News + Insights from the Legal Team at Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein

Colleges, universities, and graduate schools have had a reputation for not taking students’ complaints of sexual misconduct seriously. School disciplinary systems that were set up to deal with cheating, plagiarism, and more “academic” misconduct are ill equipped to deal with the complexities of interpersonal relationships that often come into play when there is conflict regarding sex. Undoubtedly some schools have swept accusations of rape or harassment under the rug. But in about 2001, the pendulum started to swing in the opposite direction, and today schools are under intense pressure from the federal government to investigate, convict, and discipline students as quickly as possible for any perceived incident of sexual misconduct, or else risk the “death penalty” of losing all federal funding. Because schools are no better equipped to deal with adjudicating sexual assault complaints now than they were 10 years ago, this well-intentioned reversal of attitudes frequently results in an unfair process where innocent students can be quickly railroaded to a preordained outcome in which they are branded rapists and expelled without any of the protections they would receive in the criminal justice system.

CONTINUE READING ›

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) on Friday, October 10, 2014 decided Commonwealth v. Jason LeClair, No. SJC-11469, a Fifth Amendment case.  It did not make new law but reiterated that the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege is broad and liberally construed, something that many lawyers, including prosecutors, and many judges, including those in this case, do not seem to understand.

Sheehan was a witness in a domestic A&B case against LeClair, the defendant, and was called by the Commonwealth.  He refused to answer questions by the defense about his consumption of drugs at the time of the incident, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.  The prosecutor represented that the Commonwealth was not “interested” in prosecuting him and not “likely” to do so.  On that basis the judge concluded that there was no substantial prospect that his answers could lead to his prosecution and ordered Sheehan to answer the questions.  When he continued to refuse to answer, the judge found him in criminal contempt and sentenced him to a 90-day prison term.  The sentence, and the trial, were suspended pending appeal.  The SJC took the case on its own initiative.

CONTINUE READING ›

Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
Best Lawyers
Best Law Firms
Contact Information