Alan L Yatvin is a Philadelphia attorney concentrating in police misconduct civil rights, criminal defense and children's disability rights matters. He has tried cases ranging from death penalty homicides to complex municipal liability police misconduct cases. He has also briefed and/or argued appellate matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and the Appeal Chamber of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
65 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, a historic decision on desegregation in public education, outlawing so-called separate but equal discrimination in public education.
One might think that the issue was well-settled, but Brown is once again in the news. As a Washington Post op-ed noted yesterday: “More than two dozen of President Trump’s judicial nominees have declined to answer whether Brown v. Board of Education was properly decided.”
On the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, I wrote an essay for Philadelphia’s newspaper serving the legal community, The Legal Intelligencer. On the occasion of the 65th anniversary, I am republishing that essay.1 At the time of her death in March 2018, I also wrote of Linda Brown, whose father joined the eponymous law suit on her behalf. Continue reading “Brown v. Board of Education at 65”
Memory is strange. My son, Dan, has a savant-like ability to precisely place and describe even the most mundane events, going back to nursery school. My recall of even important moments is foggier. Unlike most people born before 1960, I do not remember where I was when I learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.
On Sunday, March 25, 2018, Linda Brown of Topeka, Kansas, passed away at age 75. Brown was an educational consultant, civil rights activist and public speaker. But to many she was also the face of a historic decision on desegregation in public education.
In 1950, then seven year old Linda Brown asked her father, Oliver, why she had to make a long walk across train tracks and a busy street to catch a bus to an elementary school across town, when the Sumner Elementary School, attended by her friends from the integrated neighborhood in which she lived, was just four blocks from her house. Oliver Brown promised his daughter he would try to change that. Topeka’s high schools and junior high schools were already integrated, but its elementary schools remained segregated. On the advice of the NAACP, he took her to Sumner to enroll, but they were turned away. Oliver Brown then agreed to be a plaintiff in a suit against the Topeka Board of Education. That suit led to a landmark decision from the United States Supreme Court outlawing so-called separate but equal discrimination in public education. By the time of the 2004 ruling, Linda Brown was enrolled in an integrated junior high school.1https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/26/597154953/linda-brown-who-was-at-center-of-brown-v-board-of-education-dies
On the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, I wrote an essay for Philadelphia’s newspaper serving the legal community, The Legal Intelligencer. On the occasion of Linda Brown’s passing, I am republishing that essay about the case her father brought to fulfill a promise to her.
I was in The Hague for a meeting of the Association of Defense Counsel at the International Courts (ADC-ICT). This was my last day in The Netherlands before heading home and it was snowing.
With images of Hendrick Avercamp’s impish 17th century paintings and childhood memories of Hans Brinker, or the Silver Skates (book and movie) dancing in my head, I set out for the “centrum” to fill the last afternoon of my vacation. However, that snowy, frozen canal climate is long gone from this country. Unused to so much snow in a short period of time the Dutch city was, if not paralyzed, substantially slowed down. Continue reading “A snowy December night in The Hague”
Insulin isn’t just a drug. It’s the difference between life and death for millions of people with diabetes—and it’s something they will need every day for the rest of their lives.
When you or someone you love needs insulin and cannot afford it, the choices are scary. As the cost of insulin continues to rise, more of us, our family members, our friends and our neighbors are rationing their insulin or doing without other necessities to pay for this lifesaving drug.
The American Diabetes Association’s Board of Directors unanimously passed a resolution calling for immediate action by Congress and by all of the parties involved in the insulin supply chain to ensure affordable insulin for everyone who needs this lifesaving medication.
But to make sure that call is heard by those with the power to make a difference, we need you.
2. Email your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and classmates to tell them how important it is to keep insulin affordable, and ask them to add their voices to this call to action at stopdiabetes.com/insulin
3. Know other organizations that have a stake in making insulin affordable? Ask them to join us, and make this call for change even stronger.
The hardest part of writing something I am pleased with, is accepting when I can’t get it published. Newspaper and magazine editors only have so much space and they have to triage. When the piece is geographically specific, the available outlets are few. Or maybe what I wrote was junk and I just don’t know it. For better or worse though, because I run a blog I can always self-publish. So before you read on, be forewarned: the following Philadelphia-centric piece has received multiple rejections. I think the message is still worthwhile. But then, I would, right?
It’s 5:30 on a mid-week afternoon, and I am driving north on 16th from Locust Street to JFK Boulevard in Center City Philadelphia. The distance is about seven blocks. The trip will take more than 15 minutes. Continue reading “Traffic Pain in Philadelphia”
Recently, a colleague queried a local criminal justice listserve for advice on filing a police unreasonable force case in Pennsylvania state court in Philadelphia. I responded with some advice and observations on the pros and cons of filing in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the First Judicial District or “FJD”), versus seven blocks east in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This blog post collects and expands upon our email exchange.
The incident at issue involved allegations that Philadelphia police officers beat a suspect. When their further investigation cleared him of the initial criminal allegations, they left him on the street without arresting him or transporting him for medical treatment. There were officers on the scene who did not participate in the beating, but merely stood by without intervening. The proposed plaintiff suffered bruises, contusions, abrasions and broken teeth. He took himself to the hospital, where he was treated and released. He did not have medical insurance and did not receive follow-up treatment. His injuries have resolved, other than his teeth. Continue reading “Where to file a Philadelphia police misconduct suit.”
As I have nearly every January since 1985, I traveled to New York City to teach at the Benajmin N. Cardozo School of Law Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP) on January 7-10. ITAP, a cornerstone of Cardozo’s practical skills curriculum, is a two week immersion course where students learn cutting edge strategies for courtroom litigation using the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) model. In a “master class” approach to learning, students practice direct and cross-examinations, interviewing and preparing witnesses, selecting juries, dealing with evidentiary issues, and preparing for and presenting bench and jury trials.
In honor of the namesake of the award I am receiving today, Thurgood Marshall, here is a link to a piece I had published in The Legal Intelligencer in 2004, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Unfortunate timing has me heading home from The Hague on Monday, one day before the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) renders its judgment on the appeal of my former client, Milan Lukic. I was appointed to represent Lukic in April of 2006, following his arrest in Argentina and transfer to the ICTY in The Hague.
The Prosecutor sought re-transfer of Lukic and his cousin to the jurisdiction of the national courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) pursuant to Rule 11bis. Lukic had been convicted in absentia in Serbia, and he was quite notorious in BiH, so transfer from the security of the United Nations Detention Unit to a jail in BiH might well have resulted in his death.