vol. 41, no. 2
Primary tabs
Volume XLI
ACLU-NC filed an amicus curiae
brief this month in the case of the
People v. Patricia Hearst after U.S.
District Judge Oliver Carter barred the
press and public from the jury selection.
stage of the trial. The defense had
asked for the order reasoning that
unquestioned, prospective jurors would
be prejudiced by hearing or reading the
remarks of venire members already
examined.
Carter granted the defense motion :
saying it was necessary to balance the
First Amendment right of the press to
report the trial with the Sixth Amend-
ment right to an impartial jury. He
said it was his duty to protect the rights
"under the Constitution, a of it, not'
just part of it."
-ACLU-NC Executive Director David
Fishlow reacted: "The public has an
overriding interest in learning whether
Patricia Hearst, or any other defendant
the subject of so much publicity, can get
a fair trial. The most important part of
that inquiry is whether. she will be
_ judged by an impartial jury. But with
the press and public excluded, no one
can be certain what is being said and
disclosed inside the court room.'
February 1976, San Francisco
In the ACLU's brief, Staff Counsel,
Joseph Remcho: urged Carter to
moderate his order so as "to ensure a
fair and impartial jury selection by
means less restrictive of First Amend--
ment rights." Remcho said the first
Amendment right of the press to report
and of the public to receive information
may `be abridged only in the face of
compelling state interests, and then
only by means that result in minimal
intrusion on First Amendment rights.
He added that one of the critical
problems with the order was that no one
who represented the interests of press or
public was permitted to present their
views before the exclusionary order was
_ imposed. For this reason, the ACLU.
asked Carter to set a hearing on the
matter in open court so that the court,
the defense and the prosecution, all of
whom agreed to the exclusion, might
consider the claims of other affected
parties.
Remcho agreed that the "Court has a
compelling interest in protecting and
preserving the right of a defendant to a
fair trial.'' He also conceded that large
numbers of reporters may intimidate
venire members, and that potential
ACLU challenges closed Hearst jury selection
jurors yet to be questioned could be
influenced by statements of those
already impaneled oor dismissed.
However, the ACLU argued that
alternatives less restrictive of fun-
damental rights were available which
would ensure the protection of the
defendant's right to a fair trial as well
as the press and public's right to ob-
_ serve the trial proceedings.
Remcho suggested that press
coverage of the voir dire be limited to a
small pool of reporters similar to that
covering certain activities of the
President. This would achieve the
objective of a calm and relatively
unintimidating atmosphere ~ without
completely banning the press. Another
alternative offered was that the
potential jurors be sequestered to in-
sulate them from press accounts of the
jury selection. At the time ACLU's brief
was filed, fewer than fifty potential .
jurors would have had to have been
sequestered and only for a. couple of
days to insulate them from the undue
influences of publicity.
"The Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial applies to the public as weil
as to the defendant and includes the
No. 2
said Remcho. Rather than
impermissible direct
voir dire,"'
1m posing
restraints on the press and public,
ACLU asked the Court to use per-
missible restraints on venire members,
noting that the press and public may be
excluded from trials only in the most
extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Carter denied ACLU's request,
saying he could see "no reason to
modify the order banning the public
and news media from the
proceedings." In his response, Carter
said that admitting a pool of reporters
would be no different than adenine
them all. He also denied that he had the
authority to sequester an entire jury and
noted that sequestration would be
expensive.
"Tf the court has fe power to exclude
press and public from this critical
phrase of a trial,'' Remcho responded,
"it certainly has the power to sequester
veniremen for a few days just as the
final jury is sequestered. A few
thousand dollars is a small price to _pay
to reach an accommodation between
the rights of the press and public on one
hand and those of the defendant on the
other."
General border searches challenged in U.S. Supreme Court
The ACLU, the Mexican-American
Legal Defense: and Educational Fund
and the Northern California Police
Practices Project filed an amici curiae
brief last month in the United States
Supreme Court in the case of United
States of America v. Amado Martinez -
Fuerte, et al.
In the criminal cases before the
Court, officials of the U.S. Border
Patrol were detaining moving vehicles
- searches,
at a fixed immigration traffic check-
point near San Clemente, California,
between San Diego and Los Angeles on
Interstate 5. Defendants in the case
were seized pursuant to a warrant of
inspection issued by a magistrate,
authorizing routine, random vehicle
stops at the checkpoint.
On the appeal, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals found that the
as well as the warrants,.
violated the Fourth Amendment. The
government has appealed this ruling to
the Supreme Court.
