an Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court in Brooklyn.

The high court’s ruling regarding IDV Courts also applies to 44 other IDV Courts throught the State of New York. that centralizes the handling of all aspects of domestic disputes, including criminal charges, in one court. The judges noted that neither the New York Constitution nor its statutes call into question the legality of either court addressed in this opinion.

See also the following articles which discuss this New York Court of Appeals opinion and its implications:

Contact Information