Law School Briefs - 3/30/12-4/12/12

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section highlighting news from law schools in Indiana. While IL has always covered law school news and continues to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alumni, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Jenny Montgomery at, along with contact information for any follow-up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

Students present findings to U.N.

Students from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law teamed up with a nongovernmental organization in the island nation Cape Verde to write a shadow report for the United Nations Human Rights Committee on that country’s failure to combat corporal punishment and sexual abuse of school children.

The report provided to the U.N. was authored by law students and representatives of the NGO Delta Cultura Cabo Verde, an organization which seeks to help marginalized children in Tarrafal, island of Santiago, Cape Verde.

The law school’s Program in International Human Rights Law (PIHRL), led by the program’s director, professor George Edwards, endorsed the report entitled “Cape Verde Breaches its Duty to Prevent and Combat Corporal Punishment and Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of Tarrafal, Santiago School Children, and Thus Violates Articles 2, 7 & 24 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).”

Key recommendations in the report include the establishment of governmental mechanisms for the mandatory reporting and investigation of corporal punishment and sexual abuse cases and the integration of the “best interests of the child” principle in those mechanisms.

This report states that Cape Verde has breached its obligations under the ICCPR by failing to protect children from corporal punishment and sexual abuse, especially by teachers. The committee seeks to determine whether states that are party to the ICCPR appropriately implement and enforce the ICCPR.

Valpo law students assist prosecutors

Each year, professor Derrick Carter of Valparaiso University Law School takes a group of students to New Orleans to do pro bono work in the public defender’s office. This year, the office was in need of extra help after 27 staff members were terminated due to budgetary problems, leaving only 21 attorneys to handle a large caseload.

Students used their criminal procedure knowledge to work on long-term projects, organize caseloads, research and write briefs and memos, listen to jailhouse tapes, and accompany assigned attorneys to court.

While in New Orleans, students also visited the Louisiana Supreme Court, the 9th Ward, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Garden District. •


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?