Quoting from an earlier decision by
the court, amici argue, "Nothing is
more clear than. that the Fourth
Amendment was meant to prevent
wholesale intrusions upon the personal
security of our citizenry, whether these
intrusions be termed `arrests' or `in-.
vestigatory detentions.' '' The Court of
ACLU-NC Board member
and
volunteer attorney Marshall Krause
filed' a class action in San Francisco
Superior Court this month on behalf of
palm readers and the _ potential
customers of palmists, who wish to
engage in this art in San Francisco. The
action challenges the constitutionality
of San Francisco Municipal Police Code |
Sections 162 and 163.
The city ordinances make it a crime,
punishable by a fine of up to $500 and
imprisonment of up to six months, "`to
advertise ... to tell fortunes ... to
locate oil wells, gold or silver ... to
restore lost love or friendship or af-
fection, for or without pay, by means of
palmistry, necromancy, or other crafty
science, cards, talismans, charms,
potions, - magnetism, oriental
mysteries or magic of any kind or.
nature ... or to engage in or carry on
any business the advertisement of which
is prohibited by this section."'
The ordinance adds that nothing in it |
shall not apply to any ordained or duly
accredited minister of any form of
religious belief, or to the faith, practice
or teaching of any religious body. __
Alister Barlow is a palm reader who
has been warned by San Francisco
police that he would be subject to arrest
if he practiced his profession in San
Francisco even if he does not charge
S.F. ordinance on palm readers called unconstitutional
newspapers which carry daily
horoscopes, psychologists, well-known
people who claim to predict the future
who have spoken here, or even. the
machines in many amusement halls
which tell fortunes for 25c.
Krause charges that the ordinance is
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague ~
because it leaves so much discretion
and interpretation to the police and
because it purportedly prohibits activity
which is clearly protected. He adds that
the ordinance violates First Amend-
ment rights to speech and association,
and is an improper establishment of
religion.
At the ACLU's request, Superior
Court Judge Robert Drewes signed an
occult or psychic powers, faculties or customers. The ACLU complaint order requiring the police to appear in
forces, clairvoyance, psychology, argues that Barlow is being his courtroom on March 9 to show
psychometry, spirits mediumship, discriminated against since the police cause why the ordinances should not be
seetship, prophecy, astrology, do not enforce the law against ruled unconstitutional.
Appeals defined the "issue here 3. (a5)
whether the warrant transforms
otherwise unreasonable seizures into
constitutional ones."
Amici urge, `"`a free society cannot
afford to relax the limitation of
`reasonable suspicion' for a forcible
stop in areas removed from an in-
ternational border. The Fourth
Amendment stands as a barrier to what
was done here. It unambiguously
prohibits general warrants, and
tequires that `warrants particularly
describe the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized..' "'
Millions of cars pass through the San
- Clemente checkpoint every year and the
`overwhelming majority of the people
passing through are in this country
legally and indeed have not even
crossed the border. Who gets stopped
and diverted to the inspection area at (c)
the checkpoint is decided solely by the
Border Patrol officer on duty at the :
time.
Such unbridled discretion will
certainly disadvantage innocent persons
of Mexican appearance most. He can
refrain from having anything to do with
illegal aliens, he can drive carefully, he
can conform to all laws, and yet he is
still likely to be stopped. In the absence
of restraints on the Border Patrol's
discretion, its officials could stop all
Mexican Americans to ask if they are
aliens. Amici argue "that is a burden
continued on page 2
aclu news
Feb. 1976
Court reverses
charges against
midwives
The Court of Appeal for the State of
California overturned the convictions of
three women last month who had been
charged and found guilty of violations -
of Section 2141 of the Business and
Professions Code. Volunteer attorney
Alice Daniel represented the ACLU as
amicus curiae in the appeal.
Section 2141 provides: `Any person,
who practices or attempts to practice,
or who advertises or holds himself out
as practicing, any system or mode of
treating the sick or afflicted in this
state, or who diagnoses, treats, operates
for or prescribes for any ailment,
blemish, deformity, disease, dis-
figurement, disorder, injury, or other
mental or physical condition of any
person ... without a valid certificate
. is guilty of a misdemeanor."'
Alice Bowland, Linda Bennet and
Donna Walker were all charged with
violating this section when they assisted
a woman in Santa Cruz with childbirth
by providing midwife services.
In the trial court, the defendants
argued that the charges should be
dismissed on the grounds that the law is .
vague and overbroad. They claimed
that the phrase ``or other mental or
physical condition" did not adequately
The ACLU Foundation and the
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
are cosponsoring a conference on
"Litigation Under the Amended
Federal Freedom of Information Act"
-on April 26 and 27 at Hastings College
of the Law in San Francisco. The one-
day program will be the same on each
day.
a
_ describe the prohibited behavior.
Both the trial court and the court of
appeal rejected this argument however.
Nevertheless, the Appeals court did
overturn the convictions on other
grounds. The three-judge court held
that the law is quite specific and
narrowly drawn and does not prohibit
midwifing.
The court said that any proper ac-
cusation based on the statute must
allege that the accused treated an
"ailment, blemish, deformity, disease,
disfigurement, disorder or injury.'' The
court found pregnancy and childbirth
to be none of these.
neither a sickness nor a disability,"' they
wrote.
So; while the court of appeals did not
find the statute unconstitutional, they
did essentially exempt midwifery from
its provisions and since the three
women who had been charged had
accordingly violated no law, their cases
were dismissed.
OA. Cummings 1976
"HERES YOUR WARRANT, DON'T FORGET TO FILL IN THE NAMES'
High Court reviews border warrants
continued from page 1
which cannot be tolerated in a free
society."'
While the government concedes that
it does not have reasonable suspicion
when making stops at the checkpoint, it
argues that the stops are validated by
the general warrant of inspection.
Amici point out that their greatest
concern
warrants that would arise if a warrant
of the sort involved in this case, which
does not focus on particularized cir-
cumstances, should receive the court's
approval.
Since the sole premise on which this
watrant was issued was that the
magistrate agreed that there was
"probable cause to believe that mass
violations of the immigration laws have
been or are being committed'', amici
is the unlimited abuse of
fear the same rationale could authorize
general warrants for bus lines near the
Canadian Border, San _ Francisco's
Chinatown or New York's Little Italy.
"Moreover," the brief continues,
"under the principles urged by the
government to justify this warrant, local
law enforcement officials could get
areal warrants, or class warrants, or
road warrants, or neighborhood
warrants . . . in high crime areas."
Amici conclude that the Supreme
Court should affirm the decision of the
Court of Appeals finding both the
warrant and the seizures
constitutional. (c)
The amicus curiae brief was prepared
on behalf of the three organizations by
Police Practices Project Director Amitai
Schwartz
Member Jerome Falk, Jr.
"Pregnancy is
un-
and . ACLU-NC_ Board (c)
_ The amended FOIA has significantly
narrowed the exemptions the govern-
ment can claim to refuse disclosure.
Strict statutory time limits, chargeable
fees and judicial review have given the
law new usefulness. Furthermore, to
make litigation an affordable option for
a wide range of clients, the Act provides
that in cases where the plaintiff
"substantially prevails" the agency may
now be assessed court costs and at-
torney's fees.
With these and other changes, the
public now has an enforceable right to
government reports, regulations, policy
decisions and documents dealing with
the endless ways that the federal
government influences the public. The
FOIA is of great potential value to
clients as diverse as business, labor,
journalists, scholars, environmentalists,
consumer groups, and _ individuals
seeking the files the government has
kept on them.
Conference participants will get a
paperback handbook, approximately
150 pages in length, containing detailed
outlines. of all conference lectures as
well as source materials for the FOIA,
the Privacy Act, and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Materials will
also. be available on the California
Public Records Act. Conference
speakers will be Morton H. Halperin
and John H.F. Shattuck of the ACLU,
and Larry Ellsworth and Mark Lynch of
the FOI Clearinghouse.
Halperin. is a former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of: Defense "and
senior staff member of the National
Security Council. He is currently
Director of the National Security and
Civil Liberties Project. Shattuck is
_ National Staff Counsel for ACLU and
has wide experience in FOIA litigation
including the suits for the Hiss and
Rosenberg documents. He also handled
LEGAL
Lawyers conference on FOIA planned.
the Marchetti case contesting CIA
censorship of the book The CIA and the
Cult of Intelligence, and the Nixon
papers litigation.
Ellsworth has litigated more FOIA
cases than any attorney presently in
practice. Lynch is a former lobbyist
for Ralph Nader's Congress Watch who
was instrumental in the passage of the
FOIA amendments and who has
litigated a wide range of FOIA cases.
' The FOIA Litigation Conference will
follow the general format of PLI and
ELI/ABA conferences and will focus on
the specific interests of practicing
attorneys. The pre-registration fee is
$100 per person, $125 at the door. A
special rate of $20 per person. is
available to law students, law school
faculty, and people representing C-3
and C-4 tax exempt organizations. For
registration, contact Deborah Boyce at
ACLU, 814 Mission Street, San
Francisco, 94103 (415) 777-4880.
Nuclear Power
An informal debate on the civil
liberties issues of nuclear power
development will be held 8:00 p.m.,
Thursday March 4, at Gresham Hall,
Grace Cathedral, 1051 Taylor Street,
San Francisco.
The debate is being Sponsoted by
ACLU-NC at the suggestion of the
Nuclear Power Committee which was
established last November by the Board
of Directors to`determifie'what ACLU~
NC's policy on this subject should be.
By this debate, the committee hopes to
educate the membership to both sides
of the nuclear power question and to
provide the Board of Directors with
some guidance necessary to any
discussion on the civil liberties aspects
of nuclear power.
`Probable cause necessary for detention'
The ACLU of Northern California,
joined by the Southern California
affiliate, won a partial victory before the
Supreme Court of California in the case
of In re Walters last December. ACLU
appeared as amicus curiae in the case
and ACLU-NC volunteer attorney
Ephraim Margolin argued the case
before the Supreme Court.
In In re Walters, a prisoner who had
been jailed following a warrantless
arrest for a misdemeanor, sought a writ
of habeas corpus claiming that since
there was no judicial determination of
probable cause for his detention, the
_ -imprisonment was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Donald Wright spoke
for the Supreme Court, holding that a
judicial. determination of probable
cause must be made before an arrestee
can be held for trial on a misdemeanor
charge, unless he is released on his own
recognizance pending trial. Finding
present pre-trial procedures
inadequate, the Court went on to set
guidelines which in its view satisfied the
constitutional requirement of probable
cause to hold someone for trial.
In the Walters case, a misdemeanor
complaint reciting the charges against
him was filed four days after his arrest.
There was no affidavit stating the facts
which supported the complaint and the
complaint itself was signed by someone
who had no personal knowledge of the
allegations. As a result, a significant
pretrial restraint of liberty took place
with no reliable determination of
whether there was probable cause for
that restraint.
Following the Supreme Court's
decision, probable cause for deten-
tioned must be made a matter of record
at the time of arraignment or bail
setting within two days of the arrest. As
suggested in the ACLU: brief, the
defendant may obtain a continuance if
he so requests for the purpose of ob-
taining an attorney to advise him
during the probable cause hearing.
The Walters decision is likely to force
dismissals of petty offense and
misdemeanor charges where the
prosecution does not have a police
complaint ready or where such com-
plaints are not properly specific. In that
light, the decision is a significant step
toward the protection of due process
rights of the defendant.
The ACLU's brief argued for a
broader right to counsel and adversary
hearing but the Supreme Court was not
_persuaded to these points. Nevertheless,
the case is a significant victory, albeit
limited.
LEGISLATIVE
aclu news
Feb. 1976
Legislators reform court system, bar rules
By Brent Barnhart
Legislative Representative
INTRODUCTION
Each month in the ACLU News,
ACLU-NC's legislative staff presents
specific legislative matters then current
in order to keep the membership ad-
vised of what civil liberties issues are
before the California Legislature. In
past months, such topics as mandatory
sentences, privacy, and public cam-
paign financing have been discussed.
_ This month ACLU News begins a
series that attempts to focus more
comprehensively on the general areas of
legislation that concern ACLU-NC, and
with which the legislative staff is in- -
volved on an ongoing basis. A full
discussion of all legislation watched
would be impossible in the space
available, but watched measures which
passed through both houses of the
Legislature and which reached the
Governor's desk in 1975 provide a good
sample of the kinds of issues that are of
ongoing concern.
In this issue, we present legislation
affecting attorneys and courts, and
discuss the relationship of such
legislation to civil liberties concerns. In.
following issues we will present
discussions of legislation affecting
women's rights and equal protection;
privacy, public records and government
power; rights of the accused, prisoners
and sentencing, and definition of
`crimes; ..patients,-srights; - _. juveniles,
`education and student rights; and
elections and first amendment
questions.
I. ATTORNEYS:
Because of the key importance that
litigation plays in the work of the
ACLU, and because the right to ef-
fective assistance of counsel is one of
the fundamental rights protected by the (c)
Bill of Rights, the legislative staff in-
- cludes bills affecting attorneys - their
availability and their freedom of
practice - among "`Watch"' legislation.
A) SB' 1018 (SONG) - STATE
PUBLIC DEFENDER:
One of the most sweeping pieces of
legislation to successfully pass the
legislature this past year, and one which
received remarkably little attention
given its sweeping nature, was the State
Public Defender bill carried by Senate
Judiciary Chairman, Alfred Song (Los
Angeles). Comparable legislation which
was enacted by the Legislature in 1971
was vetoed by Governor Reagan.
The State Public Defender will be
empowered to provide counsel to in-
digents throughout the State in all of
those situations where existing county
public defender programs do not
provide service. This includes not only
appeals and extraordinary writs, but
also trial appearances where no public
defender service exists, or where
existing county public defender
programs cannot provide service
because of insufficient personnel or
conflict of interest (e.g., where there are
multiple co-defendants, and the same
attorney. cannot represent each of
them).
The civil liberties potential of the new
office is enhanced by Governor Brown's
appointment of ACLU former staff
counsel, Paul Halvonik, to the Acting
"State Public Defender position. The
office will begin operations at the
beginning of the new fiscal year on July
Ist.
(B) AB 590 (BERMAN) - PUBLIC
"MEMBERS TO THE STATE BAR
BOARD OF GOVERNORS:
In what may prove to be an historical
move, the Legislature enacted a
measure backed by Governor Brown
placing six non-attorney "`public''
members on the State Bar's Board of
Governors.
The bill also directs that Board
meetings be open to the public except
for certain specified subjects which
arguably require that the Board
_ proceed with confidentiality because of
the subject-matter, e.g., prospective
litigation, 0x00A7 qualifications and
disciplinary matters. However, the bill
insures that the public members shall
be placed on the most sensitive of
committees regardless of the con-
fidentiality of the subject matter
discussed...
The bill's success was a victory for
consumer groups and for attorneys such
as those represented by the National
Lawyers Guild, who insist that the Bar
should not be a priesthood removed in
its actions and mode of operation from
the public at large.
From a civil liberties perspective, the
addition of public members to the
Board of Governors may serve as a
: helpful reminder.that the fundamental
rights accorded to all citizens before the
law are insured only so long as those
who practice the law as a profession, -
and who directly affect its conduct,
direction and growth, remain cognizant
of the needs and concerns of all people.
C) AB 1170 (BERMAN) - AT-
TORNEY CONTEMPT:
In recent years - _ particularly
following the Chicago 7 trial in 1969 -
much has been written, and much
organized-bar handwringing has taken
place, over what has been termed
"disorder in the court" and ``attorney
misconduct." Curiously, the focus of
such concern has always been the
conduct of defense attorneys, there
being no cited cases where prosecuting
attorneys have been held in contempt of
court for the manner in which they have
conducted themselves in criminal trials.
In the Los Angeles area particularly,
bench harassment of defense attorneys
by use of the contempt tool has been
excessive, and this past session -
largely due to efforts of attorneys from
the L.A. Public Defenders office -
some legislative relief was obtained. -
AB 1170 authored by Assemblyman
Howard Berman (Los Angeles) and now
in effect, allows defense attorneys an
automatic stay of three days in which to
seek extraordinary relief (i.e., habeas
corpus) before having to serve contempt
sentences. Under present practice,
defense attorneys have often been lifted
from trial in the midst of the proceeding
and placed in jail on the pique of a |
judge offended by that attorney's
conduct of a case. The new law will
allow them to finish (in most cases) the
trial in progress, and simultaneously
seek a writ overruling the contempt
order. The law does not affect conduct
relating to ``an attorney's duty to
maintain respect due to courts and
judicial officers,' but will nevertheless
affect a wide range of unjustified
contempt rulings that have plagued
defense attorneys.
II. COURTS:
Just as the ACLU must be concerned
with legislation affecting Attorneys,
right to fair trial, and rights of due
process compel attention to legislation
affecting the manner in which courts
operate and their structure and
procedures. Few bills in this area are
"blockbusters'' which draw wide public.
attention, and their conduct through
the Legislature tends to be relatively
quiet with the judicial and attorney
lobbying groups stating carefully-
worded positions in modulated tones.
But their ultimate effect on civil
liberties demands careful attention.
A) CIVIL APPEALS - ACCESS
Bills by Senator James Mills (San
Diego) and Senator Alfred Song (Los
Angeles) may make civil appeals more
available to individuals who do not fare
well in lower courts. SB 212 by Senator
Mills repeals provisions requiring a
defendant to post an appeal bond to
stay the enforcement of a small claims .
court judgment. In retail installment
contract cases, for example, consumers
will have a chance to appeal in many
situations where previously they could
not have because things moved too fast
for them to know where and how to
respond. Under the new law, the small -
claims judgment will be automatically
stayed, and no attachments or gar-
nishments can proceed, until the time
for appeal has expired, or if an appeal is
taken, until the appeal is decided.
Along the same lines, SB 614 by
Senator Song gives authority to the
California Judicial Council to create
guidelines for waiver or installment .
payment of appeal fees (currently
$50.00) in civil appeals to the California
Courts of Appeal. Currently there is no ~
charge for criminal appeals, but only
those with $50.00 immediately available
may take a civil appeal. The Song bill
alleviates that impediment
B) JUSTICE COURT eS
VERSY:
However, for all the gentility with
which most legislation affecting courts
_ proceeds, legislation affecting the
structure,
existing Justice Courts caused a great
stir in 1975. For many years, attempts
to require that Justice Court judges be
attorneys - presumably, therefore,
knowledgeable about the law and the
rights of litigants - have been rebuffed
by the considerable lobbying power of (c)
lay-judges throughout rural areas in the
state who do not wish to be deposed.
Furthermore, there is a lot of rural
resistance to consolidation of Justice
Courts, because in many large and
sparsely-populated counties _-_con-
solidation would mean litigants and
defendants, would have to travel much
further distances to get to court. The
plaint is made that in rural areas there
are too few attorneys available to staff
rural courts.
But in 1974, the California Supreme
Court in Gordon y. Justice Court
created a substantial gash in the dam
holding back attorney-judge
requirements, by ruling that in criminal
_ cases, defendants are entitled to be
heard by attorney-judges unless they
give a knowing and voluntary waiver to
their ent to be heard by a magistrate
continued on page 4
location' and staffing of.
Alternative to S.1 introduced,
Senate considers amendments
S.1, the Federal Criminal Code
Reform Act which was substantially
authored by the Mitchell-Kleindienst
Justice Department, remains a severe
threat to civil liberties. It is now before
the full Senate Judiciary Committee
which has 15 members and is chaired
by Senator Eastland.
While any bill is physically amen-
dable, a bill as complex as S.1 could be
favorably amended only in a committee
with a clear and well organized civil
liberties majority. Such a majority does
not exist and the ACLU believes S.1's
oppressive features will not be
eliminated, though they may be
modified by cosmetic changes.
Wholesale amendments on the floor of
the Senate would be virtually im-
. possible.
There are other factors now posing a
gloomy outlook on the Stop S.1
campaign. After the assassination of
CIA agent Richard Welch, the Ford
`Administration seems to sense that
public support for an "official secrets
act'' can be obtained. Also, the House
of Representatives 246-124 vote to
suppress publication of the Pike
Committee's report on the CIA suggests
strong Congressional support for of-
ficial secrecy.
- vironmental protection and makes non-
the running, every effort must be made
There now is an alternative to S.1,
however. Last November, Congressmen
Kastenmeier, Mikva and San Jose's
Don Edwards introduced a new bill,
H.R. 10850, the Federal Criminal Law
Revision and Constitutional Rights
Preservation Act. This 700 page bill is a
more thorough codification of the
criminal law than S.1, with none of the
repressive features.
H.R. 10850 eliminates the death
penalty, wiretapping and obscenity.
Most important, it defines espionage
narrowly and properly. It also provides
good sections on consumer and en-
elected- public officials _more ac-
countable to the people. A House~
Judiciary Subcommittee will begin
hearings on H.R. 10850 and on the
House version of S.1, H.R. 3907, after
the full Senate acts on S.1.
Letters to Senators and Represen-
tatives are critical. Ask Cranston and
Tunney to continue opposing S.1 and to
consider sponsoring H.R. 10850 in the
Senate. Write your representative
indicating your concern about H.R.
3907. Ask for a copy of H.R. 10850 and
urge her/him to consider cosponsoring
it in the House. As long as S.1 is still in
to stop it.
~
aclu news
Feb. 1976
San Francisco
RESERVE THE DATE: Community
Meeting. Tuesday, March 2, 8:00 p.m.
The topic "The Civil Liberties Issues in
the Patty Hearst Trial," will be
presented by Joseph Remcho, ACLU-
NC Staff Counsel. The Community
Meeting will be held at Francisco Junior
High School - Little Theater, Fran-
cisco and Powell Streets. Parking is
available in the school yard. Everyone is ~
welcome.
SENATE BILL NO. 1 - On
February 9, Chuck Ortmeyer, Jan
Nelson, Cheryl Boone, Roger Donely,
Ann Cavenaugh and Andy Moran
combined their energies to call ap-
proximately 100 San _ Francisco
_ Organizations encouraging them to take
a stand in opposition to Senate Bill No.
1. The results were gratifying. Several
already have done so as a result of our
plodding. Others have requested
literature or speakers.
RESERVE ANOTHER DATE -
Garage Sale. April 4, 10-5. MONEY,
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. We are
_ always in need of funds to keep the
community on the alert where civil
liberties are involved.
The Chapter will hold a GARAGE
SALE on SUNDAY, APRIL 4, from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. at 1039 Cole Street. Your
"mistake"? may be someone else's
"treasure," and your "white elephant"'
may be someone else's "find of the
year."
Please call the Chapter office, 777-
4880 for when and where to bring your
merchandise to the garage sale which of
course will benefit the Chapter.
Chapter members are always
welcome to attend the monthly Board of
Director's meetings. If you wish to
attend the March meeting, please call
the Chapter office 777-4880, first.
Our thanks to all members who
helped make the recent film benefit,
"Hester Street'' a success.
ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS -
Two San Francisco high school students
have won top honors in the Chapter's
Second Annual Essay Contest. The first
`prize of $75.00 was won by Colleen
Wong of Mission High School and the
second prize of $25.00 was won by
Karen Pugay of St. Rose Academy. (c)
The topic was "Civil Liberties: The
Bill of Rights and Me."' The judges
were Kay Boyle, Belva Davis and Art
Hoppe. Presentation of the awards was
made by Ruth Jacobs, President of the
Chapter. The essays will be published in -
the next issue of the ACLU News.
3 Yolo ,
The Yolo County Chapter kicked off
the month with a very successful fund
raiser reception. Attending were
Assemblymen John Vasconcellos and
recently elected Vic Fazio. Also, at-
tending was field representative Sandy
McCubbin representing Senator John
Dunlap.
Fund raising chairperson Larry
Hoover reports that the reception was a
success in several respects. Not only did
the event supply the chapter with funds
to support its civil liberties efforts, but
publicity work also increased com-
munity awareness of ACLU activities
and goals. Many thanks to Mizi and
Dr. Ayala for the use of their beautiful
home for this event!
Planned for Wednesday, February
25th is an address by Dr. Phil Jacklin
entitled, `"The New Fairness Doctrine:
Access to the Media." Dr. Jacklin will
speak at 7:00 in King Hall, the U.C.
Davis Law school.
Jacklin, a philosophy professor, has
taught- at Stanford and at San Jose
State. He is recognized as an expert on
the Ist Amendment. and access to the
media; and has published widely,
including most recently
Magazine.
Professor Jacklin was a founder of
the Committee for Open Media and was
instrumental in establishing the Bay
Area Free Speech Message, providing
media spots for community groups.
All are invited to come hear Professor
Jacklin. Admission is free.
Santa Clara
Congressman Don Edwards will be ~
the speaker at the chapter's Annual
Membership Meeting on February 28.
S. 1, the Criminal Reform Act will be
the main topic of the congressman's
talk, but he will also be talking about
H.R. 10850, the new bill which used S. 1
as its basis but which made over one
thousand changes in the original.
Rep. Edwards is a long time member
of ACLU and is currently a member of
the House Judiciary Committee. He is
chairman of the Civil Rights and
Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of
that committee. He is a former FBI
agent and has served on the National
Commission on Reform of Federal
Criminal Laws.
Members and friends are urged to
turn out for this meeting. It is a good
opportunity to meet this civil libertarian
Legislation wine: ion ree;
trained in the subtleties of the law. and
constitution.
Currently, the letter of Gordon is
complied with by bringing attorneys
into Justice Courts specially to try
criminal cases where the presiding -
magistrate is a lay-judge. The open
question is whether defendants get no
more than a Hobson's choice - that
there is always the inescapable in-
ference that in refusing to waive his/her
right to an _ attorney/judge, the
defendant may have to wait (possibly in
jail) a long time for an attorney-judge.
AB 1414 by Assemblyman John
Miller (Alameda County), backed by
Judicial Council, sought to consolidate
Justice Courts into the Municipal Court
system where all judges must be at-
torneys. After a bitter fight through the
Assembly, and through the Senate
policy committee, AB 1414 was impaled
on the shoals of Senate Finance, never
getting to the Governor. _
Conversely, AB 2212 sponsored by
Assemblyman William Thomas, who
represents a largely rural area near
Bakersfield, sought to insure that
incumbent lay-judges serving on Justice
Courts be allowed to retain their
positions throughout their current
terms, and stand for re-election for as
long as they might desire - provided
there be no break in their terms of
office. AB 2212 successfully negotiated
the legislative rapids, but foundered
when meeting Governor Brown's veto.
