June 1, the first day of class:

‘One day down and nineteen to go. We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I’m not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.

Fahrenthold, David. Jared Loughner’s behavior Recorded by College Classmate in E-mails. Web. <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/jared-loughners-behavior-recor.html&gt;.

Terrified: Lynda Sorenson told her friend via email that she always liked to sit close to the door when Arizona killer Jared Loughner was in class

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From June 10:

‘As for me, Thursday means the end to week two of algebra class. It seems to be going by quickly, but then I do have three weeks to go so we’ll see how I feel by then. Class isn’t dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can’t do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by the door.’

Terrified: Lynda Sorenson told her friend via email that she always liked to sit close to the door when Arizona killer Jared Loughner was in class

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

From June 14:

‘We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast…’

Loughner was finally suspended last year after posting a series of rambling outbursts on the internet, calling his teachers illiterate ‘con artists’ and his college a ‘torture facility’.

Loughner has refused to co-operate since his arrest but police said today they believed he acted entirely alone in his killing spree.

The FBI has seized his computer and is studying the incoherent messages about political revolution he left on websites including MySpace and YouTube.

One message, marked ‘Goodbye’, was posted only hours before the attack on Gabrielle Giffords. At about 5am on Saturday, he wrote: ‘Goodbye… Dear friends… Please don’t be mad at me.

‘The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven’t talked to one person who is literate. I want to make it out alive.

Terrified: Lynda Sorenson told her friend via email that she always liked to sit close to the door when Arizona killer Jared Loughner was in class

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Murder and Violence in the Workplace

Murder and Violence in the Workplace

Murder in the workplace is the fourth leading cause of death on the job in the United States (OSHA).  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 521 workplace homicides in 2009 in the U.S. out of a total of 4,349 fatal work injuries.  This paper will discuss both murder and violence in the workplace and look at modern causes and solutions.

The statistics are staggering.  1 out of 4 workers have been attacked or harassed in their workplace.  Three people are murdered every day in the United States while at work.  Millions of dollars are lost every year due to employee absenteeism and sick leave because of work place violence.  With the instability of jobs today and the growing trend of shorter employment stays and transient work, huge pressures have been placed on the workplace which has resulted in more violence.

The causes of workplace violence and murder are complex and often convoluted in order to better analyze the situation three distinct groups can be looked at separately as we analyze the risk factors associated with workplace violence. The first group that has been identified as being most at risk is those who hold certain occupations.  According to a fifteen year study of on-the-job homicides in North Carolina (Williamson) taxi drivers are significantly more likely than those that hold other occupations to be murdered at work. The reason why this occupation is significantly more dangerous than others is that taxi drivers, “tend to operate in urban areas, which have the highest crime rates, and work long hours, alone, often at night, and carry a considerable amount of cash on board which makes them a prime target for robbery.”  According to this study the most effective strategy that can be employed by taxi drivers is that of target hardening.  Target hardening (McKay) is a term chiefly used by police offices and those working in security referring to increasing a person’s or environment’s susceptibility to the threat of loss, attack, or theft.  The most effective target hardening technique used to prevent the murder and threat of violence for the taxi driver is the use of a bulletproof partition between the front and back seats.  One of the reasons that so much focus has been placed on how to help the taxi driver as compared to other occupations is that the taxi driver is four times as likely to be killed on the job as compared to the next four most dangerous occupations.  The top five list of occupations where a person is most likely to be murdered continues at number two with private security worker, followed closely by law enforcement officers, retail cashiers, and retail managers. Another category which has a higher than average murder rate is the self-employed worker.  These workers may only account for 8.7 percent of the workforce, however they are the victims of 26 percent of all work related homicides.  The elderly self-employed shop owner is at even more risk and is almost twice as likely as a person under the age of 60 to be killed during a robbery if assaulted.

The second group identifier separates the murder of men and women who are killed on the job into separate categories.  In workplace disputes, men were much more likely than women to be killed by a coworker, while current or former spouses or intimate partners killed most female victims.(Williamson).  In a recent study of corporate security directors, domestic violence ranked as the top priority next to only terrorism (Solomon) with ninety-four percent of corporate security directors saying that it was of particular concern.  One of the reasons that corporations are so concerned about this issue is the recent view of the courts as to the liability of employers who fail to protect their employees from violence at work.  One example of a case where the employer has been found liable is that of La Rose v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co. In this wrongful death case the family of Francesca La Rose was paid a settlement of $850,000 for failing to protect her after her employer had been notified of the threat of domestic violence. This case is not unusual in the least, in fact the average jury award for inadequate security suits average $1.2 million and settlements average $600,000. In addition to these costs domestic violence itself costs corporations billions of dollars a year.  Thirty seven percent of women who are living with domestic violence report that they have been late to work, been absent because of domestic violence, and have lost a job or been passed over for a promotion.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the annual cost of lost productivity because of domestic violence is $727.8 million and more than 7.9 million paid workdays are thought to be lost each year.  The domestically abused also cost the employer through higher health care and mental care services with victim services amounting to nearly $4.1 billion annually in the United States.  One final category that is often unreported or underreported is violence between same sex couples in the workplace. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, “domestic violence between LGBT couples is often not reported due to the victim hiding their sexuality at the workplace.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists five categories of violence that commonly occur in the workplace.(Duhart) The first category is the “Emotionally Enraged” this is a person who attacks for personal or business reasons and this is often linked to trends in downsizing and streamlining.  A second category is that of the “Angry Spouse or Relative” this person may follow an employee to work and create a disturbance at the worksite. “Random Violence” is the third category and happens when violence is not focused on a specific individual.  Robbery and other commercial types of crime are linked to this category of violence.  The fourth category of violence that occurs in the workplace is that of “Violence against Law Enforcement” this category is directed toward police officers and security guards and includes violent activity that results from other incidents.  The fifth and final category of violence that occurs at the workplace includes both “Terrorism and Hate Crimes” these crimes are usually ethnic, religious, or racially motivated but also include seemingly senseless acts of violence such as the Oklahoma City bombing.

