ILNews

SCOTUS history on display

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys and history buffs alike may want to consider a detour to the law library at Indiana University Maurer School of Law next time they are in or near Bloomington.

Extremely rare documents and signatures of U.S. Supreme Court justices are on display for public viewing on the second floor of the school’s law library, located at 211 S. Indiana Ave. in Bloomington.

scotus-15col A pleading by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall regarding a defaulted promissory note was donated to I.U. Maurer School of Law. (Photo courtesy of IU Maurer School of Law)

Among the items in the collection are 74 signatures of U.S. Supreme Court justices who served from 1789 to present; a pleading by Chief Justice John Marshall, who served 1801-35, in the case of Blackwell v. Sydon over a defaulted promissory note, dated Nov. 24, 1785; a letter written by the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who served 1789-95; a slip opinion for Heller v. New York signed by the entire 1973 court; and signatures of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served from 1902-32; Roger Taney, who served 1836-64; Salmon Chase, who served 1864-73; Louis Brandeis, who served 1916-1939; and many others.

Also included are an 1889 Currier & Ives print of President Benjamin Harrison and his cabinet, with appended signatures of Harrison and the cabinet members; a 1963 letter from Justice William O. Douglas, who served from 1939-75, declining an invitation to write an article for Teacher’s College Journal, sent to professor Joseph R. Ellis at Indiana State College, now Indiana State University; and a two-page letter written by Judah P. Benjamin, the first Jewish member of the U.S. Senate, who later was appointed attorney general, secretary of war, and secretary of state for the Confederacy.

Many of these items are in the law library display, while the Marshall pleading is displayed inside the dean’s suite in the main law building, according to a news release from the law school.

The items were donated by collector, IU Maurer School of Law alumnus, and Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Ezra Friedlander. Judge Friedlander, who graduated with a BA in history and government from IU in 1962, told Indiana Lawyer that, while adding to his collections of sports memorabilia and art glass, he discovered an auction house had SCOTUS memorabilia among its other items. That occurred over a decade ago, and he has been collecting SCOTUS items since.

“I started with the Marshall piece, then decided to collect as many signatures as I could,” he said of the SCOTUS collection.

After collecting SCOTUS memorabilia for about 10 years, the judge realized that he was ready to stop. He wanted the law school to have the collection so others could see the items.

When collecting, regardless of the category, Judge Friedlander cautioned collectors to be certain of the provenance of the items they buy or bid on because there are many fakes and forgeries that are sold by less reputable dealers.

The issue of fakes and forgeries was also a concern of military collector and Indiana Military Museum founder Knox Superior Judge Jim R. Osborne.

Judge Osborne has collected military memorabilia since he was a young child and said that collectors and potential collectors must do their research and not always take things at face value, especially items on Internet auction sites like eBay.

To assist future owners and maintain historical significance, it is important for current owners to keep track of the provenance of an item.

“Even if an item is from a family member of a renowned person, I try to get letters or other proof from the family member to keep on file with those items. It’s important from a curator’s standpoint. It’s easy for me to say that belonged to so and so, but it’s very, very important to keep track of this for the future,” Judge Osborne said.

The Indiana Military Museum was featured in the Dec. 8 – 21, 2010, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

“Authenticity is a big issue,” Judge Friedlander said. “It’s why I only deal with auction houses instead of online. It’s the same for sports memorabilia. Auction houses will verify signatures. They have people who are experts who can authenticate signatures. If you buy online, you’re buying something blindly, I wouldn’t do that. The item may be good or may not be good, but there’s no sure way of knowing.”

The judge’s experience looking for signatures of sports figures helped in seeking out SCOTUS signatures.

“You can go to places that sell autographs, where you can pay a retail value for them,” he said. “You can also sign up for updates from auction houses.”

Judge Friedlander said while at one time he would receive up to 10 catalogs each month, many of the items are now posted online before auctions take place.

“It just takes time and patience,” he said of the collecting process.

One piece that stood out to him was the 1963 letter from Justice Douglas because of its connection to the school now known as Indiana State University. Not only was it an item related to the SCOTUS, but also Indiana.

“I’m pleased that the law school wanted it. … When you collect stuff, you don’t have an exit strategy, for lack of a better term, unless there’s someone in particular who’s interested in your family who expresses an interest in the collection. … Other people can now enjoy it and take a look at it,” Judge Friedlander said.

The school appreciates the collection as well.

“We are honored and delighted that Judge Friedlander chose to donate his collection to the IU Maurer School of Law,” said Dean Lauren Robel. “The collection gives us all an opportunity to feel directly connected to the rich history of the American legal profession.”

Judge Friedlander serves on the IU dean’s advisory board of the College of Arts and Sciences, including as chairman of the committee on directors. He also serves on the board of directors of the Indiana University Foundation, previously chaired its committee on directors, and was a member of the foundation’s executive committee.

Judge Friedlander is a member of the Maurer school’s Academy of Law Alumni Fellows, the highest honor the school can bestow upon its graduates, and he was previously the president of the school’s alumni board. He has also endowed a scholarship at the IU Maurer School of Law.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT