vol. 54, no. 3

aclu news

NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO. 4424

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Volume LIV

May 1990

No. 3

A Stay of Execution

t 6 PM Eastern Daylight Time on

A April 2, the United States

Supreme Court upheld a stay of

execution for Robert Alton Harris, thus

averting - at what was truly the eleventh

hour - the first scheduled execution in

California in 23 years.

On February 6, San Diego Superior

Court had set the execution date for April

3. A few weeks later, citing commuter

traffic complications, the warden of San

Quentin set the hour of the execution for

3:00 AM - he was planning the first

night execution in the prison's long

history.

The ghoulish hour and date of the im-

pending execution brought national and

international attention to California -

where the difficult legal, moral and politi-

cal questions of the death penalty were

placed urgently on the agenda.

As the media descended on northern

California, voices from the abolitionist

movement - which has a long history in

the state - began to be widely heard for

the first time in many years. Opponents of

capital punishment from Death Penalty

Focus, the ACLU and Amnesty

International held a round-the-clock vigil

outside the gates of San Quentin. They

were joined by religious leaders who were

arrested at the prison gates and who spoke

from their pulpits against the execution. A

procession of mourners dressed in black

and carrying 121 coffins - representing

Hundreds of death penalty opponents massed outside the gates of San Quentin on April 2, waiting to hear the news of the U.S.

Supreme Court's ruling on the stay of execution. The vigil was organized by ACLU-NC Board member Nancy Pemberton.

Vigil participants were prepared to stay until the hour of the execution to voice their opposition to capital punishment.

Pat Greenhouse/The Tribune

the number of people who have been exe-

cuted in the United States since the mora-

torium was lifted in 1976 - filed across

the Golden Gate Bridge on March 31. At

the ACLU, four buses were hired to ac-

commodate the growing number of peo-

ple who wanted to bear witness by joining

the mass vigil outside the gates of San

Quentin on the night of the scheduled

execution.

Court Upholds S.F.

Gay Rights Ordinance

ordinance survived a serious chal-

lenge on April 6 when San

Francisco Superior Court Judge Ira Brown

Jr. upheld the ordinance which bars dis-

crimination based on sexual orientation in

employment, housing and public accom-

modation. Judge Brown's decision re-

versed his own previous ruling of four

months earlier.

Passed in 1977, the ordinance became

a model for similar laws in Berkeley, Los

Angeles, and Oakland.

The ruling came in a suit filed by an

account representative who had worked for

ITT Worldcom for 13 years when the com-

pany merged with Western Union in 1987.

After the takeover, the employee worked

under a Western Union supervisor who,

according to the suit, embarked on a cam-

paign to harass the employee by making

derogatory remarks about gays, telling co-

workers that the employee was gay, and

ordering the man to take smaller, less prof-

itable and more time-consuming accounts.

The supervisor's harassment eventually

S an Francisco's pioneering gay rights

forced the account representative out of

his job.

After the employee sued, Western

Union moved to dismiss, claiming that the

state's Fair Employment and Housing Act

(FEHA) prevented cities from passing civ-

il rights laws and that the city ordinances

cannot be enforced by civil lawsuits.

Judge Brown at first agreed with

Western Union, but he allowed the em-

ployee to make a second attempt to defend

the ordinance. At that point, the ACLU-

NC joined the case as a friend of the

court. The City of San Francisco also

joined as amicus.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Matthew

Coles argued that the history of the FEHA

shows that the act only prohibits local

laws which cover the same kinds of dis-

crimination which state law covers.

"Since FEHA does not cover sexual orien-

tation discrimination," Coles explained,

"it does not prohibit cities from passing

ordinances.

"San Francisco should not be left pow-

Continued on page 8

Deadly governor's race

The most strident voices in the pro-

death penalty camp came from the guber-

natorial candidates. Attorney General

John Van De Kamp proudly announced

that he had set up eight teams of assistant

Attorneys General around the state to re-

spond to any and every legal tactic that

would be used to halt the execution. His

TV ad campaign began with a shot of

Death Row. Not to be outdone, candidate

Dianne Feinstein's TV ads began to role,

staking her claim as "the only Democratic

candidate who supports capital punish-

ment." Van De Kamp countered with al-

most daily press conferences announcing

his attempts to block Harris's appeals.

Governor George Deukmejian, who, as

a state Senator, had authored the death

penalty statute under which Harris was to

be executed and who, as Attomey

General, had overseen the prosecution of

the Harris case, planned to sit as the emi-

nence gris at the March 27 clemency hear-

ing. Van De Kamp himself was to argue

the case for putting Harris in the gas

chamber, and the proceedings were to be

televised live from inside San Quentin.

Charging that such a hearing would be a

media circus and a sham, Harris asked that

the clemency hearing be canceled.

The night before the scheduled clem-

ency hearing, Nobel Peace Prize winner

Continued on page 6

the June 1990 state ballot.

process and equal protection.

article p. 6

traditionally opposed.

ACLU-NC Ballot Card

The ACLU-NC takes the following ae on measures on

Proposition 107 - YES

- Housing and Homeless Bond Act which will ensure due

Proposition 115 - NO r%, NO!

- Threatens California constitutional rights to

choice, privacy, and criminal justice; and see

Proposition 114

- This measure would expand the use of the death penalty.

Proposition 120 - NO

- Another prison bond measure which the ACLU has

ON PROPOSITION

NO

(a ee ee ee ee ee

bof

aclu news

may 1990

Choice Threatened by Prop. 115, State Bills

On the Ballot

: harging that Proposition 115, the

C Pete Wilson-sponsored June bal-

lot initiative known as the Crime

Victims' Justice Reform Act, could seri-

ously endanger the right to choose an

abortion, Californians for Privacy held a

series of press conferences around the

state on April 16 announcing broad oppo-

sition to the measure.

At each press conference, Californians

for Privacy, a committee of labor, legal,

civil rights, medical, and women's rights

groups formed to defeat Proposition 115,

unveiled a 30-second television ad focus-

ing on the initiative's threat to reproduc-

tive rights.

The script of the ads reads in part,

"Since Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion extre-

mists have waged a campaign of intimida-

tion and terror against a woman's right to -

choose. Now their campaign is taking a

dangerous turn. Proposition 115...what's

inside it - hidden provisions that extre-

mists can use to outlaw abortion."

Speaking at the San Francisco press

conference, ACLU-NC Executive

- Director Dorothy Ehrlich explained,

"Because Proposition 115 removes

Califomia's independent right of privacy

as it pertains to criminal cases, a number

of authorities believe that abortion could

be recriminalized in California should the

United States Supreme Court overrule "

Roe. v. Wade."

Also speaking at the press conference

were Charlotte Newhart of the American

~ College of Obstetricians . and

Gynecologists and Helen Grieco of San

Francisco NOW, two of the many organi-

zations that oppose the initiative. Other

groups which oppose Proposition 115 in-

clude American Association of University

Women, American' Federation of

Teachers, Planned Parenthood Affiliates

of California, and California Trial

Lawyers Association.

"While we have compassion for the

trauma of crime victims in California,".

said NOW's Grieco, "surely it was not

their intent to victimize all Californians.

We must support the right of choice and

vote no on 115."

Privacy right in danger

Unlike its federal counterpart, the

California Constitution expressly protects

the right to privacy in Article 1, Section

1. California's explicit right to privacy,

added by the voters in 1972, is far broad-

er than the implied right to privacy con-

tained in the U.S. Constitution.

In numerous cases, California courts

have emphasized the independent force

and vitality of such rights. The California

right to privacy protects a range of repro-

ductive rights including abortion, contra-

ception, childbirth, access to sterilization

and freedom from coerced sterilization.

"The California right to privacy is in-

dependent of the federal right to privacy

recognized in Roe v. Wade," Ehrlich said.

"This state right is of critical importance,

since the U.S. Supreme Court could over-

rule Roe at any time.

"Last July's Webster decision indi-

cates that a majority of the current

Supreme Court no longer agrees with Roe.

It is widely felt that the Court is waiting

for a better case than Webster to dilute or

destroy Roe's federal constitutional pro-

tection for reproductive freedom," Ehrlich

added.

If Roe v. Wade were overruled,

California women's fundamental right to

make decisions about pregnancy would be

protected only by the state constitutional

right to privacy. "Proposition 115 throws

that protection into doubt, because it in-

structs California courts to interpret the

state right to privacy no more broadly than

the federal right in criminal cases,"

Ehrlich said. .

California's Therapeutic Abortion Act

is still on the books. Under this pre-

existing law, the vast majority of abor-

tions performed in a clinic would be a fel-

ony both for the woman and her doctor.

In the Legislature

edi-Cal funding for abortion is

M the single most important legis-

lative item in Sacramento this

term facing pro-choice activists. Once

again, the Governor's proposed budget re-

stricts funding for abortion to cases of

rape, incest, life endangerment, severe

congenital abnormality and _ teenagers

whose parents are notified. While the eli-

gibility criteria in the 1990-91 Budget Act

language is virtually identical to previous

years, several provisions have been in-

cluded which the Legislature has never

before enacted. The proposed changes,

such as the requirement for burdensome

documentation, could be problematic for

abortion providers.

"While the number of pro-choice, pro-

funding legislators has increased since

last year, it is imperative that pro-choice

activists at the grassroots level call, write

rights.

A S severe anti-choice measures from Guam (still

pending) and Idaho (vetoed by the Governor) hit

the headlines over the past month, pro-choice advocates

in California have been working to prevent the passage

of state measures which threaten women's reproductive

In the streets as well as in the Legislature, the ACLU-NC Pro-Choice Action

Campaign fights for every woman's right to choose.

Aileen Hernandez

Thus, if Roe v. Wade were overturned

and Proposition 115 passes, California

courts could decide that old penal laws

criminalizing abortion are still valid.

Abortion could become a felony offense,

subject only to whatever new rules the "

U.S. Supreme Court might devise and

subject to the remaining provisions of the

Health and Safety Code.

The ACLU is encouraging all mem-

bers and supporters to protect the right to

choice and oppose Proposition 115.

(See more on Prop. 115 on p. 6).

and meet with their legislators in their dis-

tricts," said ACLU-NC Pro-Choice Action

Campaign Chair Dick Grosboll.

"The message to legislators should be

clear: being pro-choice includes voting for

full and unrestricted funding for Medi-Cal

abortions," he added.

Even though the new political winds i in

`Sacramento seem to favor the pro-choice

position, four anti-choice bills were intro-

duced in this legislative session. The bills,

dealing with fetal tissue research, sex se-

lection, late abortions and hospital em-

ployee notices, are significant in that they

signal new and circuitous ways to attack

abortion rights. The ACLU opposed all

the measures, which include:

AB 2829 - Seastrand: `This measure

would have prohibited the use of any em-

bryo or fetus, including tissue or organ,

that is obtained from an induced abortion

for research in animals or human beings

or for transplantation into animals or hu-

mans. The anti-choice movement, here

and in other states, is using such bills to

elevate the status of a fetus.

Fetal tissue has been vital for medical

research, including the discovery of the

Salk polio vaccine. New and promising

cures for childhood diabetes, Parkinson's

and Alzheimer's disease would be

thwarted if fetal tissue bans were

implemented.

This bill was soundly defeated in the

Assembly Health Committee on March

27 after strong opposition from a wide

variety from medical research profession-

als and groups.

AB 3792 - Wyman: This bill would

prohibit anyone from performing an abor-

tion solely for the purpose of sex selec-

tion; it provides for civil penalties against

the doctor performing the abortion.

This type of ban is the first of a num-

ber of proposed restrictions that force

women to justify their reasons for having

abortions and presents a direct challenge

to Roe v. Wade which prohibits regula-

tion of abortion in early pregnancy.

The bill is pending a hearing in the

Assembly Health Committee.

SB 2524 - Davis: The proposed leg-

islation would limit abortions after 24

weeks, except in cases of life endanger-

ment, profound fetal abnormality or in

cases where the fetus is not viable. It

creates a felony for doctors who perform

abortions after the 24-week deadline. The

bill would repeal the California

Therapeutic Abortion Act and would en-

act the Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Such a measure presumes the fetus is

viable after 24 weeks and grants the fetus

the status of a separate life entitled to le-

gal protection by the state. Viability var-

ies from pregnancy to pregnancy, and an

attending physician thus needs discretion

to determine when viability occurs.

Twenty-four weeks is an artificial dead-

line which has no medical basis.

The bill was defeated 5-0 on April 18

in the Senate Health and Human Services

Committee, but Senator Ed Davis has in-

dicated that he may reintroduce the bill

next year.

AB 4274 - Ferguson: This measure

extends the sunset date for a provision in

current law requiring all facilities in

which abortions are performed to post a

notice on employee bulletin boards in-

forming specified health personnel that

state law allows them to refuse to partici- .

pate in abortions if they are morally op-

Continued on page 3

Abortion Rights Factsheet

The ACLU-NC has just published an updated version of our popular fact-

sheet After Webster: Reproductive Rights in California. This two-page factsheet

explains the current laws on reproductive rights in the state of California and

explains how you can get involved in the fight to protect every woman's right

to choose. These facts at your fingertips are useful for speakers, Os

and all those working in the pro-choice movement.

The design and layout of the factsheet was donated by P.B. ue of

Desktop Publishing Specialists of San Francisco.

Send your request to:

Pro-Choice Action Campaign

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street #460

San Francisco, CA 94103.

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July, August-

September and November-December.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor

Marcia Gallo, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Typography

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor -

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2488

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news and

50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Court Upholds

Mandatory HIV Tests

Under Prop. 96

n a lengthy opinion issued on March

20, the California Court of Appeal up-

held the constitutionality of

Proposition 96, the initiative passed by the

voters in November 1988 which mandates

HIV testing for certain arrestees. The law,

which went into effect on January 1, 1989,

says that a person accused of interfering

with a law enforcement officer, firefighter,

or emergency medical worker can be test-

ed if there is reason to think "bodily

fluids" were transfered from the accused.

"We hold that with regard to public

safety employees suffering subcutaneous

bites in the course of their - duties,

Proposition 96's mandatory scheme of

blood testing does not violate the Fourth

Amendment or the California right to pri-

vacy," the court stated.

In the same opinion, however, the

court recognized that HIV testing of an ac-

cused person may not be reliable: "We can

only hope that assaulted public safety em-

ployees, properly medically advised, will

realize the sense of security from a biter's

negative test is elusive and will submit

themselves for AIDS testing."