In addition to sorting categories of violence in the workplace, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has also composed a list of Characteristics of Persons who Commit Acts of Violence in the Workplace.  One of these characteristics is a history of violence.  This history often includes criminal acts, domestic violence, verbal abuse, and anti-social behavior.  Another characteristic that a person might commit acts of workplace violence is evidenced by the presence of psychosis. These individuals often show signs of being impaired in reality testing.  They can also possess an inability to evaluate the external world objectively and distinguish that world from their own experiences.  These individuals often are prone to senseless violence and have a total inattentiveness to the environment and are often grossly disorganized. Another type of psychosis that can affect the person prone to workplace violence is Schizophrenia.  This affliction may include hallucinations, poor insight, and bizarre behavior or thoughts such as having a feeling that someone is controlling them.  Major affective disorder is another psychosis that can lead to violence in the workplace.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that this type of psychosis is often present with delusions and hallucinations and is often mood congruent which is explained by delusions of poverty or disease.  The final type of Major affective disorder is characterized by the Paranoid states-Disorder which is manifest by delusions of grandeur, delusions of persecution, suspiciousness, jealousy, and resentment.  A third characteristic of persons who commit acts of violence in the workplace are those that have chemical dependence.  The use of these substances can push the addict over the edge and lead to acts of violence.  The next characteristic of potentially violent offender that is defined by the BLS is the person suffering from Major Depressive Disorder.  This condition if observed soon enough can commonly be treated by therapeutic counseling.  One out of seven depressed people will commit an act of violence against themselves or others.  Another category of the potential violent person is the pathological blamer.  This person accepts no responsibility for their own actions and instead blames others for their problems. The impaired neurological functioning individual that was hyperactive as a child, has had brain injuries, or abnormal EEG’s is often less capable of inhibiting themselves and can be prone to violence.  Much like the pseudocommando discussed in our textbook the “interest or obsessed with weapons” killer likes guns and military weaponry and poses a threat to the workplace. The final characteristic of a person who is prone to commit a violent act in the workplace is the person that suffers from personality disorders.  These personality patterns are inflexible, impaired and unhealthy.  These people have lost touch with reality and cannot be reasoned with.

This leads us to how to we can protect ourselves in the workplace. Due to the recent Tucson shooting the internet is awash with many ways that one should protect themselves during an incident where violence is likely to occur or is occurring (James). The first tip that is given by James is to beware of loners and psychotics.  The above characterization of a person likely to commit violence given by the BLS gives us a good start at how to spot people that might be prone to endanger us.  The profile of the workplace loner who has mental health issues, a previous history of violence or domestic violence, or one that talks about future violence or violent fantasies is of course someone to watch out for.  Though not politically correct it might also be a good idea to keep tabs on those that have extreme political and religious views or obsess about conspiracy theories. A second thing that we can do to protect ourselves is not to ignore threats. When a coworker threatens violence or says that they will take revenge on someone, the threat must be taken seriously and reported through the proper channels.  Who the proper person is to report matters such as this depend on the size of your company as well as if specific security or HR procedures are outlined by your organization.  When a person turns violent in the workplace it is best to not confront them and to have a plan of escape in case the person begins shooting.  Though most large workplaces have a plan in place that an employee is supposed to follow should violence break out, more than likely the person who came to work to kill people knows it better than you do.  Follow your own plan, know where you are going and have a plan to get to safety. This plan to get to safety can only be followed if you are aware of your surroundings and should be made with the knowledge of three things.  The first aspect to your plan is to know the quickest way out of the building from any point.  The second is what to do if a room or hallway is locked or barricaded.  The final aspect is to have a place picked out inside the building to hide in case there is no way out.  If you are in the unfortunate situation where you are under fire or the shooter is close make sure to not just stand still or head toward the sounds of shooting to see what is happening.  Implement your plan of escape and only once you have made it outside of the building should you call 911.  If you are caught inside the building and cannot escape it is best to not call 911 if you believe that the shooter might hear where you are and come after you. If you are caught point blank and there is no escape turn your palms outwards, slowly raise your hands, and attempt to slowly walk away backwards.  Studies have shown that many killers are less likely to shoot a person that has their hands raised and makes slow movements.  If however there is more than just a few feet between you and the shooter run away in a zig zag pattern as it is more difficult to hit a target that is not running in a straight line.  Finally if you are shot play dead, most shooters are looking for live targets and are not as concerned with shooting injured or dead targets.  Also beware of the police and SWAT team.  During situations such as this the police do not know who is a shooter and who is a victim, when you see the police put up your hands, palms out, and walk slowly away from the building.

In conclusion murder and violence in the workplace is an unfortunate aspect of modern life.  Some occupations are more dangerous than others, however through the use of target hardening people of all occupations can become safer. The five categories of violence are each very different and by using them we can differentiate between types of workplace violence.  The characteristics of a person who is prone to commit violence or murder is outlined and can be used as a good starting point to keep ourselves safer by being watchful of the people that we work with.  Finally it is imperative to have a good escape plan and to know what to do should violence occur in your workplace so that you either do not become a victim or so that you can minimize the tragedy.



Works Cited

CFOI. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Web. <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.toc.htm&gt;.

Duhart, Detis T. Violence in the Workplace. U.S. Department of Justice, n.d. Web. <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf&gt;.

James, Geoffrey. A Coworker Pulls Out a Gun. Now What? Web. <http://www.bnet.com/blog/salesmachine/a-coworker-pulls-out-a-gun-now-what/13898?tag=drawer-container;load-section-river&gt;.

McKay, Tom. The Target Hardening Trap. Web. <http://web.archive.org/web/20030514055457/http://www.e-doca.net/Resources/Articles/The_Target_Hardening_Trap.htm&gt;.

OSHA. Workplace Violence. Web. <http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/&gt;.

Solomon, CM. Talking Frankly about Domestic Violence. National Safe Workplace Institute Survey, n.d. Print.

Williamson, David. Taxi Drivers Most Likely to Be Murdered at Work. UNC News Services, n.d. Web. <http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun00/morraco3060900.htm&gt;.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fourth Amendment


This paper will introduce the fourth amendment to The United States Constitution. A reading, definition, and discussion about the fourth amendment will be given. Particular emphasis will be given as to how the fourth amendment affects the average US citizen.

Fourth Amendment

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail–its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it–the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter–all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” (Pitt)[1] When this was said by Sir William Pitt in front of English Parliament in 1763, a war for the rights of the people had already been raging in the English courts for over 100 years. While many new laws and liberties were granted English citizens during the 1600’s and 1700’s, these laws often did not carry across the pond to the colonists of the Americas. During the late 1700’s while British citizens living in England were enjoying their civil liberties, colonists in the Americas were still being persecuted by warrants in the kings name that gave the bearer almost unlimited power to do as he pleased. In the trials which occurred in the name of civil liberty in the American court rooms, a still unfounded country found its future leaders and began to establish its future laws. John Adams later kindly spoke of these trials and talked about it was how at a trial in the Massachusetts colonial legislature where “the spark in which originated the American Revolution” was born. This paper will look at the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution. The fourth amendment will be defined, a look at the history behind the fourth amendment both in the US and England will be given. Relevant case law which has impacted both the use and scope of the fourth amendment will be looked at. Finally a discussion will be given as to where the fourth amendment is today.

Semayne’s Case in 1604 is one of the first English common law cases that dealt specifically with the rights of the citizenry in respect to both the crown and to the King himself (Court Record of King’s Bench)[2]. Nearly one hundred years before the French revolution, the people of England had begun to stand up for their rights. After the end of the middle Ages around the death of Good King Richard in 1485, the people of England had begun to look toward both colonization abroad and industrialization. This change in focus lead to the mass migration of people into towns during the beginning of the industrial revolution and changed England from an agrarian society, to an urban society where people were less spread out in the country. Because of this change and a lack of a police force lawlessness abounded throughout Brittan and the crown did its best through its network of Knights and Sherriff’s to collect taxes from the people while providing little in the way of real services. Changes began in Brittan however that were not seen anywhere else on the continent starting with the Semayne’s Case. In Semayne, the “knock and announce” rule was established in England. (Renee Lettow Lerner)[3] This case was argued in front of the Kings bench in 1604 and was argued because the Sheriff of London, with a valid writ, had entered Semayne’s home by breaking down the doors without even bothering to knock first. This case found that while the Sheriff had both the right and duty to enter the home, before he breaks into a place, he should knock on the door and make a request for the doors to be opened. This knock an announce rule was one of the first victories that the English people enjoyed in the realm of civil liberties, it is interesting to note however that it was not till 1995 and our Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Arkansas that the knock and announce rule became a part of law in the United States.

Nearly one hundred years after the Semayne decision the people of England were still fighting the crown for more civil liberties. Since newspapers were the method for disseminating thought to the masses at the time, the King had his agents look for the publisher of a paper called “The Monitor or British Freeholder” because much like the rebel newspapers in colonial America, this paper was saying things the King of England did not like. (“Entick v Carrington”)[4] Agents of the King “with force and arms” broke into the home of the papers printer, and seized not only research for his newspaper, but his private papers as well. During the search, the Kings agents broke into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts and pamphlets. The rebel newspaper printer named John Entick sought judgment against the kings men and won. The presiding judge of the Entick v Carrington trial ruled in the favor of Entick and said that “the individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law, yet the state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorized by law.” (Court Record of King’s Bench)[5] In addition the court said that the warrant itself was “contrary to the genius of the law of Enland.” One of the reasons that was given as to why the warrant itself was bad is that it was “not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized.”

In the late 1700’s the American colonies were having issues with searches and civil liberties. Most of the problems in the Americas came from illegal smuggling by the colonists to avoid taxation. In order to get their taxes, English authorities made use of writs of assistance. (Pitt) These writs were general warrants which authorized the bearer to enter any house or other private place in search for and to seize “prohibited and uncustomed goods.” These writs were issued in the name of The King of England and once issued were good for the life of the issuing king plus six months after his death. In 1760 King George II died and the authorities who had been using his writs to search and seize smuggled goods in the colonies were required to obtain new writs within six months of his death. An American colonist and merchant named James Otis, led the call to protest the issuing of new writs and asserted that any such writ would be invalid because they conflicted with English law. (“US History Online”)[6] Otis filed and lost a case in English court and he brought his complaint before parliament about the new writs, how they were issued and how they would be utilized.  Otis lost all of his cases that he brought before the English, so he ran for legislature in Massachusetts and was overwhelmingly elected due to his popularity for standing up against the writs of assistance. In 1756 the Massachusetts legislature, where Otis had been elected, enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. Other states such as Virginia soon followed suit. The Massachusetts law was important, because it was the first law ever passed in America that dealt with illegal searches or search powers of authorities. One of the reasons that Massachusetts followed Otis’s call and passed this law was the public was outraged over England’s passing of the Excise Act of 1754. This act gave tax collectors unlimited power to seize un-customed imported goods as well as any goods that the tax collector believed should be prohibited of a colonist owning, using a writ of assistance   Eventually all legislation making the writs illegal in Massachusetts were overturned by the Governor on grounds that they defied parliamentary law and British sovereignty, however by this time our nation’s founding fathers were already hard at work on the revolution. The argument that these writs were illegitimate and against English law were held by many Americans living in the colonies and people such as John Adams and other revolutionaries list these illegal searches as a chief catalyst in The American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment to our constitution was ratified in 1791 as part of The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to our constitution and were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789. The fourth amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It was almost 100 years after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment that the first Supreme Court case that would interpret it was heard. In 1886 Boyd v United States was a decided and said that “a search and seizure was equivalent to a compulsory production of a man’s private papers.” This decision gave quite a bit of consideration to the relationship between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Though today this decision has been softened considerably, this landmark case still developed on the nature of the right to privacy, and is important historically since it was the first time the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment.

One of the first cases that has changed the nature of the fourth amendment in modern times is that of Weeks v. United States. This Supreme Court case from 1914 held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also gives us the exclusionary rule that prohibits admission of illegally obtained evidence in court. Prior to the decision in Weeks v. United States, the law in The United States followed English law and allowed for evidence, even though it may have been collected illegally to be used against the accused. Weeks established the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because Mr. Weeks had his house illegally searched by US Marshals and then the prosecuting attorney used this illegally obtained evidence to convict Mr. Weeks. When the Marshals searched the Weeks house, they busted in with no warrant and took possession of papers and other property illegally. In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court held that the illegally obtained evidence was not admissible in court against Mr. Weeks.

Wolf v Colorado was a strange 1949 abortion case In which the United States Supreme Court said that the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment did not always apply to the states. This was not only a strange case, but had a rather weak 6-3 decision. Both parts of this case were later overturned as Mapp v Ohio overturned the parts about states not having to abide by the Fourth Amendment. And Brown v Board of Education overturned that states did not have to abide by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio the Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amenment could not be used by the state in a criminal prosecution. (Michael Ross Fowler, 1998, p. 183)[7] What started the case is that The Cleveland Police Department received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were hiding a bombing suspect. The police went to Mrs. Mapps home and demanded entrance; Mapp called her attorney and was advised to not let the police enter, so she told them to go away. The police then forced their way into her home while waving a piece of paper that they claimed was a warrant, Mrs. Mapp grabbed the paper and stuffed it down her shirt after realizing that it was not a warrant after all. No bombing suspect was found by the police, however they did find a trunk with obscene matierials in the basement of the Mapp home. At her trial, Mrs. Mapps attorney argued that the trunk was found during an illegal search and according to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine should not be allowed as evidence against Mrs. Mapp. Mrs. Mapp was convicted by her county court, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision, but the Supreme Court decided to hear her case and overturned the decision. Just as in Boyd v United States and Weeks v United States before this, the Supreme court ruled that the government may not use any evidence that has been tainted due to the exclusionary rule.

Six years after Mapp v. Ohio, the US Supreme Court heard a case that would define what a search is. Katz v. United States was a 1967 case that extended Fourth Amendment protection. (Oyez)[8] Katz had been using a pay phone to place illegally place bets in Miami and Boston. The FBI had recorded these conversations by placing a listening device in the phone booth but did not have a warrant to place the device. The Supreme Court decided that the evidence was obtained illegally, and this was important because this case established that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not just places such as a private residence. The Katz case is the first time that the Supreme Court held that a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy outside of their personal property.

A year later, Terry v. Ohio defined the difference in reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizures. Terry and two friends were casing a store in Cleveland and were walking back and forth on the sidewalk acting suspiciously. When an undercover police officer showed up he patted down Terry and his fellow suspects to make sure that they did not have weapons. Terry and one of his friends had concealed handguns hidden in their coats which were found during the police pat down. What the Supreme Court decided is that there was no violation of either search or seizure. Terry and his friends were seized by the cops and ordered inside of the store so that the officer could make his investigation. On pat down, for officer safety, the undercover cop felt the guns through the suspect’s clothes. They were charged with carrying concealed weapons and attempted to fight the charges on grounds of unreasonable search through the fourth amendment. The officer’s search and seizure were upheld by The Supreme Court who said that the search and seizure of Terry and his friends were reasonable as they were acting suspicious by casing the store in order to commit a robbery. In their decision the Supreme court said that it would not tolerate the invasion on private citizens because of a “hunch” had by the police, but Terry and his friends were acting suspicious and this gave the undercover officer the right to frisk them for his own protection.

There are times where a warrant to search is not needed by the police. One such instance is when the party being searched gives consent. Though it can be argued whether a person voluntarily gave consent or whether a person has the right to give consent for the search of another’s property, usually when a person gives consent there is no need for a warrant. The plain view doctrine also gives an exception as to when a warrant is needed for a search. This doctrine gives the police the power to take evidence which they find in plain view. The Horton test is a three part requirement that is needed by the police when deciding if an object meets the plain view doctrine. The first part of the Horton test requires that the officer be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed. The second part of the Horton test says that the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object. And the third and final part of the Horton test requires that the incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent. Also it has been determined by Arizona v. Hicks (“US History Online”) in 1987 that the cops may not move objects to get a better view. The Hicks case involved Hicks discharging a firearm through the floor of his apartment. When the police came to check out why the firearm had been discharged they noticed that Hicks had some nice stereo equipment but the rest of his apartment looked like he was poor. Because the equipment stood out so much the police moved the equipment to write down the serial numbers and by doing so they made an wrongful search and the stereo equipment, which was indeed stolen, was inadmissible as evidence.  Another example of when the police do not need a warrant for a search is given by the open fields doctrine. The courts have continuously ruled that a person has no expectation of privacy if they are in an open field. This however does not mean that just because a person is outside that they are necessarily in an open field. The yard of your home is considered curtilage which is treated and afforded the same protection as if you were in your home. Being in a tent or in the camp surrounding your tent would also be considered curtilage.

The police have been able to get around the need for a search warrant during other times. One exception is when we cross the boarders of the United States either at an airport or at US Customs. Searches in public schools do not require warrants as long as the searching officers have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Government offices are similarly not protected from warrantless search. Prisoners and their cells have no reasonable expectation of privacy and may therefore be searched.

The motor vehicle exception was established in 1925 by Carrol v. United States. This exception allows the search of a vehicle without a warrant providing that the officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle. The reasons cited for this lowered expectation of privacy is due to both regulations of automobiles and the fact that their very mobility creates an environment where evidence can easily be removed or destroyed. Mobile homes and RV’s usually fall under the limited expectation of privacy unless they are not able to be driven and are being used as a residence. A car which is not working however is usually not exempt from the lowered expectation of privacy.

Searches that take place because of a lawful arrest are exempt from needing a warrant. This was established in 1969 by Chimel v. California. During or immediately after a lawful arrest, the officer is permitted to perform a warrantless search which is limited to only the person arrested and the area immediately surrounding the person. This area may be anywhere the person may gain possession of a weapon, in some way escape, destroy or hide evidence.

In conclusion our rights to not being unreasonably searched have come a long way from the times in England where Sherriff’s were able to kick open any door they pleased. The Fourth Amendment has helped define law in The United States and has added much to our quality of life and the freedom that we enjoy every day. It is important to remember that the police do not always need a warrant to effect a search and that the fight to keep police powers in check will be one that we will always have to make.


Arizona v. Hicks. US History Online. 4 law notes dot com. Retrieved from http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php?t=1143

Court Record of King’s Bench. Semayne’s Case. Retrieved from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/admin/admin-fall-2005/weeks/semayne.html

Court Record of King’s Bench. Entick v Carrington and Three Others (Michaelmas Term, 6 George III 1765 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1765/J98.html

Entick v Carrinton. Retrieved from http://www.bookrags.com//wiki/Entick_v._Carrington

US History Online. In James Otis (Politics and Public Sercice, 1725-1783 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Michael Ross Fowler. (1998). The Police. In With Justice for All? The Nature of the American Legal System (p. 183). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Oyez. US History Online. In US Supreme Court Media. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_35/

Pitt, W. Fourth Ammendment Search and Seizure. U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

Renee Lettow Lerner. Semayne’s Case: Liberty of the house. Retrieved from http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/09/semaynes-case-liberty-of-house.html

[1] Pitt, W. Fourth Ammendment Search and Seizure. U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

[2] Court Record of King’s Bech. Semayne’s Case. Retrieved from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/admin/admin-fall-2005/weeks/semayne.html

[3] Renee Lettow Lerner. Semayne’s Case: Liberty of the house. Retrieved from http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/09/semaynes-case-liberty-of-house.html

[4] Entick v Carrinton. Retrieved from http://www.bookrags.com//wiki/Entick_v._Carrington

[5] Court Record of King’s Bench. Entick v Carrington and Three Others (Michaelmas Term, 6 George III 1765 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1765/J98.html

[6] US History Online. In James Otis (Politics and Public Sercice, 1725-1783 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

[7] Michael Ross Fowler. (1998). The Police. In With Justice for All? The Nature of the American Legal System (p. 183). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

[8] Oyez. US History Online. In US Supreme Court Media. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_35/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Origins of the Modern Police and the History of Criminal Investigation









Origins of the Modern Police and the History of Criminal Investigation







This paper will discuss the history of the modern police force and the development of the modern detective and criminal investigation. Through human history there has been a need for police however until the industrial revolution a true police force as we know it was not known in the western world. This paper follows the development of the police force from ancient times to the development of fingerprinting by the head of Scotland Yard.


Origins of the Modern Police and the History of Criminal Investigation


“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?” (Doyle, 1890) When Sherlock Holmes uttered these famous words to his assistant Watson he did not have all of the fancy gadgets we see today on CSI Miami. In fact when Sherlock Holmes was fighting crime in London during the Victorian Era he was only 200 years removed from Sir Galileo popularizing the scientific method.  Those 200 years however had done remarkable things for the advancement of both science and thought. The era of Queen Victoria brought about remarkable changes in the western world. The rise of industrialization and the invention of cultivation equipment allowed for a shift away from the agrarian society of previous ages to an industrialized society that would run on the backs of the populace of the newly emerging city. No longer was the small subsistence farmer planting the land to feed his family, but instead workers of the landed gentry planted crops to be sold in the markets of the big city thereby feeding the industrial workers and the industrial machine itself.

The Victorian age brought the common man to the urban jungle. Once cities had been places of trade and places where the wealthy went to congregate and to have their lavish desires fulfilled. Just as there has always been poverty and class struggle, there has always been the poor and seedy underbelly of the urban city. The arrival of so many workers led to the development of slums in London in the early 1800’s where the criminal element developed out of both necessity and hunger. It was in these early days of The Victorian age that the first organized police forces began in England. These police forces are the fore runner of our modern day police department. This paper will discuss the origins of the police from the dawn of humanity and how our modern police force developed from the early detectives of the Victorian Age and their reliance on criminal investigation.

There have always been police. The earliest examples are known to the modern researcher as “kin policing.” (“History of Law Enforcement”)   Under this form of justice, the perpetrator was punished by the victim or victim’s family. Sometimes tribal elders or spiritual leaders would play a part in the role of judge or mediator. As a society became larger the tribe or familial group merged with others policing became the responsibility of the king or ruler. Kings and rulers have always had personal body guards and soldiers and for much of history it was their job to take the role of the police.

During the middle ages the role of the police was carried out by local sheriffs in England. (Crown) These sheriffs were appointed by the local lord or appointed by wealthy local merchants and carried considerable power. The sheriff often had a group of unpaid constables, usually made up of shop keepers and well to do local businessmen who helped to keep the peace.  Night watchmen were paid and appointed by towns and were in charge of keeping the curfew.  All citizens during the middle ages were expected to answer a “Hue and Cry” which was kind of like a primitive 911 where a townsperson or member of these early police powers would scream out for help and all citizens who could hear were expected to come quickly to help. This system was very effective in the low crime towns of the time, in fact the most often Hue and Cry would be about a fire. These fires often started in the middle of the night and countless lives were saved by night watchmen and others who would scream out and wake their neighbors. Toward the 1300’s however a new menace emerged in England and that was of the armies of mighty lords that would go from town to town pillaging. These armies of course met little resistance from the rather defenseless town so the King of England made The Justice of The Peace Act in 1301. This act appointed “Justices” who would protect the towns of England and since these positions were appointed by the King himself, the mighty lords no longer dared to send their armies to raid towns as doing so was as traitorous as attacking the kings army. It was during this time that the King Richard Coeur de Lion who most today know as Good King Richard from the Robin Hood Legend came into power. King Richard fired most of the Sheriffs and in fact prosecuted many who had used their power to persecute the people. King Richard was not English by birth and brought to England the Coroner system of his native Normandy.   Coroners had actually been appointed by previous Kings in many towns in England but before King Richard these Coroners were Knights who had scribes and busied themselves with local paperwork. The coroners under King Richard had a great many responsibilities but one of their chief jobs was the investigation of serious crimes. These coroners investigated everything that would result in a possible penalty or fine especially when a huge fine might be levied on the guilty. It was not uncommon when someone died unexpectedly for people of the middle ages to hide or conceal the body so zealous were the coroners at collecting fines. (Knight) The fourteenth century brought many changes to England. The sheriffs were replaced by Justices of the Peace and Coroners provided investigation even if just for the sake of making money for the king. Other changes were also afoot in England not the least of which was the formation of The House of Commons.

The House of Commons of England was formed from non-royal wealthy or influential English people. These people were often clergy or merchants and represented the bourgeois yet non royal peoples of England in Parliament. From the 1300’s through the 1700’s the House of Commons and indeed Parliament itself had varying degrees of power depending on which royal held the throne. During the reigns of some kings Parliament was almost useless while during others they exerted great influence and even declared war on King Charles I in 1648 and won. It however was undoubtedly influence from four hundred years of The House of Commons that gave non nobles a better life throughout England. It is often cited that the better treatment of the commoner helped to save the Kings head when revolution swept through France in 1789.  It is actually from the French that we get the word “police.” The French police before the revolution were a totalitarian force under the control of the nobility of France. The people of England saw how their neighbors across the channel had suffered under the Gestapo tactics of the pre-revolutionary French police and this made England very nervous about having what we would consider a modern police force.

In fact it was not till the English began having problems with the mass influx of workers needed to fuel the start of the Industrial Revolution during the Victorian age that many Britons believed a police force necessary. During the 1700’s private bounty hunters called “thief takers” made a living in England by both catching criminals for profit and extorting criminals who did not want to be turned over to the courts. (Roth, 2001, p. 351) Originally empowered by The Act for Encouraging the Apprehension of Highwaymen  these bounty hunters received 40 Pounds for the apprehension and successful conviction of any highwayman. Thief takers also were able to keep any horses or personal effects of the convicted so long as they were not stolen.  One particularly resourceful thief taker named Jonathan Wild also was the head of a criminal organization based in London. Though he was hanged when finally caught, Wild played both sides of the law for many years often capturing and turning in rival criminals. On the whole the thief takers barely made a dent in the crime that was plaguing Brittan during the 1700’s.

In 1749 the successful author Henry Fielding established England’s first true police force. Unlike the thief takers who were more like unorganized bounty hunters, The Bow Street Runners were actually paid by a London magistrates office to apprehend criminals. The Bow Street Runners however did not do any criminal investigation, and instead merely served writs and warrants and would travel across England to apprehend criminals. In 1754 Henry’s blind half-brother John Fielding took over and started neighborhood foot and mounted patrol. The Bow Street Runners became the first detectives for the courts of London and were directly responsible for cleaning up the docks which had before been a haven for crime. The Bow Street Runners which cleaned up the docks of London became known as The Marine Patrol and are still housed in the same place they were when founded by The Bow Street Runners in 1796. (“London Metropolitan Police”)

In 1829 Robert Peel became Home Secretary of England and urged Parliament to pass a universal police system. Much like universal healthcare today, many people were afraid that having a police force was a bad idea and it was rejected and resubmitted many times before The House of Commons finally passed The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. According to the London PD’s website the first street patrols took place three months after the act became law. Though no one has a clue where its name came from, the London Police were housed in a building called Scotland Yard.

Robert Peele is the father of the modern police force as we know it today. The original officers from Scotland Yard were affectionately known as “Bobbies” a reference to Peele’s first name, or unaffectionately as Peeler’s both terms though antiquated are still in use today. Scotland Yard set a very high standard for these early police forces. (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, & Taylor, 2009, p. 5)  During the first three years 6,000 resignations and 5,000 forced dismissals were the result of the high standards upheld at Scotland Yard. In 1842 a plainclothes detective branch was added to Scotland Yard however the public was still very concerned with plainclothes detectives being spies for the police. In 1903 Sir Edward Richard  Henry became head of The London Metropolitan Police and brought many changes to the police force. One of Henry’s first official duties was the allowance of police dogs on the force. Unlike dogs used to intimidate suspects today, a very special police dog had endeared itself to the people of England. In the 1830’s a Skye Terrier named Bobby would accompany his owner John Gray on his patrol. For fourteen years after Officer Gray’s death his dog continued to patrol the same route once a day and go back and sleep on the officers grave at night. Henry’s second official duty was to enhance Scotland Yard’s criminal investigation techniques by using fingerprinting. Henry came up with the idea of fingerprinting while serving in the English army in India. Henry noticed that those Indians who could not read would sign documents by dipping their thumb in ink and use their thumb print as a signature. Finally Henry came up with an until recently used classification of finger prints. This was called The Henry System and before there were computers to compare prints, someone had to go through all known prints to figure out who the perpetrator was. Edward Henry’s Fingerprint Classification System helped with this very tedious task.

In conclusion the police force has come a long way from its early form of kin policing. Through the early years of the hue and cry system where all Britons were expected to come to the aid of the night watch to the formation of Scotland Yard and the invention of criminal investigation, many changes have taken place. Early peasants and towns were once an easy target for the merciless lord who had a mighty army. The corrupt sheriffs of medieval times would steal not only from the populace but from the king as well.  The Justice of the Peace and Coroner system helped England tremendously and led to less corruption and actually started the process of criminal investigation if only for the benefit of the crown’s taxes and fines. The early thief takers paved the way for The Bow Street Runners by establishing at least crown payed bounty hunters. The Bow Street Runners became the first paid police force in England and eventually starte not only foot but horse patrols, they also cleaned up Londons seedy wharf district and established the Marine Police still in use today. Finally the changes brought about by Robert Peele and Scotland Yard paved the way for true criminal investigation .  This investigation was furthered by both the policies and inventions of Sir Edward Henry when he developed the fingerprinting system that was used all the way up till the advent of computers.




Crown. Medieval Law Enforcement. Cambridgeshire England: Cambridgeshire criminal justice board. Retrieved from http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/Cambridgeshire/1609.html

Doyle, C. (1890). Sign of the Four. New York, NY: Doubleday.

London Metropolitan Police Historical Archives. London England: Metropolitan Police. Retrieved from http://www.met.police.uk/history/archives.htm

History of Law Enforcement. Real Police Dot Net. Retrieved from http://www.realpolice.net/articles/police-history/history-of-law-enforcement.html

Knight, B. CROWNER: The Medieval Coroner’s Duties. Britannia History. Retrieved from http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner2.html

Roth, M. (2001). Historical Dictionary of Law Enforcement (p. 351). Post Road West, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., & Taylor, R. W. (2009). Criminal Investigation (10th ed., p. 5). New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Scientific Jury Selection and Trial Consultants


“Benedict Arnold with a briefcase” the year is 2005 and Bill O’Reilly is really mad. He is talking to a still on dope Rush Limbaugh and they are going over who is the worst person in America. Mr. Limbaugh hates Cindy Sheehan; the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, and is comparing her actions with those of Bill Burkett, the retired Texas Air National Guard officer who provided CBS’ 60 Minutes with unauthenticated documents regarding President Bush’s National Guard record. They hate Cindy Sheehan, hate anti-war protestors, but most of all they hate “Benedict Arnold with a briefcase” Ramsey Clark.

Ramsey Clark is an attorney, former United States Attorney General, and according to Fox New’s top political pundits, Ramsey Clark is the greatest traitor seen since George Washington was fighting the Redcoats. In 2005 Mr. Clark was defending Saddam Hussein, who was the newest addition to the long list of odious and high profile clients that he has defended. Over his career Ramsey Clark has defended Slobodan Milosevic, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Elizaphan Ntakirutimana a Hutu leader in Rwanda that committed genocide against his own people, Branch Dividian leader David Koresh, and  a Nazi concentration camp boss named Karl Linnas.[1] Mr. Clark has been accused many times by his detractors of using high profile international trials to take jabs at United States foreign policy. Mr. Clark has in fact said that “The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy.”[2]

It was during the 1970’s that Ramsey Clark ushered in a new paradigm to the American legal system, it has become to be known as Scientific Jury Selection (SJS.) In a 1972 trial Ramsey Clark was defending a group of anti-war radicals who were against the war in Vietnam. These defendants at first look were very unlikely suspects for the US government to be after. They were called the Harrisburg Seven and of the seven defendant’s five were Roman Catholic nuns, one was a priest, and one was a man who worked at a university library. The priest’s name was Phillip Berrigan who believed that “Peacemaking is not only a central characteristic of the Gospel; peacemaking is the greatest need of the world today.”[3] One wonders what could a group of nuns, a librarian, and a priest do to be on trial? As it turns out the crime that these unusual defendants had been accused of seems to be taken from the pages of a Walt Disney script that starred Don Knox as the bumbling Father Berrigan. They had been accused of conspiring to kidnap then National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger in an effort to end the Vietnam War. The strategy of defense in the Harrisburg Seven trial was indeed brilliant in that Ramsey Clark called no defense witnesses to testify and used sympathetic Psychology Professors to help him with jury selection. Mr. Clarks strategy worked after a long deliberation, the jury remained hung and the defendants were freed. The Harrisburg Seven trial is extraordinary for reasons other than a bunch of nuns did not end up on a chain gang. The reason that this trial is so important is that it was the first time that Scientific Jury Selection played a key role in a criminal trial.

Scientific Jury Selection (SJS) is defined as: the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. It typically entails an expert’s assistance in the attorney’s use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. Such experts commonly include sociologists, criminologists, and former attorneys, but are usually psychologists. The practice is currently confined to the American legal system[4]. The reason that SJS is currently confined to the United States is that we are the only nation that does jury selection as we do. SJS practitioners are not regulated by any national or state body, due to the nature of their work there are no specified licensure or training required for employment in the field of SJS.[5] People that are employed in the field of SJS are referred to as trial consultants, legal consultants, and litigation consultants and these terms are used interchangeably. The term trial consultant is currently the most favored term applied to this discipline with most people who work in this  field referring to themselves as such. The term litigation consultant often implies a person who deals with all phases of trial consulting, while the generally used trial consultant has typically been used of a person who concentrates on certain aspects of a trial. The term jury consultant has fallen out of favor as many view this term to be very narrow in scope .

Though SJS does not have any governing body or licensure, a national voluntary group exists, this group is called the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC.) The ASTC as of 2005 had about 450 members, however the number of people practicing trial consulting in the United States is hard to gauge since there is no required licensure or registration. The ASTC has estimated that their membership probably includes only ten percent of all people who practice trial consultation in the US and this is probably a fair estimate as their membership dues are $250 a year (though as of this writing membership is currently on sale and dues have been cut in half till June of 2010) these

dues seem to only include a monthly newsletter and an annual conference that one can pay to attend.