The standoff remains unresolved.
in Center -
congressman. Leona Egeland and some (c)
other state legislators are planning to be
present.
Another in a growing list a killings,
by police of Third World people has
outraged the Chicano community of
San Jose. Danny Trevino was killed by
two officers who say they believed that
Trevino was reaching for a gun as he sat
slumped in the front seat of his car.
The discrepancies between the stories
of witnesses and of the police have
heightened the sense of outrage in the
community. The San Jose City Council
has called for open grand jury hearings.
The Board of Directors of this chapter
has voted to support the requests of the
Concerned Citizens Committee. Murray
Whittaker, Chapter Police Complaint
Committee Chairman read a letter from
the board to the City Council on
February 3. The letter applauded the
council's call for open grand jury
hearings and also asked for an in-
dependent investigation by the grand
jury. The letter also urged that where
suspicion of manslaughter or murder
exists, that police officers be processed
in the criminal justice system in the
same fashion as ordinary citizens.
Berkeley-Albany-
Kensington
The Chapter's first public meeting of
the year was held on January 6, 1976.
Our guest. speakers were Frank
Wilkenson, Executive Director of the
National Committee Against Repressive
Legislation and David _ Fishlow,
Executive Director of the ACLU of
Northern California, both of whom
discussed Senate Bill 1, the Criminal
Justice Reform Act of 1975. They urged
members to work to defeat this
proposed legislation which constitutes a
grave assault on civil liberties. The
Chapter raised a substantial amount of
money which was used to buy and
distribute literature in Berkeley in-
forming people about the dangers of -
S.1. In. addiiton, several Chapter
members visited the offices of Senators
Cranston and Tunney to try to persuade
them to take more active positions in
opposition to this repressive legislation.
The Board of Directors elected new
officers at the January meeting. They
are Marjorie Gelb, chairperson; Gary
Bostwick, vicechairperson; Addie
Collins, secretary; and Rose Ann
Packard, treasurer. Gary Bostwick, in
addition to joining the Board this year,
has helped organize a student ACLU
group at the University of California at'
Berkeley. It is hoped that the students
group will work closely with the
Chapter on issues of joint concern.
. This year, in addition to our usual
activities in areas of public education
and legal work, the Chapter must make
special efforts to raise money to support
its activities. pay persons with special
skills or interests regarding fundraising,
- are urged to contact Marjorie Gelb,
843-5067.
Finally, we are attempting to add new
attorney names to our Lawyer Referral
Panel. These attorneys `answer
questions and give legal advice to
people who believe their civil rights
have been violated. Each lawyer is
asked to serve only two weeks a year,
and the attorneys on the Board are
always available to assist. We are
especially interested in having new
attorneys join us in this valuable ACLU
function. Interested persons should call
Eileen Keech, 848-0089.
Oakland
Regular monthly meetings are held in
the conference room of the Sumitomo
Bank at 20th and Franklin Streets in
downtown Oakland. These meetings
are at 7:30 p.m. the third Wednesday of |
each month and are open to anyone.
The chapter has an answering ser-
vice, telephone number 534-ACLU, and
the telephone committee has really been
busy! More volunteers are needed. If
you are interested in helping, please
contact Janice Lapides at 339-9781.
Oakland's Semi-Annual pot luck get-
together is coming up soon. Looks to be
a great evening with an interesting
speaker and a raffle for some of
California's finest. Watch this column
for further details.
Committee Notices
Privacy: Another meeting is
scheduled for March 7, 7:30 p.m. at
Phil Thomas' home located at 844
Northvale Road, Oakland. Does your
bank disclose your personal in-
formation? Come to this meeting for
some shocking answers.
Political Repression: PIZZA, BEER
S.1.
When: Wednesday, March 10th, . 30
p-m.
Where: 3450 38th Avenue, Oakland'
Why: Junking S.1
Info: Call Dar oe pe In 930-
1221 evenings.
Fresno
A good turn-out of members and
guests attended the Chapter's February -
9 program on Affirmative Action.
Panelists, including Mary Louise
Frampton, a Chapter Board member
and attorney, were most informative in
their presentations and responsive to
the many questions from the audience.
Many thanks to Ann Stanislawsky and
Jim Smith for putting the successful
program together, and to Ann
' Leavenworth for her help on publicity.
Anyone desiring to join or renew their
Fresno ACLU membership, or to help
out on upcoming important mem-
bership drives, should contact Ann at
224-4610.
aclu news
9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August,
and November-December __
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board, David M. Fishlow. Executive Director
Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director
814 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545
Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for the News.