Special Education Law Update: Supreme Court Decision on Private School Reimbursement
June 26, 2009
A United States Supreme Court decision has removed some of the hurdles for parents of students with disabilities to seek reimbursement from local school districts for their children’s private school tuition.
The 6-3 decision ruled that parents are no longer required to first send their special needs child to a public program before placing him or her in a private institution which could better address those disabilities. The ability to effectively skip this step would save many children precious time to learn and achieve necessary educational goals, while preserving the right to a free, appropriate public education for all children with special needs.
The full text of the decision can be found at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-305.pdf
For more information, please email: hdmurphy@mayalaw.com
Criminal Law Update: Drug Analysis Must Be Supported By Live Testimony
June 26, 2009
This week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that criminal laboratory reports may not be used at trial unless the laboratory analyst actually responsible for preparing the report physically appears to give testimony in court and to be subjected to cross-examination.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause gives criminal defendants the right to challenge the validity of chemical analyses proffered by prosecutors by examining a live witness who would be compelled to appear at trial.
Prosecutors argue that the landmark decision adds a significant burden to the government’s ability to prosecute crimes in which lab reports are routinely submitted with little or no supporting testimony.
By contrast, the majority decision notes that convenience is not the measure of constitutionality, pointing out that “the confrontation clause may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination.”
The full decision can be found at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf
GPS Evidence Stricken: A Victory for the Fourth Amendment
June 11, 2009
GPS units are not only handy devices which are, for many, becoming indispensable on the roads, but the technology is increasingly being utilized by law enforcement officials to track suspects, to gather evidence, and to ultimately build cases against criminal defendants. Advocates of individual civil liberties and opponents of excessive governmental intrusion argue that the surreptitious placement of a GPS device by the police under a private citizen’s automobile runs afoul of the Constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures. Prosecutors, on the other hand, contend that police have the right and option to view individuals operating their vehicles on private roads without a warrant, and the GPS device is merely an extension of such ability. A defendant’s constitutional challenge to the practice was recently upheld in the Court of Appeals in New York (resulting in a reversal of a conviction, and ultimately a dismissal of criminal charges). The issue is ripe to be challenged in Connecticut and other jurisdictions across the nation.
The legal future of this type of “surveillance” – whether utilized by a police department (with or without a warrant), or by a suspicious spouse or private investigator in anticipation of a divorce proceeding – is still unclear, but surely provokes thought and discussion.
Police GPS Surveillance Raises Legal Questions, D. Freedman, Connecticut Post, June 7, 2009: http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12537316
Divorce Litigation: Personal Information on Public Display
June 1, 2009
Connecticut, like most states, is a “no-fault” jurisdiction when it comes to divorce. Nevertheless, divorce proceedings in this state are no less likely to feature personally identifiable and potentially harmful information concerning the litigants. Absent court orders which are rarely obtained, the majority of this information — which could include financial documents, hearing transcripts with sworn testimony from spouses and other witnesses, and motions containing allegations of wrongdoing, both in and out of the household — remains a matter of public record. This essentially means that any person might view and obtain copies of the material by paying a visit to the office of the appropriate court clerk.
Often, it is the specter of this “public” availability of documents that might induce a husband or wife to settle a case – in private, and between lawyers – rather than by proceeding with a full-blown evidentiary hearing or trial. A recent Wall Street Journal article (see link below) touches on the public’s right to the information (especially as related to well-known public figures) which is countered by those who decry the publication of such details as appealing to prurient interests only.
Whether one believes that personal information in divorce actions should be safeguarded – or whether, as in any other case, the material should remain available for public inspection – it is our responsibility as attorneys to counsel our clients accordingly. In each of our divorce matters, we expressly advise our clients concerning the risks of litigation (including the resulting exposure of personal information), as well as the potentially positive effect that the same might have on a soon-to-be ex-spouse.
Dirty Laundry Aired: The Fight Over Revealing Divorce Details, Dionne Searcey, Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124346788310360439.html