"When it is all boiled down, the deci-

sion says that its is okay to force test peo-

ple in order to calm the irrational fears of

police officers," said ACLU-NC staff at-

torney Matthew Coles. "That doesn't

leave much to the Fourth Amendment."

Coles and ACLU cooperating attorneys

Rochelle Alpert, Ruth Borenstein and

Frank McGuire of Morrison and Foerster

and ACLU-SC staff attorney Jon

Davidson participated in the case from the

Start as amicus.

In January 1989, Johnetta Johson ap-

peared at a court hearing in San Francisco

where she was denied custody of her

child. Johnson allegedly bit Deputy

Sheriff Evelyn Parkell as the deputy at-

tempted to remove her from the court-

room. Johnson was subsequently charged

with biting the deputy sheriff who then

asked the Municipal Court for an order re-

quiring Johnson to undergo a test for HIV

(the virus which causes AIDS.)

The deputy sheriff's petition was one

of the first filed under Proposition 96.

Johnson was represented by Public

Defender Grace Suarez.

Medical experts

The ACLU's team of lawyers put to-

gether a set of comprehensive swom state-

ments from some of the leading AIDS

researchers and clinicians in the nation.

According to Coles, "Public health of-

ficials say that HIV is spread in three

ways: through unprotected sexual inter-

course, through blood, and from a mother

to an unborn child. Since the AIDS epi-

demic started almost a decade ago, there

has not been a single case of HIV trans-

mission through biting.

"Since saliva does not transmit HIV,

one person biting another creates no real

risk of infection," Coles said.

The ACLU argued that the proposed

test violated the Fourth Amendment prohi-

bition against unreasonable search and sei-

zure. "The woman will be forced to have a

test without any showing that there is

probable cause to believe that she engaged

in conduct that may have exposed the dep-

uty sheriff to the AIDS virus," said attor-

ney Borenstein.

The court did not disagree with the

medical evidence on how the virus is

transmitted. However, it said that despite

the minimal possibility of transmission,

test results would "`...diminish the officer's

anxiety, a factor pertinent to treatment."

No confidentiality

The ACLU attorneys were also ex-

tremely concerned about the lack of confi-

dentiality about the test results.

"According to Proposition 96, the results

go to the head of the facility where the ac-

cused is detained and to its chief medical

officer," explained McGuire. "The stat-

ute's half-hearted attempts to prevent

more widespread disclosure of the test re-

sults are bound to fail as the deputy sheriff

is free to confide her concerns to family

members, fellow officers, or, indeed, any-

one at all," he added.

After San Francisco Municipal Court

Judge Perker Meeks granted the deputy

sheriff's request for the blood test in

February 1989, Johnson asked the Court

of Appeal to overturn his order. In March

1989, the Court of Appeal issued an order

saying that Johnson could be tested, but

that the result had to be placed under court

seal and "kept in strictest confidence" dur-

ing the appeal process. Johnson took the

test the following day.

The appellate court later ordered Judge

Meeks to hold an evidentiary hearing on

whether blood as well as saliva was trans-

ferred during the biting, and whether the

AIDS virus can be transmitted through

saliva.

On January 11, a three-judge panel of

the Court of Appeal held a 45-minute oral

argument on the constitutionality of the

law.

Anti-Choice Bills ...

Continued from page 2

posed to the procedure and the opposition

is on record in writing. The current law

will sunset in 1991 and this bill would ex-

tend the repeal date to January 1, 1997.

Pro-choice advocates oppose this meas-

ure as abortion is the only medical proce-

dure that is being singled out where

employees are given the option to decline

to participate in a medical procedure.

The measure passed the Assembly

Health Committee on April 17 and is now

headed for the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee.

The ACLU-NC Pro-Choice Action

Campaign meets monthly at the ACLU-

NC office (see Calendar p. 8).

On Friday, May 18 you are invited

to join pro-choice activists from other

organizations as part of a Special

District Lobby Day for full Medi-Cal

funding for abortion in the 1990 state

budget. Visit your state representatives

"at home" in their district offices in

your community.

Contact ACLU-NC Field

Representative Marcia Gallo at 415/

621-2493 to sign up. The next meeting

of the Pro-Choice Action Campaign will

feature a briefing on legislative issues

on Tuesday, May 15, 6:30 PM at the

ACLU-NC Office.

ee Si Lt

aan en een

aclu news

may 1990 3

nanan

7 Liberties

i0x2122m.in the gos

GET THE PUNISHMENT

-Can Free Speech and Equal

Opportunity Co-Exist.on Our

_ Campuses?

"LNAWHSINAd FHL 139 TWLIdVO FHL LNOHIIM ASOHL ONT AHL dOLS

Waa ae a:

Sunday brea

Dorm room $9

puble-ecentcupancy)

MONEY FOR AIDS NOT FOR WAR...KEEP ABORTION LEGAL

LONITHY FHL dOLS G31V3490 39 Y3A

YES! Sign me up for the conference and send me

the complete program:

Name(s)

Address

City Zip

Phone (Day) (Eve)

Enclosed is a check or money order made out to

ACLU-NC Annual Conference for Registration(s)

Meals/Lodgings OR I

| : _______ Meals only i

TOTAL ENCLOSED $

i Return to : ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission, Suite 460, S.F., CA 94103 !

She U a ear ey Via

ING GIES SIIB IEs

L. Register early! Space is limited.

WHEEL euro HA IR

SEDI E SIU EE SEE E re AUO PMOL Sc Uk WEEP Mesa Uke Ee ea aa

Seb ele AANOW'"IN3 NS

Det Pl ACE eet Neel iee

aclu news

may 1990

The Stay of Execution

A Forceful Argument -

The following are excerpts from the pe-

tition for writ of habeas corpus filed on be-

half of Robert Harris by his attorneys

Charles Sevilla, Michael McCabe and

Michael Laurence.

r I he bedrock facts are crumbling in

Robert Harris's case. The State's

version of why Mr. Harris commit-

ted the murders is - we now know and

can enumerate - as far from the truth as

"night from day. The State's witness created

the false impression, and the State's provi-

sion of experts for Mr. Harris, who could

not afford to retain his own experts, was il-

lusory. In a case that cried out for the assis-

tance of competent experts - who could

see beneath the veneer of Mr. Harris's

. "meanness" and reveal the confused, an-

guished soul of a man whose parents' vio-

lence destroyed much of his life's potential

in infancy and set him adrift, rudderless, in

a turbulent social sea - there was no

expert.

The single most important issue in both

phases of Mr. Harris's capital trial was why

he did what he did. What he did does not

appear to be in serious controversy.

In the prosecutor's universe, all the

events that followed the crime - the

jokes, the consumption of the victims'

food, the continuing participation in vio-

lence and threats of violence in the jail, the

lying - provided powerful corroboration

that Mr. Harris was the very kind of person

"with a cold and calculating heart," that

had to be convicted and sentenced to death.

Despite defense counsel's heartfelt

plea, he was not able to provide evidence

ACLU-NC Death Penalty Project Director Michael Laurence was part of the team

of attorneys who succeeded in convincing the federal courts to issue a stay of

execution and examine new evidence in the Harris case.

Union Maid Photos

to counter the state's theory. There was no

explanation why Robert's abuse led him

to be this way when countless other chil-

dren overcame similar environments and

did not become violent, homicidal, uncar-

ing persons.

This fatal gap in Mr. Harris's defense

was not inevitable. There was an explana-

tion, which linked Robert's history of pre-

natal, postnatal, and childhood abuse to

his behavior as an adult, but because none

of the experts who evaluated Mr. Harris

(

n March 30, U.S. Court of

Appeals Judge John Noonan is-

sued a decision ordering a cer-

tificate of probable cause and a stay of

execution for Robert Alton Harris.

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich praised Judge Noonan for his

decision blocking the Harris execution

despite overwhelming pressure from

outside the court: "He is a judge will-

ing to believe in the Constitution in-

stead of the public opinion polls."

Below are excerpts from Judge

Noonan' s opinion:

The issue before this court is not the

rightness or the wrongness of the death

penalty or its wisdom or unwisdom or

its constituionality or unconstitutionali-

ty. It is our ultimate task to decide

whether the petitioner's rights under the

Constitution of the United States have

been violated.

Harris presents by affidavit the opin-

ions of a reputable clinical psychologist

and a reputable psychiatrist that psychi-

atric help given him at the penalty

phase was incompetent. He was entitled

to competent assistance.

Psychiatric testimony is typically a

battle of experts. The battle is one-sided

if the defendant has no competent psy-

chiatric witness on his side.

If Harris was denied competent psy-

chiatric assistance, he was denied a fed-

eral constitutional right of due process

law.

The district court held that the issue

should have been raised in one of the

two previous petitions for habeas cor-

pus. The answer made by Harris is that

A "Courageous" Decision

Judge John T. Noonan

As the Constitution

stands, the federal

courts are committed to

a process in which

speed is sacrificed to

thoughtful examination,

and rough and ready

justice for heinous

crimes has been re-

placed by deliberate ex-

amination and

dispassionate review.

the State denied him funds for the

kinds of tests that now have raised the

issue of competency of psychiatric

help he received from the State in

1979. Only the volunteering of funds

by his lawyers after the filing of the

second federal petition has produced

the evidence that is the basis for his

claim.

It is understandable that those

charged with the responsibility of de-

fending the state's interests should

now be insistent that the punishment

imposed on the petitioner take place.

But the years of litigation are not the

fault of the petitioner, nor are they at-

tributable to manipulation by his law-

yers. In the petitions for habeas corpus

whose adjudication has taken so much

time the petitioner presented not frivo-

lous, not unsubstantial, but serious

questions whose resolution required

argument, research, analysis and de-

liberation. It was the state's own inter-

`est in constitutional process that was

protected in the resolution of those

questions. If the state's interest in ex-

acting the penalty is again postponed

it is in vindication of the state and fed-

eral interest that no one be put to

death without due process of law.

Such a process under our prece-

dents has made speedy justice diffi-

cult. If speedy justice in capital cases

is a desideratum, we should amend the

Constitution to make it attainable. As

the Constitution stands, the federal

courts are committed to a process in

which speed is sacrificed to thoughtful

examination, and rough and ready jus-

tice for heinous crimes has been re-

placed by deliberate examination and

dispassionate review.

conducted an adequate, evaluation, de-

fense counsel did not know what it was.

Long before his involvement in the |

murders in this case; Robert Harris was

severely disabled by those interrelated

mental disorders and by the psychological

effects of unrelenting abuse and scape-

goating during his childhood.

The disorder of longest duration is

Fetal Alcohol Effects, which developed as

the result of Mr. Harris's mother's regular

consumption of alcohol while she was

pregnant with him.

The- second source. 1s _ Organic

Personality Disorder, frontal lobe type. It

was produced by "early childhood head

trauma," by one or more of the many

blows to Robert's head by his parents.

The third serious disorder is Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder, stemming

from his extraordinary history of recurrent

and unremitting childhood abuse.

Together, these disorders have severe-

ly impaired Mr. Harris's ability to func-

tion in fundamental ways: he has only

limited access to the tools of rationality

that all of us take for granted in living

goal-directed, thoughtful lives in which

we exert a fair degree of control over

what we do, when we do it and why we

do it.

All of Robert Harris's actions...were

filtered through a brain that had been

damaged by a sea of alcohol in utero and

by fists and weapons wielded against him

by his parents in early childhood. His

"plan" was driven by impulse, without the

mediation of that part of the brain capable

of reflecting upon and weighing alterna-

tive courses of action in appreciation of

the social fabric in which action takes

place.

Thus the hallmarks of his intercon-

nected disabilities - emotional liability,

impaired rational control processes, ina-

bility to rely on instinctive guidance by

social norms, and emotional distance from

other human beings - were, when un-

masked, the hallmarks of Mr. Harris's

crimes. Thus, the true answer to why he

committed this crime could not have been

more different from the answer given by

the State at trial.

Without the evidence that Robert

Harris has brain damage, organic person-

ality disorder, fetal alcohol effects and

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the jury

which convicted him and sentenced him

to death was thus fundamentally misled.

Had the jury known instead that multiple,

severe physical and emotional disabilities,

not a "cold and calculating heart," pro-

duced Robert's repugnant behaviors, it

would not, in all reasonable likelihood,

have convicted Robert of capital murde

or condemned him to die.

The Next Steps

On May 14, the three judge

panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of _

Appeals, consisting of Judges

John Noonan, Melvin Brunetti and

Arthur Alarcon, will hold a hear-

ing to determine whether the U.S. |

District Court erred in summarily

denying Harris's petition for habe-

as corpus.

Harris's attorneys are request-

ing that an evidentiary hearing be

held in District Court to examine

the new evidence. They are also

asking, in order to allow Harris a

fair hearing, that the case be as-

signed to a new District Court

judge because of Judge Enright's

appearance of impropriety and

prejudgment. .

aclu news

may 1990 5

ACLU, Civil Rights Groups Call

for Repeal of Employer Sanctions

eacting to the findings of the fed-

R eral General Accounting Office

released on March 30, the ACLU

and other civil rights organizations called

on Congress to repeal the employer sanc-

tions provisions of the 1986 Immigration

Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The

GAO report concluded that the sanctions

provision of the law has caused a wide-

spread pattern of discrimination against

citizens based on national origin and

against legally-authorized aliens on the

basis of citizenship status.

As a result of the GAO finding of dis-

crimination, Congress is required to de-

cide within 30 days whether employer

sanctions should be repealed. "We are

now calling on Congress to follow up the

requirements of the 1986 law and repeal

the sanctions," said ACLU-NC staff attor-

ney Alan Schlosser speaking at a San

Francisco press conference along with

other representatives of the Coalition for

Immigrant and Refugee Rights and

Services. :

Under IRCA, employers are required

to document the status of all new employ-

ees, including citizens. The GAO report

found that as a result of the law, employ-

ers were discriminating against citizens

-and other other authorized workers who

looked or sounded "foreign" and were re-

fusing to hire aliens who are legally enti-

tled to work.

The GAO study was required by IRCA

because of concern expressed by the

ACLU and other civil and immigrant

rights organizations when it was originally

The GAO report concludes that `foreign looking" workers are subject to _

widespread employment discrimination because of the employer sanctions provision

of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

David Bacon

debated in Congress that employer sanc-

tions would result in a significant increase

in discrimination against persons who did

not fit an employer's stereotype of an

American citizen.

In November, the ACLU and the

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Education Fund issued a report that docu-

mented dozens of cases of individuals who

were denied employment or improperly

fired from their jobs because of the dis-

crimination resulting from IRCA.

Numerous similar reports by the United

States Civil Rights Commission, the New

York Bar Association, and in the Bay Area

by the Coalition for Immigrant and

Refugee Rights and Services drew the

same conclusion.

Harry Britt, President of the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors, endorsed

the groups' efforts to repeal the employer

sanctions law stating that in San Francisco

the law has resulted in unlawful discrimi-

nation against Latinos and Asians, many

of whom are U.S. citizens.

Employer sanctions have been a fail-

ure," noted Schlosser. "Now that the the

GAO has confirmed in unequivocal form

that sanctions have caused enormous

amounts of new discirmination, it is time

to end that requirement. For the first time

ever, Congress has enacted a law that

created discrimination rather than trying to

reduce it," he added.

National ID card

Lucas Guttentag, Director of the na-

tional ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project,

warned that the GAO report may trigger

the implementation of a national worker

identification card. However, he noted, the

GAO reports found that discrimination

against workers often occurs long before

prospective employees are asked to docu-

ment their status.

"That conclusion shows there is no jus-

tification for creating a system of universal

worker identification cards," charged Gut-

tentag.

"A national identity card program

would be another counterproductive and

costly experiment that would violate the

privacy rights of all persons, which this

country can ill afford to try." Schlosser

added, "The ACLU must unequivocally

oppose the creation of a national identity

card. Such a system would do nothing to

combat much of the discrimination docu-

mented by the GAO. Yet such a card

would require the federal government to

verify the status of every single worker in

the United States, to establish a centralized (c)

federal data bank, and to make the infor-

mation in it available to employers all over

the country."

The March 1990 report is the third and

final report of the GAO on the impact of

the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

harging that the employer sanc-

C tions provision of the 1986

Immigration Reform and Control

Act (IRCA) violates the religious liberty

of a Quaker organization and its staff

members, the ACLU-NC joined a score of

civil rights organizations in an amici brief

_ Challenging that provision of the law.

The brief in American Friends Service

Committee Corporation vy. Thornburgh

was filed on March 5 in the U.S. Court of

Appeals. In addition to the ACLU-NC, the 0x00B0

brief was signed by the American-Arab

Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Asian

Law Caucus, League of United Latin

American Citizens, Japanese American

Citizens League, National Conference of

Black Lawyers, and numerous other civil

and minority rights organizations.

Shortly after the new immigration law.

was implemented, the American Friends

Service Committee (AFSC) and several of

its members in administrative positions,

challenged IRCA's employer sanctions

provision in U.S. District Court in Los

Angeles.

The organization, which has a long his-

tory of advocating for and assisting immi-

_ grants and refugees, claimed that if its

administrators had to scrutinize the docu-

mentation of employees and to refuse em-

ployment to those without adequate

- documentation, they would be violating a

central tenet of their Quaker faith.

"Our faith recognizes the sacredness

and equality of all human life," said

Stephen G. Cary, Chairperson of the

AFSC Board. "Such action would force us.

to visit hunger and deprivation on undocu-

mented workers."

In August 1989, U.S. District Court

Judge James M. Ideman dismissed the

suit. The judge stated that because

Congress has plenary authority over immi-

gration, application of IRCA to religious

groups should be upheld unless it is "total-

ly irrational." Judge Ideman concluded

that employer sanctions discourage illegal

immigration, and the law is thus not whol-

ly irrational. In addition, the court ruled

that the government has a compelling in-

terest in refusing to grant an exemption to

religious organizations from IRCA re-

quirements because this would reactivate

f

Immigration Law Violates

Quakers' Religious Rights

the so-called "magnet" of employment at-

tracting illegal immigrants.

Rights at stake

The March amicus brief asks the Ninth

Circuit to reverse the lower court ruling,

arguing that the District Court erred in

failing to apply strict scrutiny to the

AFSC's First Amendment claims and, in

particular, in dismissing those claims

without a hearing on the merits. "If a ra-

tional relationship to a legitimate state in-

terest justifics legislation that abridges

fundamental First Amendment rights sim-

ply because such legislation arguably re-

lates to immigration, what justifies

applying a stricter standard when other

fundamental rights are at stake?" the ami-

ci brief asks.

"What would prevent Congress from

amending IRCA so that only Hispanics

must produce work-authorizations docu-

ments? Or from requiring members of mi-

nority groups to carry _ special

identification cards? If the First

Amendment places no restraints on gov-

emmental conduct puportedly pursuant to

the government's power to regulate bor-

ders, neither would the other provisions of

the Bill of Rights.

"The District Court's standard of re-

view would allow Congress to dispense

with the civil liberties of all persons under

the guise of immigration regulation. Such

a result conflicts directly with the cher-

ished principles of ordered liberty that are

protected by our Constitution," the amici

attorneys conclude.

In addition, the civil rights organiza-

tions argue that prosecution of employers

is not an effective way of controlling im-

migration since it does not address the

many forces that push people to emigrate

from war-torn and economically devastat-

ed countries. "The more pervasive the

poverty, hunger and homelessness in their

own countries, the less it takes to draw

them to the United States," the amici

argue.

"IRCA's strategy is to shatter the

dreams of a better life pulling these immi-

grants to America. What IRCA fails to

recognize is that even the shards of those

broken dreams may outshine the economic

blight and hopelessness most undocument-

ed workers face at home."

"Congress drafted a law that would al-

low employer sanctions only if they did

not result in employment discrimination,"

said ACLU-NC attorney Margaret Crosby.

"The brief cites an impressive array of

studies by the Government Accounting

Office. (GAO), _- Califomias . Fair

Employment and Housing Commission,

and other public and private agencies doc-

umenting serious discrimination because

of IRCA." (See accompanying story this

page.)

Charging that the documented discrim-

ination is "just the tip of the iceberg," the

friend of the court brief charges that

"IRCA is causing employment discrimina-

tion and fostering exploitation, contrary to

Congress' intent."

In calling for a reversal of the lower

court ruling and a hearing on the merits,

the amici conclude, "There is simply no

basis for concluding as a matter of law

that IRCA's purported immigration-

control interest outweighs the appellants'

fundamental civil libertics."

Complaint

Counselors

Complaint Desk Counselors duties

include screening phone calls for civil

liberties issues, giving information and

referrals to the public, and some peer

counseling. Volunteers must be able to

commit to staffing the Complaint

Desk one day a week for at least six

months, have a good telephone man-

ner, and a desire to work with the pub-

lic. Training will be provided by

experienced Complaint Counselors.

Contact: Lisa Maldonado, Com-

plaint Desk Coordinator, at 415/621-

2493.

Volunteers Needed

Volunteers with a deep commitment to the protection

of civil liberties are always welcome at the ACLU-NC!

" ing sources.

Library Researchers

The ACLU-NC has annual volun-

teer research positions available in the

Development Department, which rais-

es funds to support our litigation and

public education program.

Researchers are responsible for ex-

tensive biographical research on fund-

Volunteers for this position must.

be responsible, well-organized, detail-

oriented, able to handle confidential

materials, and have experience in li-

brary research. Flexible hours. Con-

tact: Jean Hom, Volunteer Coordinator,

at 415/621-2493.

ee

aclu news

may 1990

Z, NO!

ON PROPOSITION

The ACLU-NC is calling on all mem-

bers and supporters to actively oppose

Proposition 115. ACLU-NC Executive

Director Dorothy Ehrlich characterized

the ballot initiative as "representing one

of the most regrettable trends in American

history - exploitation of the fear of

crime."

"If you read the so-called Crime

Victims Justice Reform Act, you won't

find anything that protects victims. But it

tells voters that if you vote yes, you're

against crime," Ehrlich said.

Vote NO on 115 -

Protect the California Constitution

Privacy and Proposition 115

The measure would amend the

California consitutional right to privacy in

criminal cases. The results:

- If Roe v. Wade is overturned by the

U.S. Supreme Court, women could be

prosecuted for obtaining an abortion.

Doctors and other health workers could be

prosecuted for performing abortions.

- Politicians could outlaw consensual

sexual activities even involving married

couples in the privacy of their own homes.

- It will become too easy for govern-

ment agents to obtain confidential medical

records.

- Government agents could spy on re-

ligious services under the guise of gather-

ing evidence.

- The right to freely circulate peti-

tions in public places could be severely re-

stricted, making it more difficult to qualify

voter initiatives and educate the public on

labor issues and other important issues.

Chaos and the Criminal Justice System

The sponsors of Proposition 115 are

hiding the real impact on our courts and

justice system. The impact includes:

- Elimination of most preliminary

hearings which will reduce the number of

guilty please and cause an estimate 300% -

increase in the number of criminal cases

which go to trial.

- Local governments will have to

spend millions of dollars to hire new de-

fense attorneys, build new courtrooms and

staff them to accomodate the increased

number Of trials.

- The use of hearsay evidence and se-

cret grand juries which oculd result in law-

abiding citizens being falsely accused of

crimes.

- Further overburden our court sys-

tem, potentially crowding out civil cases

such as divorce, child custody and support,

as well as personal injury accident cases.

- Limiting our California constitution-

al rights in criminal cases to those granted

by the federal government.

For more information on how you

can oppose Proposition 115, write to

Californians for Privacy, % ACLU-NC,

1663 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA

94103.

Stay of Execution ...

Continued from page 1

Mother Teresa called from India to ask the

Governor to grant clemency. In a five min-

ute conversation with the Governor, even

Mother Teresa was turned down.

Extraordinary legal effort

At the center of the storm, Harris's at-

torneys, Charles Sevilla and Michael

McCabe of San Diego and ACLU-NC

Death Penalty Project Director Michael

Laurence, raced against time to bring cru-

cial new evidence about Harris' mental

condition to the courts' attention (see ac-

companying story: A Forceful Argument).

The fact that Robert Harris has organic

brain disorder which made him incapable

of committing the capital crime for which

he was about to be put to death had never

been fully presented to the courts.

Although his attorneys had asked the

courts for many years to provide compe-

tent psychiatric evaluation, they had been

continually turned down. With the execu-

tion date looming, the attorneys had no

other choice but to reach into their own

pockets to provide funds for the psychiat-

ric and psychological testing which was so

crucial to Harris's defense.

After compiling the evidence and argu-

ments in several all night sessions,

Harris's attorneys filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court in

San Diego on March 26. After three tense

days of waiting for a response, Judge

William Enright turned down the request.

After another overnight session, Sevilla,

McCabe and Laurence brought an appeal

to the three-judge panel of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeal on the morning of

March 30. They were told to fly back up

to San Francisco for a 2:30 PM hearing

before Judge John T.Noonan that same

day.

As the regular Ninth Circuit courtroom

was still under repair from the October

earthquake, arguments were held in the

Federal Building courtroom. The court-

room was packed with reporters and death

penalty opponents, perched anxiously on

the edge of the long wooden pews.

Tense hearing

Judge Noonan, sitting alone, an-

nounced at the beginning of the hearing, "I

have been designated the lead judge on the

three-judge panel assigned to the case. The

lead judge has the authority to issue a cer-

tificate of probable cause and a stay of ex-

ecution." A reporter nodded encouragingly

at ACLU staff members in the row behind

her.

Judge Noonan heard arguments from

Sevilla and McCabe about the importance

of the new psychiatric evaluation. He chas-

tised Assistant Attorney General Louis

Hanoian for dwelling on the length of time

the case had taken, warning him "Don't

dwell on the 12 years. That is a popular

slogan - inappropriate in a court of law. It

was quite proper for lawyers defending a

man in a capital case to pursue all these av-

enues," Judge Noonan said. Another en-

couraging look from the reporter.

During a ten-minute break, the tension

in the courtroom was high. When Judge

Noonan returned, he read from an eight-

page opinion, granting the certificate of

probable cause and the stay of execution

(see accompanying SLOrY: A

"Courageous" Decision).

At an impromptu press conference at

the Federal Building, which drew report-

ers from the national and even internation-

al media, Harris's attorneys praised Judge

Noonan's courage and the thoughtfulness

of his opinion. Members of the Attorney

General's staff announced they had al-

ready lodged an appeal in the United

States Supreme Court.

The long hours of the weekend

stretched into Monday, as all parties antic-

ipated word from the U.S. Supreme Court

that would decide Robert Harris's fate

that day. The marches and vigils contin-

ued. Late in the afternoon, the order came.

The Supreme Court justices decided by a

vote of 6-3 not to dissolve the stay of exe-

cution. Robert Harris would not go to the

gas chamber at 3:00 AM on April 3.

Outside the gates of San Quentin, the

crowd cheered. Some faith was restored, if

tentatively, in the judicial system. And

California retained its claim to decency, at

least for the moment.

an Franciscans who like to wear

: S their heart (or their politics) on

their sleeves (or their chest) won

a major First Amendment victory in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April

10, when a three-judge panel ruled that

the City of San Francisco cannot ban the

sales of "message-bearing" T-shirts

from city streets.

The court, in an opinion by Judge

Melvin Brunetti, ruled that nonprofit or-

ganizations must be allowed to sell

`shirts which carry messages about the

Message T-shirts are an important

part of the political landscape.

S Karen Moise

Message T-Shirts Cannot be

Banned

groups' work.

"Guadiya Vishnava Society, Green-

peace, CISPES and San Francisco Nuclear

Weapons Freeze Campaign sell their mer-

chandise in conjunction with other activi-

ties in order to disseminate their

organizations' message," Judge Brunetti

stated.

"This informative and perhaps persua-

sive speech seeking support for particular

causes or for particular views on econom-

ic, political or social issues is fully protect-

ed speech.

"We hold that when non-profits engage

in activities where pure speech and com-

mercial speech are inextricably inter-

twined, the entirety must be classified as

fully protected noncommercial speech,"

the court ruled.

In January 1986, San Francisco adopt-

ed an ordinance which placed restrictions

on sales by nonprofit groups on the side-

walks in Fisherman's Wharf and Union

Square. When merchants and commercial

street vendors complained that the ordi-

nance was not tough enough, the city add-

ed amendments which essentially barred

nonprofit groups from sidewalk sales.

Immediately, nonprofit organizations

complained that their First Amendment

rights were being violated. Five nonprofit

groups sued the city, charging that the ban

on the sales of slogan-bearing T-shirts was

a violation of the First Amendment. City

attorneys admitted in the litigation that

they could not constitutionally ban the sale

of books, bumper stickers, and buttons by

the non-profits, again amended the ordi-

nance. The sale of T-shirts, however, was

still prohibited.

throughout the day," Crosby said.

U.S. District Court Judge William

Schwarzer ruled that T-shirts imprinted

with political speech and sold by non-

profits to raise funds also merited First

Amendment protection. The city ap-

pealed this aspect of the decision.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby, who filed an amicus brief in

the Court of Appeals on behalf of the

nonprofit organizations, called the T-

shirts a "lively recent addition to Amer-

ica's political landscape."

"Barring advocacy T-shirts from

sales tables shrinks the expanse of the

marketplace of ideas," said Crosby,

"and deprives the public of their consti-

tutional right to exposure to other

views.

"By purchasing a message-bearing

T-shirt from a nonprofit organization,

an individual supports its cause finan-

cially and by carrying its message

In affirming the lower court ruling,

the Court of Appeals panel granted a

permanent injunction barring the city

from enforcing the ordinance against

the five named plaintiffs or "any other

nonprofit organization or person acting

for it with respect to the sale of mer-

chandise which is inextricably inter-

twined with a statement carrying a

religious, political, philosophical or ide-

ological message."

The city has asked the Court of Ap-

peals to reconsider its opinion, and has

announced its intention to seek review

by the United States Supreme Court.

aclu news

may 1990 7

Founders Circle Dinner Honors Donors

he annual Founders Circle dinner was held on

March 26 at Greens in Fort Mason, San

Francisco to thank ACLU-NC members who

donate $1000 or more annually to the organization.

"This year's event drew the largest crowd ever, indi-

cating the marvelous success of our recent fundrais-

ing effort," said dinner organizer Fran Strauss.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Matthew Coles gave a

presentation on the work of the Legal Department

and Development Committee Chair Milton Estes gave

special thanks to James Hormel who presented the

ACLU-NC with a $25,000 matching gift challenge.

Photos by Stephen De Lancie

Staff attorney Matthew Coles (center) with guests (1. to r.) Katherine Frank, Bill

Dixon, Jim Blume and Marc Shulman.

Eileen Siedman, Tom Steel and Nancy Pemberton enjoy the sunset at Fort Mason.

Event organizer Fran Strauss (standing) plays hostess to (I. to r.) Bess Kendall,

Louise Rothman-Riemer, Seymour Grossman and Joy Atkinson.

Newsrack Bill Goes

Down In Defeat

by Francisco Lobaco

ACLU Legislative Advocate

Amendment, the state Senate

Judiciary Committee recently defeat-

ed legislation (AB 2023 - Ferguson) which

would have outlawed sale of publications

which contain sexual representations from

vending machines.

"I'm not a judge, but this looks to me

like pure content regulation," said

Judiciary Committee Chair Bill Lockyer

(D-Hayward) as he cast the deciding vote

sending the bill to an "interim study" for

further investigation on its impact on free

speech.

AB 2023 would require an attendant to

stand by a street comer vending machine

if the machine contained a publication in-

cluding "harmful matter." Harmful matter

is described in the bill as a sexually explic-

it photograph or pictorial representation.

The bill would outlaw the sale of materials

which are constitutionally protected and

not legally obscene.

Courts have held that regulation of

harmful matter must use the least restric-

tive means to protect minors while still

providing adults access to the printed

material.

-: a substantial victory for the First

At the Committee hearing, ACLU

Legislative Director Margaret Pefia testi-

fied that the bill is "overly broad, too re-

strictive and infringes on _ First

Amendment rights." The broad language .

of the legislation would affect not only

the so-called "adult" publications at

which this bill is aimed, explained Pefia,

but many different publications which

might be distributed through vending

machines.

After a vigorous debate on whether

the bill was a reasonable time, place and

manner restriction, the Committee voted

5-4 to send the bill off for more study.

Legislators expressed concern that some

of the definitions in the bill were too

vague.

The author of the _ legislation,

Assemblymember Gil Ferguson (R-

Newport Beach), said that its purpose was

to "protect the children" from coming in-

to contact with harmful matter. He char-

acterized the bill as simply "closing the

loophole in existing law."

"There is a certain element in our so-

ciety that would like to censor what we

read and see," countered Pefia. "Their

motivation is not just to protect the chil-

dren but to serve as censors for the rest of

9

us.

Court Rules Cop

Cannot Sue

for Malicious Prosecution in Police

Brutality Suit

lameda County Superior Court

Judge Dawn Girard ruled on

March 13, that Alameda city po-

lice officers cannot sue several family.

members for "malicious prosecution" be-

cause of an earlier brutality suit one of

them had filed against the police. The bru-

tality suit was settled out of court.

"This is an extremely important rul-

ing," said ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed

Chen, "because it limits the ability of po-

lice officers to retaliate with lawsuits

against people who feel they have suf-

fered at the hands of the police. Chen,

along with ACLU-NC cooperating attor-

neys Jerome Falk, Carin Fujisaki and

Barbara Winters of Howard, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and Falk

represented the family against the police

Suit.

"The use of defamation and malicious

prosecution suits appears to be an increas-

ingly popular retaliation tactic of police

officers who have been sued for civil

rights violations," added Fujisaki, who

argued the case before the Alameda -

County Superior Court. "This ruling con-

firms that citizens can bring and then set-

tle civil rights lawsuits without fear of a

retaliatory suit," she added.

In February 1987 Virlee Berry filed a

civil rights suit in U.S. District Court

against the City of Alameda, the Chief of

Police and three individual police officers,

alleging that she was beaten by the offi-

cers after she failed to follow their instruc-

tions to stop her car.

In her suit, Ms. Berry alleged race dis-

crimination by the Department and brutali-

ty by the arresting officers. On the eve of

trial, Ms. Berry agreed to settle the suit for

an undisclosed sum of money offered by

the City. In exchange, part.of the settle-

ment required Ms. Berry to dismiss the

case against the individual officers.

Three months later, the three individu-

al officers sued Ms. Berry and her hus-

band and her sister in superior court for

malicious prosecution, claiming that Ms.

Berry had brought the civil rights suit in

bad faith and without reasonable cause. In

addition, the police officers' suit alleged

that the Berrys and Betty Williams (her

sister) sought to bring political pressure on

the officers through the use of misleading

pickets and investigations by civil rights

and human relations organizations.

In dismissing the officers' lawsuit, the

Alameda County Superior Court agreed

with ACLU arguments that police officers

cannot file malicious prosecution suits

where the earlier civil rights suit had been

settled.

cent

aclu news

8 may 1990

"Taking Liberties" |

A monthly radio program on civil liberties

Wednesday,

May 30

at 7:00 PM

KPFA 94.1 FM

and

KFCF 88.1 FM (Fresno)

Court Upholds ...

Continued from page I

erless to deal with a serious municipal

problem, especially when the supposed

preemptive legislation offers no help,"

Coles added. :

Coles, who helped Supervisor Harvey

Milk draft the law 13 years ago, noted that

"Western Union devoted enormous re-

sources to this case...it clearly says to me

that Western Union is very interested in

getting this law off the books."

Although the decision, since it comes

from a trial court, applies only to this case,

Coles thinks it may prevent other attacks

on the ordinance. "This is a very thought-

ful, very careful judge, and I think the fact

that he upheld the validity of the ordinance

Tune your radio dial to "Taking Liberties!"

Gay Rights/Civil

Rights: A Tribute to

Doug Warner

Activist and advocate Doug Warner,

who died of AIDS on Valentine's Day in

San Francisco, was committed to "bring-

ing a gay rights perspective to the civil

liberties movement and a civil liberties

perspective to the gay rights movement."

Doug was Chair of the ACLU Gay Rights

Chapter, coordinator of the Gay Legal

Referral Service, and a fundraiser for

Swords to Plowshares, a Vietnam veterans

rights organization. Guests from Doug's

many walks of life will join us to share

memories of his work and spirit and the

ways in which they are being carried on.

"Taking Liberties", explores how the

Bill of Rights affects our everyday lives.

The series is aired on KPFA and KFCF in

Fresno.

The monthly program, hosted by

ACLU-NC Public Information Director

Elaine Elinson, includes expert guests on

cutting edge civil liberties questions. It al-

so features a special section with civil lib-

erties news updates and information on

how listeners can make their voices heard

on crucial civil liberties issues.

after more consideration than these ques-

tions often get in a trial court, with very

extensive briefing, may discourage people

from making the same argument again,"

he said.

San Francisco Deputy City Attorney

Tom Owen, who represented the City

agreed. "It's encouraging to have gotten

this result. ... This may give the ordinanc-

es new visibility," Owen said.

In 1984 Governor George Duekmejian

vetoed an amendment that would have

added sexual orientation to the state anti-

discrimination law. That amendment

would have eliminated the need for local

ordinances.

Western Union attorney John C. Cook

said the New York-based firm would not

appeal the court's decision. The case will

now proceed to trial on the discrimination

claims.

Field Program Monthly -

Meetings

Chapter

Meetings

(Chapter meetings are open to all interest-

ed members. Contact the chapter activist

listed for your area.)

B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-

Kensington) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

fourth Thursday) Members are encouraged

to join the Chapter Board, help staff the

hotline, and organize activities in the

Berkeley area. Contact Tom Sarbaugh

415/526-6376 (day) or Florence Piliavin

415/848-5195 (eve).

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda

County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually sec-

ond Wednesday) Meet Wednesday, May

9. For information, Contact Abe Feinberg,

415/451-1122.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) Meet Monday, May 21. New

members always welcome! For location of

meetings, please call the Chapter Hotline

209/225-7380 or contact Gary Waldron,

209/221-1114 (eve.)

Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usually

first Thursday) Nancy Pemberton, Chair

of the ACLU-NC Death Penalty Action

Campaign, will be the guest speaker on

Thursday, May 3 at 7:00 PM; meet June 7

at 7:00 PM. Both meetings at the ACLU-

NC office, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460,

San Francisco. For more information, call

Teresa Friend at 272-9700.

Marin County Chapter Meeting: (Third

Monday) Monday, May 21 at 7:30 p.m.

For general information, contact Jerry

Ellersdorfer, 415/383-1074.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area) Chapter

Meeting: (Usually fourth Wednesday)

Meet Wednesday, May 23 at 8:00 PM, All

Saints Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly,

Room 15, Palo Alto. For more informa-

tion, contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-

9186 or Leona Billings, 415/326-0926.

Monterey County Chapter Meeting:

(First Tuesday of the month) Meet

Tuesday, May 1 and June 4 at 7:30 PM at

the Monterey Library, Pacific and

Jefferson Streets, Monterey. For informa-

tion, contact Richard Criley, 408/624-

7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Now fourth Thursday)

Meet Thursday, May 24. For meeting

place and more information, contact

Mildred Starkie, 415/934-0557.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) Annual Awards Luncheon:

Presentation of the Meta Kauffman-Roy

Archibald Memorial Civil Liberties Award

posthumously honoring Howard

Friedman, Chair, ACLU-NC Board (1961-

1965), with keynote speakers Eva

Jefferson Paterson and _ Dorothy

Ehrlich, Sunday, June 3 at 1:00 PM at the

Villa Hotel in San Mateo. Tickets are

$25.00 and $15.00 (limited income); for

tickets, call 415/348-2650 (Jean) or 415/

359-1294 (Joe) by May 25. Chapter

Meeting on Monday, May 21 at 7:30 PM,

Bank of America, Third and El] Camino,

San Mateo. Contact Emily Skolnick, 340-

9834. Note: The North Pen. Chapter has

a new Hotline number: 579-1789.

North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehema,

and Trinity Counties) Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Wednesday) Meet

Wednesday, May 23. For more informa-

tion Contact Frank Treadway, 916/365-

4336 or 916/241-7725 :

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually second Wednesday) Meet

Wednesday, May 9. For location and

more information, contact Ruth Ordas,

916/488-9950

San Francisco Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Monday) Special meeting

set for Monday, May 21 (see ad be-

low). Contact Lee Seville, 415/681-4747.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Tuesday) Meet Tuesday,

May 1 and June 5 at 7:00 PM, Commerce

Bank Building, 111 West St. John Street,

2nd Floor Conference Room. Contact

John Holly, 408/554-9478.

Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Monday) Special meet-

ing on Proposition 115 with Judge

Avakian on Tuesday, May 22. Meeting

on Tuesday, June 12 will feature a discus-

sion of Censorship of the Arts. Contact

Sy Schwartz, 408/462-2093. Sonoma

_ County Chapter Meeting: (Third Thursday

of the month) Meet Thursday, May 17,

7:30 p.m., Roseland Community Law

Office, 1680 Sebastopol Road, Santa

Rosa. All members welcome. Contact

Fran Byrn, 707/546-3237.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting: (Third

Thursday of the month) Annual Meeting

set for Thursday, May 17 with guest

speaker Michael Laurence, ACLU-NC

Death Penalty Project attorney and co-

counsel for Robert Harris. For more in-

formation, contact Doug Powers, 916/

756-8274.

Field

Committee

Meetings

(All Field Committee Meetings listed be-

low will be held at the ACLU-NC Office,

1663 Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.

Please RSVP for all meetings at least one

day before the meeting. To RSVP, or for

more information, contact Marcia Gallo

at the ACLU-NC 415/621-2493.)

Student Outreach Committee: (Usually

third Saturday) Saturday, May 19 from

10:30 AM to 12 Noon. Attention

Teachers: We need the participation of

teachers (all grade levels, all kinds of

schools) in the ACLU Student Outreach

Committee.

Pro-Choice Action Campaign: (Usually

third Tuesday) Join pro-choice activists

from other organizations as part of a

Special District Lobby Day for full Medi-

Cal funding for abortion in the 1990 state

budget. Visit your state representatives "at

home" in their district offices in your

community Friday, May 18. Contact

Marcia Gallo, number above, to sign up.

There will also be a "How to Lobby"

workshop Saturday, May 5 10:00 AM to

1:00 PM.

The next meeting of the Pro-Choice

Action Campaign will feature a briefing

on legislative issues Tuesday, May 15,

6:30 p.m.

Death Penalty Action Campaign:

(Usually third Saturday of alternating

months) A Speakers' Training co-

sponsored with Death Penalty Focus of

California is set for Saturday, June 2,

12:00 NOON to 4:00 PM at the ACLU of-

fice. The Death Penalty Action Campaign

will meet prior to this training session, at

10:30 AM on June 2. :