Since there are no licensure requirements the field of SJS and trial consultation are very diverse. Salaries range dramatically and numerous factors contribute to how much or how little a person involved in this field makes. The ASTC estimates that many people in SJS make six figure incomes annually, however it is probably in their best interest to believe this and promote this high salary as being the norm since they are after all an organization that relies on donations, and what better way to get new members than to appear to have many due paying members seeming to make high salaries and being prominent in their field. A more realistic look at SJS sees that much like in the practice of law itself salaries vary greatly and depend more on location and firm size than on any other characteristic. The trial consultant practitioner in a large New York SJS firm could indeed make in the six figures with large salaries and bonuses being the norm. The trial consultant who works at either a private practice or a small town firm however does not see anywhere near these exorbitant figures and in fact often is only a part time consultant, with their main income generating from either the field of academia or the varied fields of psychology or speech communication. Many attorneys have also done graduate work in speech, psychology, and sociology and offer their services as well. One of the most famous trial consultants currently is Dr. Phil[6] who until 2003 was the President of Courtroom Scientists in Irving, Texas and who met Oprah while providing trial consulting services at her trial against the cattle producers in Amarillo.

The industry of trial consulting has come a long way from the Harrisburg Seven trial in 1972. Throughout the rest of the 1970’s and through much of the 1980’s many civil rights activists were helped by trial consultants in highly publicized trials. Much public attention has been brought to the use of trial consultants during the trials of Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Kobe Bryant. During the O.J. trial, both prosecution and defense used trial consultants. Though this might lead one to believe that SJS and trial consultants are only used in criminal trials, the ASTC is quick to point out that most of the work done by consultants in now confined to the realm of civil litigation. In fact a survey of ASTC members found that on average, “only 5% of their time was spent working on criminal cases, while nearly 80% of their time was spent representing clients who were involved in civil cases.”[7] This study goes on to note that “The remainder of consultant’s practice was dedicated to activities they listed in the category of other including: congressional testimony, international arbitrations, patent hearings, and continuing legal education.” The ASTC contends that the average client for a trial consulting firm today is often a large organization that is a defendant in a product–liability case or a wrongful-death civil suit. Mass torts such as the mesothelioma/ asbestos cases and breast-implant suits also use trial consultants.  A large player in SJS and trial consulting is Trial Behavior Consulting Inc. (TBCI)[8], who handled the defense of 150 asbestos related trials in the 1980’s.  TBCI’s founder David Island has estimated that he has picked between 300 and 400 juries and prepared between 1,000 and 1,500 witnesses in asbestos related cases over the years. TBCI’s website gives a glimpse of the many services that are currently provided by todays trial consultants.  Listed on the site are eighteen areas of specialty that include (among others): antitrust, asbestos, aviation, construction defect & landslide, eminent domain, mold litigation   patent, professional malpractice, securities litigation, toxic torts & environmental, and trucking. Just digging around TBCI’s website, one gets a true picture that this company has been involved in SJS and trial consulting of almost every kind. In addition an area of TBCI’s website gives advice (and a 13 page PDF) to the attorney about “Humanizing the accused gang defendant.” TBCI is indeed diverse and gives advice to the attorney (and another huge PDF) entitled “The Top Seven Myths of Trying IP Cases.” No fees are ever quoted on TBCI’s web site, and the industry is very tight lipped about giving out information of what they charge. The ASTC recently did a survey of its members and found that very few members were willing to talk about the fees that they charged. In 1994 though a study was done that reported that most trial consulting firms charged between $75 and $300 an hour. It is often assumed that many do not speak of what they charge for both fear of regulation and also because the field is competitive with different companies often competing for the same client and attempting to offer the best deal.

In all the role of SJS and trial consulting firms seems to have firmly enmeshed itself on the legal system of the United States. While many people view trial consultants as being a way that rich criminals can manipulate the justice system, SJS and trial consultants are more likely to be employed for civil trials and class action lawsuits. This problem with public relations is something that seems to have been brought on the industry of trial consulting by the media due to high profile trials such as the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. As this young industry matures however, more will probably become known about it, and the public will more than likely see SJS and trial consulting as just an additional piece in the legal equation. What Ramsey Clark started in 1972 with his defense of nuns, a priest, and a librarian in the Harrisburg Seven trial has grown into a multimillion dollar industry where the best people in the field can earn six figure salaries annually. This industry is currently unregulated and has no barrier to entry, and because of this one can only assume that the future of SJS and trial consulting will be very bright indeed.







  1. Williams, Michael . “Anti American Scum”. <http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2005/12/ramsey-clark-is-antiamerican-scum.php&gt;.


  1. Think Exist. <http://thinkexist.com/quotes/ramsey_clark/&gt;.


  1. Phillip, Berrigan. Start Loving. <http://jesusgodgoodetcnjay.blogspot.com/2007/08/phil-berrigan-quotes.html&gt;.


  1. “Scientific Jury Selection”. Nation Master Encyclopedia. <http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Scientific-jury-selection&gt;.


  1. Posey, Amy. Trial Consulting. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.


  1. “Oprah accused of whipping up anti-beef ‘lynch mob'”. CNN. <http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/21/oprah.beef/&gt;.


  1. Kressel, Neil. STACK and SWAY. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2002.


  1. “Trial Behavior Consulting”. Trial Behavior Consulting Inc.. <http://www.trialbehavior.com/&gt;.


[4] “Scientific Jury Selection”. Nation Master Encyclopedia. <http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Scientific-jury-selection&gt;.

[5] Posey, Amy. Trial Consulting. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

[6] “Oprah accused of whipping up anti-beef ‘lynch mob'”. CNN. <http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/21/oprah.beef/&gt;.

[7] Kressel, Neil. STACK and SWAY. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2002.

[8] “Trial Behavior Consulting”. Trial Behavior Consulting Inc.. <http://www.trialbehavior.com/&gt;.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment