Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. Case Brief **DO NOT COPY**

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.

 Supreme Court of Texas, 1967

Facts:  The plaintiff visited a Carrousel Motor Hotel for a meeting and luncheon provided by his employer. The luncheon took place in the Brass Ring Club, an eatery located in the Motor Hotel. While standing in line for a buffet that he had RSVP’d to, the plaintiff had his plate snatched away in a loud and offensive manner. The plate was taken while Flynn, a manager for the defendant, shouted that Fisher, “a Negro, could not be served in the club.” The plaintiff was embarrassed by Flynn’s actions, especially as they were in front of his coworkers.

Procedural History:  The 61^st District Court found that Flynn subjected the plaintiff to undue humiliation and indignity, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $400 in actual damages and $500 in exemplary damages. The trial court then rendered the judgement for the defendant. The Waco Court of Appeals held that there was no assault because the defendant did not touch the plaintiff, and no evidence of fear of physical contact, affirming the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower decisions, reinstating the jury’s verdict; awarding the plaintiff $900 with interest.

Issue Presented: Was there evidence that an actionable battery was committed, and if so, should the corporate defendants respond in exemplary and actual damages for Flynn’s conduct?

Decision:  Yes, there was evidence to suggest beyond a doubt that actionable battery was committed in the loud and reckless snatching of the plate, and the defendants owed actual and exemplary damages as they were reckless in employing Flynn.

Holding:  The snatching of an object held by an individual constitutes battery, as long as it is done in a manner offensive to the individual, even if there was no contact with said individual.

Reasoning:  Battery can be reasonably interpreted to include intentional and offensive snatching of a possession because it was offensive to the plaintiff and caused mental harm. Even if the harm is not visible as physical harm, it can still be considered when deciding damages.

Precedents:  Morgan v. Loyacomo (1941), stands for the proposition that assault and battery does not necessitate the touching of the body, forcibly taking or hitting an item that the plaintiff holds can suffice.   

            King v. McGuff (1950) stands for the proposition that an employer is responsible for their employee’s action if they authorize it; the employee is unfit and the company is being reckless in the continued employment; the employee is a manager, or if the manager authorized the act.

Arguments Made:

Plaintiff:  The plaintiff argued that Flynn’s actions caused severe mental distress through battery when he snatched the plate and shouted that the defendant was unfit to be served. They argued that although Flynn never touched the plaintiff, the fact that he made contact with an object that the plaintiff was holding was enough to be considered battery.

Defendant:  The defendant argued that because Flynn never made contact with the plaintiff, and because the employer never condoned the actions of Flynn, the case should be dismissed.

Concurrence/Dissent:  None.

Policy Discussion & Implications:  The decision in the case benefits society because it allows for greater precedent about assault of a person’s dignity and the expansion of employer liability. It also expands the definition of the body in relation to battery to items that the individual may be holding or wearing at the time. However, the decision in this case can be detrimental to society because it could lead judges to expand the definition of battery further, and away from the original intent of the law. Overall, the decision could lead to a more comprehensive definition of assault and battery, but restraint should be applied so that the definition does not exceed the reasonable idea of assault and battery. 

Un sumario del cuento "Los Censores" *DO NOT COPY*

Gabriela Monasterio

Los Censores

            Los Censores es un cuento escrito por Luisa Valenzuela que trata de un hombre que vive en un país dominado por los censores. Los censores censuran toda la comunicación del país, y puedan encarcelar a alguien que desean. El protagonista, Juan, se enviaba una carta a una chica, Mariana, y él no quiere que los censores la descubran. En su aventura para reclamar la carta, Juan se convierte en un censor verdadero. Bajo la exterior de la cuenta, hay un mensaje de la censura, poderes del gobierno, y la opresión. El cuento revela la verdad de la complicidad de poblaciones opresados y porque se aguanta a la opresión.

            En la cuenta, Juan se representa las personas normales, el hombre corriente. Su cuento puede ser el cuento de alguien, y fue el cuento de Argentina en los setenta. El cuento es contado por una persona conocida a Juan, y este se da una informalidad al cuento, y un sentido que todo el mundo conoce a un Juan, a alguien que desaparecía. La carta puede ser cualquier carta en Argentina, puede ser un documento secreto, o simplemente una carta de amor. No les importa el contenido a los censores, le importa el miedo, el terror de la población, porque puede gobernar efectivamente con el miedo. Este es mostrado por el final del cuento, en que Juan se vuelve en unos de los desaparecidos. Juan sabe que su vida no es su propio, es de los censores. Cuando empezó a trabajar para los censores al comienzo de la obra, él sabe que va a ocurrir- su muerte. Durante el cuento, Juan pierde su humanidad, y su sentido del bien y del mal. El no sufrió cuando su colega estaba herido, no le importa la huelga, y a través del cuento, Juan está perdiendo su misión- salvar a la carta de Mariana.

Pienso que señora Valenzuela estaba representando la travesía entre resistencia y complicidad en el cambio de Juan, y en el cuento. Juan era optimista a la empieza, pero al final, él fue un engranaje en el sistema. El no conoce a los cambios, y piensa que es para la beneficia del estado.

Palabras nuevas:

1.     Inocuo- La serpiente parece venenoso, pero realmente, es inocuo y no puede herir a alguien.

2.     Engranajes- Mi reloj de bolsillo no era funcionado, y por eso, limpie los engranajes.

3.     Repartición- Visité a la repartición para coleccionar mi cheque de beneficios.

4.     Ahumados- El coche tiene ventanas ahumadas para no deja a alguien ver adentro.

5.     Insalubre- Los dulces son insalubres, y no puede comerlos para la cena.

6.     Sibilinas- El psíquico es sibilino en sus maneras.

7.     Celo- El estudiante demostraba celo para las ciencias, y ahora es un científico.

8.     Imperar- El dictador impera al país.

9.     Afinar- Necesito afinar mis talentos artísticos para ganar el premio de pintura.

10 Novedosa- El inventor creó un invención novedosa y tiene un patente para él.

A Look at Positive Labeling and its Impact on the Educational Trajectories of Students **DO NOT COPY**

A Look at Positive Labeling and its Impact on the Educational Trajectories of Students

Gabriela Monasterio

Northeastern University Political Science Department

            In education, labels are applied to everyone, whether it is explicit or implied. Children with learning disabilities (LDs), those with behavioral issues, “average” students, and the gifted are all labeled, and each of these labels has a meaning associated with it. Labels tell us how we should act around others, and our labels change how others treat us. In education, this can be the difference between success and failure, or between getting accepted or rejected from a university.  In one experiment involving young children, a randomly selected group was labeled as “spurters,” or those about to experience an intellectual growth spurt. The students labeled as spurters showed a greater increase in IQ over the year, despite being randomly selected (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). This is known as the Pygmalion effect, and this effect is most pronounced in marginalized groups, including women and minorities. This inspired the following research, which surveyed the population of the Northeastern University freshman dorm International Village. The opposing force to the Pygmalion effect is stereotype threat, where minorities perform worse on average when reminded of the stereotypes that label them as inferior or when the “stigmatized identities were activated” (Thompson, 2014).  Although these examples deal with education and positive labeling, the vast majority of the literature does not deal with positive labeling, and much of it deals with LDs and behavioral disorders.

            When dealing with LDs, the literature is conflicted, as many students have multiple disorders or mitigating factors, so the additional labeling may push them back further instead of helping them (Moniqueka and Heraldo, 2012). Several studies involving labeling video or paper descriptions of students resulted in conflicting conclusions, with Batzel et al, and Harvey & Pellock concluding that labels influence the way teachers perceive a student, and Boucher, and Cornett-Ruiz & Hendricks concluding that labels do not overwhelmingly influence teachers (Ayers, Krueger and Jones, 2015). A 2013 study looked at the outcomes of the students diagnosed with LDs, and the real causes behind their outcomes. It was concluded that the outcomes were a combination of self-stigmatization, their deficiencies, direct stigmatization, and cumulative disadvantage (Shifrer, 2013).

            One study that did involve positive labels looked at the correlation between a mother’s praise and her student’s performance in school, but the results were quite strange. Although the praise increased the child’s perception of their intelligence, it decreased their likelihood to take on challenges (Pomerantz and Kempner, 2013). To the average observer, those seem contrary, but Pomerantz and Kempner concluded that greater perceived intelligence in children was inversely correlated to effort in those children. In the following research, The goal was to fill in the gaps that these studies have left; what correlation does positive labeling have on students once they have exited the K-12 school system?  

Methods

            The Northeastern University dorm was surveyed door-to-door between floors 2 and 9 using a 1-page front and back written survey. The survey was completed between the hours of 8 and 11:30 on a weeknight. This time was chosen because it was between normal dinner hours and before quiet hours, so the researcher surmised that the most students would be in their dorm rooms or common areas between those hours. The survey was posed as an optional break from studying or way to procrastinate further on assignments being ignored, and as a way to help a fellow student.  Respondents were asked about their experiences being labeled, and asked to provide specific details about the first instance of labeling. They were also asked about their college applications and acceptances in order to see the effects of the labeling. The respondents were also asked a panel of questions to measure their self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). For classification purposes, respondents were also asked their race, ethnicity, age, and the race they are perceived to be by others. The full battery of questions can be found in figure 3, and the responses can be found in table 2.

            An attempt was made to sample each floor equally, and all sections of the dorm were sampled equally other than 5^th floor West side, and 9^th floor West side, both with no responses. In total, 57 students were surveyed, and 4 of those were omitted due to incomplete surveys. All respondents were freshmen attending Northeastern University, and all respondents were members of the Honors College.

            The data were inputted by hand and then analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

Hypotheses

1.     If the student was positively labeled before the age of 10 and was not told they were below average, then the student would be admitted to more colleges and honors programs compared to those labeled after the age of 10

2.     If the student was negatively labeled, they will have lower self-esteem than those who were not negatively labeled.

Results

            Of the 53 complete responses, all 53 had been labeled positively, and only 3 had been labeled negatively in addition to being labeled positively. The mean age for positive labels was 8.5, the median was 8, and the range was 11. The mean age for negative labels was 12.6, the median was 14, and the range was 12. Of the respondents, 66% were White, 17% were Asian, 12% were African American or African American and White, and 8% were Other or White and Other. One student requested to be labeled as “Eastern European” and was placed under the “White” label for ease of analysis. Men comprised 51% of those sampled, women comprised 49%, 96% of respondents were educated in the United States, and 77% attended public school. Nearly 90% of the respondents participated in AP, 68% participated in Honors programs, 15% participated in IB, and 6% participated in other advanced programs (Figure 1). The average respondent was an 18.1year-old white man who was labeled as above average in intelligence by a teacher at the age of 8.5. “He” believed his teacher both at the time and now, went to a public school, participated in 1.7 advanced programs, and has a self-esteem score of 17/24. He got into 68% of his universities, and was accepted into 76% of his honors programs.

            The 6% (n=3) of respondents who were labeled negatively had higher levels of self-esteem (17.6/24) compared to the average student (17.3/24). Non-white students were recognized at earlier ages (7.3) compared to white students (8.8), and those with learning disabilities were recognized over two years earlier, at age 6.3.

            As seen in table 1, there was no strong or moderate positive correlation between the data other than what was directly related, such as number of schools applied to and number of schools admitted to (r=.57), and number of honors programs applied to and number of honors programs accepted to (r=.72). There were no strong negative correlations, and a few weak positive correlations between number of advanced programs that the student participated in and the number of schools the student was admitted to (r=.34). Other weak positive correlations included being Hispanic and the number of schools a student was admitted to (r=.32), and believing a label at the time and continuing to believe it (r=.33). There was a weak negative correlation between the number of honors programs applied to and the continuing belief in a label. All other correlations had an |r|<.3.

Conclusion

            The first hypothesis presented above was supported by the data in figure 4, which show the difference in percentage acceptance rate by age of labeling. Those who were labeled at or before age 10 had better outcomes than those who were labeled later in life. This has interesting implications when applied with the Pygmalion effect, as that would imply that simply by labeling the child they became smarter and more high-achieving than their later-blooming counterparts. Yet this is contrary to the Pomerantz and Kempner study, which linked praise and lower effort.

            The second hypothesis was not supported by the data, which showed slightly higher self-esteem in those who were labeled negatively, but this could be due to sampling error, as the sample size of those labeled negatively was 3, or it could be attributed to imperfect self-esteem measurement, as the researcher cut several questions from the self-esteem quiz. This will require more study to be effectively supported or not supported.

            Other forms of error include the small sample size, 53 out of the dorm capacity of 770; question bias, the informal setting in which the survey was administered, and human error in inputting and calculating the data. The demographic data also strayed from the university-wide demographics data from 2015, but that in itself if flawed, as there is no honors-specific data available other than what was collected in this research.

            This research can form the building blocks for further studies about labeling of high-achieving students, and can be drawn from and re-analyzed to form other conclusions about the population of the Honors College. This research also adds to the complexity of the effects of labeling in education, and shows the need for further research in the area.  

Bibliography

Ayers, Jane M., Lacy E. Krueger, and Beth A. Jones. 2015. "Effects of Labeling and Teacher Certification Type on Recall and Conflict Resolution." Journal of Educational Research 108 (6): 435-448.

Gold, Moniqueka E. and Heraldo Richards. 2012. "To Label Or Not to Label: The Special Education Question for African Americans. (Report)." Educational Foundations 26 (1-2): 143.

lo, C. O. 2014. "Labeling and Knowing: A Reconciliation of Implicit Theory and Explicit Theory among Students with Exceptionalities." Journal of Educational Research 107 (4): 281-298.

Pomerantz, Eva and Sara Kempner. 2013. "Mothers' Daily Person and Process Praise: Implications for Children's Theory of Intelligence and Motivation." Developmental Psychology 49 (11): 2040.

Restivo, Emily and Mark M. Lanier. 2015. "Measuring the Contextual Effects and Mitigating Factors of Labeling Theory." Justice Quarterly 32 (1): 116-141.

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image: &nbsp;. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shifrer, Dara. 2013. "Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with Learning Disabilities." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54 (4): 462-480.

Thompson, Gregory A. 2014. "Labeling in Interactional Practice: Applying Labeling Theory to Interactions and Interactional Analysis to Labeling." Symbolic Interaction 37 (4): 458-482.

Appendix

Table 1.

Table 2. 

 

Figure 1.

UNAVAILABLE

Figure 2.

UNAVAILABLE

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

UNAVAILABLE

Political Economy in India **DO NOT COPY**

FOREIGN AID IN INDIA

Gabriela Monasterio

Comparative Politics 1155

Paper 2: Question 2

November 28, 2016

Honorable President Pranab Mukherjee,

            I address you today to inform you of my position on foreign aid and national development for India. I hope that this briefing will help inform your decisions for India and her people.

            India has grown since its independence in 1947; it has transitioned from a socialist to a neo-liberal ideology, and we have grown to be more accepting of capitalism and foreign investment in recent years (Atul: 1998). Our country is the recipient of foreign aid, and that aid has been increasing over time, from 616 million USD in 1961 to 2.9 billion USD in 2014. There has been a slight decrease in our aid received recently, as our peak was 3.2 billion USD in 2011, but overall, there is a pattern of increased aid to our country (World Bank Group: 2016). We are trying to transition from an aid recipient to a donor, but now we are stuck in the middle. Our donations should exceed our received aid this fiscal year, but the world sees us as a “needy donor,” a state that is trying so hard to be liberal that it ignores its own domestic policies (Fuchs and Vadlamannati: 2013). In order to escape this label, we should forgo government-to-government aid, instead focusing our efforts on foreign investment and economic growth.

I believe that it is important for us to continue to provide aid despite our current status as an aid recipient because of the need for development in Southern Asia and the influence it gives us over the region. Publicly, of course, we must declare that it is only out of the goodness of our hearts, but behind closed doors, we will use the aid to curry favor. I have come to this conclusion by studying Lichbach and Zuckerman, whose culturalist, structuralist and rationalist perspectives I find intriguing. Their rationalist perspective calls for the cool interpretation of a situation, and choosing the “rational” or most logical and beneficial action (Lichbach and Zuckerman: 1997). A rationalist reading of India’s situation leads me to conclude that giving aid to our southern neighbors in South-South strategy is the best solution. We have already begun this strategy by supplying much of our aid to Bhutan and the Maldives, countries which are at a similar development level to India, but have much fewer resources. The only country in our region that we do not offer aid to is Pakistan, for obvious reasons. By doing this, we will gain an advantage over our needy neighbors, boosting our own economy as they give us more favorable trade and diplomatic agreements. If you think this is disingenuous, I would like to remind you of when the United Kingdom cried ingratitude at us for buying French planes instead of British ones, citing that one of their reasons for giving us aid was to entice us into purchasing their planes (The Logical Indian: 2015). We can, and should be influencing those around us, for our benefit and theirs. If we give other countries aid, they will be more likely to purchase goods and services from us, driving our economy. The best way for India to become a superpower in its own right is to have high and continuous economic growth (Sharma: 2013). Although Prime Minister Singh’s redistributive policies did help de-stratify the wealth in the early 2000’s, they did little to address the rapid rate of inflation and high deficits. His corrupt and inefficient policies that feed and employ millions cost our taxpayers billions annually. These policies of less redistribution and greater focus on the economy are also supported by William Easterly, in his piece To Help the Poor. Here, he shows that a GDP growth of just 1% will cause a 1% increase in the incomes of the lowest 20% of society (Easterly: 2001). This makes an excellent case for greater investment in India and the countries around us. The people obviously agree that economic growth is the only way out of poverty, as they voted the Bharatiya Janata Party in, a party that ran on renewed investment and completing key infrastructure projects (Manuel: 2014).

The aid we receive is as you have once said; “a peanut in our total development spending.”[1] The approximately 2 billion USD that we received annually in the early 2000’s is only 0.2% of India’s GDP (NORRAG: 2010). We spend most of our received aid on infrastructure, but much of it also goes to improving the lives of the Dalit, allowing them access to many services they were denied in the past (Jha and Swaroop: 1999). Those who worry that India would fall into ruin, becoming a society dominated by structuralist class struggles is misguided. They argue that government institutions are the only way to develop India, and by claiming this, they crush the people’s will. They are eroding our Hindu culture with their western safety nets, taking charity away from the people. The reforms implemented by NGOs and our government will not disappear. Dalit women will still be able to give birth in hospitals, and they will not soon forget the lessons of sanitation and empowerment that they were taught during India’s period as an aid recipient (Rowlett: 2015). India’s population will not stage a Marxist revolution if we take away foreign aid, and the only changes will be for the better.

Some say that redistribution is the only way for the lower classes to rise above the poverty level. They believe that economic growth is not enough to pull these people out of the depths of poverty, and that the government must intervene in the social and economic spheres. These people look through a culturalist lens, crying out that what works in one country will not necessarily work for India (despite the knowledge to the contrary), and they wish to take more time studying the problem, asking for more foreign aid. They reject the notion that economic growth will lead to prosperity. They are not content to let the government stay small, they wish to have it take over every facet of our lives. They are wholly and undeniably refuted by several of the greatest political scientists of our time, including Easterly as I have mentioned above, Collier, Fukuyama, and Smith.

Collier and Gunning argue that many countries in Africa have not grown at the rate they were expected to, mostly because of the factors surrounding them. The largest factor that they cite is lack of investment as well as failure to deliver basic services. They also note that “even widespread reforms in [public services] might not be sufficient to induce a recovery in private investment, since recent economic reforms are never fully credible.”[2] Collier and Gunning warn the Sub-Saharan countries, but they also warn us: reform now, or never recover (Collier and Gunning: 1999). Fukuyama rings true in much the same way in his piece The Necessity of Politics, warning us about the dangers of decaying states. India is beginning to fit some of Fukuyama’s criteria for a failed state, most obviously “failure to deliver basic services that people demand.”[3] (Fukuyama, 2011). According to the BBC, 40 percent of the world’s malnourished children live in India, and over 300 million Indians live on less than 1.25 USD per day (Rowlett, 2015). That is a failure of the government to provide the service of a stable, healthy life to its people, no matter their caste. Adam Smith’s argument in The Wealth of Nations is simple: remove government involvement, or limit it where it is necessary. By continuing to take foreign aid and using it to subsidize, we are increasing the involvement of the government in the free market, something that Smith says can only do harm (Smith: 1976). Even champion of Indian redistribution Atul Kohli admits that “the Indian state’s capacity to implement pro-poor, redistributive policies has always been quite limited”[4] and that cooperation would be critical at every level if redistribution is to be achieved successfully (Kohli: 1988). Redistribution would be costly, corruption-prone, and there is no guarantee that it would help the people. Even if economic growth does not help the poor as much as we hope, the economy would still be better off than it is now, and the nation will have greater development.

Keeping all of this in mind, I would recommend two things: first, to declare India closed to governmental aid, with the provision that all aid that other countries wish to be given to India be instead given to an NGO who wishes to work in India. We do not want the poorest of the poor to go ignored, and if foreigners are willing to touch the Dalit, let them. We will not turn down individual charity, but the government will take no part in the receiving or distributing of funds. This will eliminate the corruption associated with foreign aid, and it will most likely increase the help that our lower classes receive, as there is an inherent bias within our system. Second, I recommend further participation in investment banks such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The loans provided by these banks can take the place of the aid we once received, and they will target more specific areas. The hard cash limit of the loans will discourage corruption, as every paise will matter. Indian companies will benefit from the competition for contracts, and our economy will experience a boon.

It is not unheard of for countries to refuse aid. In 2005, Eritrea cut itself off from most foreign aid, declining everything from food, to development loans, to grants from charities. Since then, Eritrea’s GDP has more than doubled, from about 1.1 billion USD to over 2.6 billion USD (World Bank Group, 2016). Measles and Polio have been eradicated, and the infant mortality rate has plummeted. The number of chronically hungry Eritreans is not being officially monitored, but the aid officials in Eritrea generally agree that food production levels have stayed consistent since the rejection of aid (Sanders: 2007). Some of this may be attributed to the increased efficiency due to Eritrea’s autocratic leader, but it is certain that their refusal of aid has not destroyed the poor country as many claimed it would. Surely a country as large and prosperous as India would do even better.

During and after natural disasters, it is quite common for countries to refuse foreign aid as well. Bangladesh refused aid after a garment factory collapsed, India rejected aid after an earthquake and tsunami in 2005, Pakistan rejected aid in 2015, and even the mighty United States rejected some foreign aid in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. All of the aforementioned countries did so in a mix of lack of need and power plays. Bangladesh put out a call for help, but when they were denied the specific tools they needed most, they rejected all aid, claiming that they were doing a perfectly fine job without outside intervention. They arrested the building’s owner, and attempted to diffuse the situation by declaring a holiday for garment workers so that they could mourn and in hopes that their anger would fade (Doyle: 2013). As you know, we rejected the aid in hopes that the international community would redirect their aid to the countries that needed it more, like Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Maldives. We also rejected the aid to show that we are a world power who does not need any help from anyone. “India wants to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem,”[5] and to protect that image, we rejected aid despite our own precedent of receiving aid in times of disaster (Luce: 2005). Pakistan rejected aid because they felt that they did not need the aid, as there was “no shortage of supplies.” (ANI: 2015). This was obviously an attempt to emulate India, the far superior country. The United States rejected some aid after hurricane Katrina, but most of it was simply squandered or tangled in bureaucratic red tape long enough that it became useless (Solomon: 2007). This was also a point of pride for them, but it also furthers my point that aid is best used by NGOs and not the government. The US government, long praised for its exemplary democracy, has failed its citizens in Louisiana. If the great United States has bureaucratic problems, how can we say that we are not also held up by red tape and malapportionment of funds? The only way to fix this is to remove aid entirely. We must forgo it for our own sake. Thank you.

References

ANI. "Earthquake in Pakistan: Foreign Aid for Quake Relief Work Rejected by PM Nawaz Sharif&nbsp;" Financial Express. The Indian Express, last modified Oct 29, accessed Nov 26, 2016, http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/earthquake-in-pakistan-foreign-aid-for-quake-relief-work-rejected-by-pm-nawaz-sharif/158273/.

Doyle, Mark. 2013. "Bangladesh Defends Rejection of Foreign Aid for Collapse." BBC News, April 30,. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22347672.

Easterly, William. 2001. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics&nbsp;. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Fuchs, Andreas and Vadlamannati, Krishna C. "India - the Needy Donor." Aid Data. College of William and Mary, last modified Feb 6, accessed Nov 20, 2016, http://aiddata.org/blog/india-the-needy-donor.

Fukuyama, Francis. 2011. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Jha, Shikha and Vinaya Swaroop. 1999. "Foreign Aid to India: What does it Finance?" Economic and Political Weekly 34 (19): 1142-1146.

Kohli, Atul. 1998. Politics and Redistribution in India. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.

Lichbach, Mark I. and Alan S. Zuckerman. 1997. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. New York: Cambrige University Press.

Luce, Edward. "India Defends Refusal to Accept Foreign Aid - FT.Com." Financial Times. The Financial Times, last modified Jan 5, accessed Nov 27, 2016, https://www.ft.com/content/90300afe-5f3d-11d9-8cca-00000e2511c8.

Manuel, Anja. "Why India has Less Inequality than U.S." Reuters. Reuters, last modified May 8, accessed Nov 23, 2016, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/08/why-india-has-less-inequality-than-u-s/.

NORRAG. "A Brave New World of 'Emerging', 'Non-DAC' Donors and their Differences from Traditional Donors." NORRAG. Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, last modified Sept, accessed Nov 26, 2016, http://www.norrag.org/es/publications/boletin-norrag/online-version/a-brave-new-world-of-emerging-non-dac-donors-and-their-differences-from-traditional-donors/detail/emerging-aid-donors-india.html.

Paul Collier and Jan Willem Gunning. 1999. "Why has Africa Grown Slowly?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives 13 (3): 3-22. doi:10.1257/jep.13.3.3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646982.

Rowlett, Justin. "UK Ending Aid to India: Where does the Money Go?" BBC., last modified Oct 7, accessed Nov 25, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398449.

Sanders, Edmund. 2007. "Eritrea Aspires to be Self-Reliant, Rejecting Foreign Aid." Los Angeles Times, Oct 2,. http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-eritrea2oct02-story.html.

Sharma, Ghanshyam. "India Needs Economic Growth, Not Redistribution." Centre Right India., last modified Oct 12, accessed Nov 18, 2016, http://centreright.in/2013/10/india-needs-economic-growth-not-redistribution/#.WDsDtuYrKM_.

Smith, Adam. 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations&nbsp;, edited by Edwin Cannan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Solomon, John and Spencer S. Hsu. 2007. "Most Katrina Aid from Overseas Went Unclaimed." The Washington Post, April 29,. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html.

The Logical Indian. "Know Everything about how Much India Receives and Donates Foreign Aid." The Logical Indian. Creatiwox Internet, last modified Nov 6, accessed Nov 19, 2016, https://thelogicalindian.com/story-feed/exclusive/know-everything-about-how-much-india-receives-and-donates-foreign-aid/.

World Bank Group. "GDP (Current US$)." The World Bank., accessed Nov 25, 2016, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=ER.

———. 2016b. Net Official Development Assistance and Official Aid Received (Current US$) The World Bank.

---

[1] Rowlett, Justin. "UK Ending Aid to India: Where does the Money Go?" BBC., last modified Oct 7, accessed Nov 25, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34398449.

[2] Paul Collier and Jan Willem Gunning. 1999. "Why has Africa Grown Slowly?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives 13 (3): 3-22. doi:10.1257/jep.13.3.3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646982.

[3] Fukuyama, Francis. 2011. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

[4] Kohli, Atul. 1998. Politics and Redistribution in India. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.

[5] Luce, Edward. "India Defends Refusal to Accept Foreign Aid - FT.Com." Financial Times. The Financial Times, last modified Jan 5, accessed Nov 27, 2016, https://www.ft.com/content/90300afe-5f3d-11d9-8cca-00000e2511c8.

13th Movie as it relates to India **DO NOT COPY**

13^th raises issues of prison population in India because India has the fifth highest prison population, at over 380,000 people and with the prisons running at 117% capacity, higher than the US’ 107%. The prison population in India increased by over 100,000 people between 200 and 2006, but only increased by about 10,000 between 2006 and 2012[1]. This shows a slowing of the imprisonment of Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis (the three most exploited groups), but there is still an insane amount of people being imprisoned. India also has a history of treating those awaiting trial the same as those who have been convicted, which is to say badly. Although the Indian Constitution mandates that the detainees be produced in front of a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, most of their appearances result in the extension of their custody buy the police, usually without counsel or any real protest. The “undertrials” as they are called, spend months awaiting trials- trials that commonly end in acquittal[2]. Hundreds of Indians are given the death penalty, inconsistent with precedence, forcing a long appeals process that leaves inmates wondering if today will be their last[3]. Even those not sentenced to death fear for their lives. Some 111 deaths and 21 “disappearances” occurred in a five-year period from 1984 to 1989 in the state of Andhra Pradesh, all in police lock-ups. This mirrors what is exposed in “13^th”, and could lead to a similar line of investigation into the Indian penal system, despite the Supreme Court’s new focus on reforming the system[4].

Structuralist and culturalist perspectives seem the most compelling, as there is nothing rational about imprisoning a race in a flight of fancy. As discussed in the documentary, the South was devastated after the Civil War, and the abolition of slavery only exacerbated this, destroying their weakened economy. The free prison labor became ingrained in the structures of the South, just as slavery had been, and it was simply an extension of slavery to incarcerate tens of thousands of blacks. Culturalists would look at Nixon’s Chief of Domestic Policy’s statement about targeting blacks, the campaigns from Reconstruction onward that focused on safety, segregation and disenfranchisement and would conclude that discrimination against blacks was so ingrained in American society that the current system is inevitable.

Hobsbawm’s Nationalism informed my perspective, showing why it has been so hard to initiate change in American society. The black community has intellectuals, no doubt, but they feel removed from their poorer brethren and cannot spread the knowledge of why the community is being repressed as well as one who is ingrained in the community. Because the force that they are fighting is their nation, because they are overwhelmingly disenfranchised, because their leaders are imprisoned, and because they are not a unified front, blacks cannot express nationalism in the same way that the French did in the 1780s and 90s. Zakaria’s A Brief History of Human Liberty also informed my viewing. His piece describes how conflict and competition of powers increases liberty, which allowed me to see that because there has not been a real conflict over the governance of the black community since the Civil War, their liberty has no reason to have increased in that time. Many of their advancements were a result of the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr., who competed with the President for social control of the black community, not the actual control.

I would endorse the current actions that the Indian Supreme Court is taking- comprehensive reform and oversight. I would recommend that they expand the reform, adding to it a system for public defenders (or their equivalent) to be compensated for their work (they aren’t at the time of writing). Removal of the caste system would also improve the prison system, eliminating the ingrained prejudices that lead to maltreatment of the lower castes and preferential treatment for the upper middle class.

Bibliography

Doshi, Vidhi. 2016. "India's Death Row Prisoners Face Horrific Conditions, Study Finds." The Guardian, May 6,.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/india-death-row-prisoners-horrific-conditions-study.

Human Rights Watch. 1991. Prison Conditions in India Human Rights Watch.

San, Shreeja. 2016. "Supreme Court Kicks Off Prison Reforms." Live Mint, Feb 06,.http://www.livemint.com/Politics/2GQAbPa6Wm2IeK4z1I6CUN/Supreme-Court-kicks-off-prison-reforms.html.

Subodh Varma. 2014. "Muslims, Dalits and Tribals make Up 53% of all Prisoners in India." The Times of India, Nov 25,.http://search.proquest.com/docview/1627142907.

World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research. "World Prison Brief Data: India." World Prison Breif.,http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/india.

---

[1] World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research. "World Prison Brief Data: India." World Prison Breif.,http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/india.

[2] Human Rights Watch. 1991. Prison Conditions in India Human Rights Watch.

[3] Doshi, Vidhi. 2016. "India's Death Row Prisoners Face Horrific Conditions, Study Finds." The Guardian, May 6,.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/india-death-row-prisoners-horrific-conditions-study.

[4] San, Shreeja. 2016. "Supreme Court Kicks Off Prison Reforms." Live Mint, Feb 06,.http://www.livemint.com/Politics/2GQAbPa6Wm2IeK4z1I6CUN/Supreme-Court-kicks-off-prison-reforms.html. 

Background

http://www.ijmonitor.org/charles-taylor-background/

Background

Name: Charles Ghankay Taylor
Nationality: Liberian
Arrested: March 29, 2006; Taylor was arrested in Nigeria and transferred into custody of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Charges: 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Trial start date: January 6, 2008
Trial end date: March 9, 2011
Judgment: April 26, 2012; convicted of all charges.
Sentencing: May 30, 2012; sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Charles Taylor was in Accra, Ghana, attending peace talks, when the news came through that he had been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone on June 4, 2003. He fled back to Liberia, fearing arrest. Two months later, a deal between the United Nations, the United States, the African Union, and ECOWAS (the Economic Community of West African States) was struck to get Taylor out of Liberia. Taylor then went into exile in Nigeria.

Almost three years passed before Taylor was arrested and transferred to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. His time in Nigeria did not go unchallenged, however. Civil society and others were still pushing for him to answer the charges against him in the indictment. In Abuja, Nigeria, two Nigerian businessmen, David Anyaele and Emmanuel Egbuna—whose limbs were allegedly amputated by Taylor’s forces in Liberia—challenged Taylor’s asylum and sought to have him extradited to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to face justice. But the case wound its way through the courts slowly.

Eventually, the new Liberian president, former World Bank official Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, asked for Taylor to be returned to Liberia. Twenty days later, on March 25, 2006, Nigerian president, Olusdegun Obasanjo informed Johnson-Sirleaf that Liberia was “free to take former President Charles Taylor into its custody.” Within 48 hours, Taylor went missing from his seaside villa in Nigeria. Nigerian officials raised the alarm and ordered his arrest. Taylor was caught by Nigerian authorities on March 29, 2006, as he tried to cross the Cameroon border in a Range Rover. Taylor was placed in a Nigerian Government jet with military guard and flown to Monrovia.  Peacekeepers arrested him on the tarmac and put aboard a UN helicopter headed for Freetown, where he was handed over to the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Citing fears over instability in Liberia if Taylor were tried in neighboring Sierra Leone, Sirleaf-Johnson backed a bid to have Taylor’s trial moved to The Hague. The Dutch Government asked for a Security Council resolution to authorize the transfer, and said it would host Taylor’s trial on the condition that another country agreed in advance to take Taylor after his trial finished (the United Kingdom agreed). Security Council Resolution 1688 was passed unanimously on June 16, 2006, paving the way for Taylor to be tried by the Special Court on the premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Resolution 1688 also requested “all States to cooperate to this end, in particular to ensure the appearance of former President Taylor in the Netherlands for purposes of his trial by the Special Court, and encourages all States as well to ensure that any evidence or witnesses are, upon the request of the Special Court, promptly made available to the Special Court for this purpose.”  After some delays, Taylor’s trial began in earnest on January 7, 2008, in The Hague.

Other trials at the Special Court for Sierra Leone

AFRC trial

Alex Tamba Brima (a.k.a. Tamba Alex Brima, Gullit), senior member of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), Junta, and AFRC/RUF forces, member of the Junta Governing Body, the Supreme Council. Trial Judgment July 19, 2007: guilty, 50 years single term of imprisonment. Appeal Judgment February 22, 2008: guilty, 50 years single term of imprisonment.

Brima Bazzy Kamara (a.k.a. Ibrahim Bazzy Kamara, Alhaji Ibrahim Kamara), senior member of the AFRC, Junta and AFRC/RUF forces, member of the Junta Governing Body, the Supreme Council. Trial Judgment July 19, 2007: guilty, 45 years single term of imprisonment. Appeal Judgment February 22, 2008: guilty, 45 years single term of imprisonment.

Santigie Borbor Kanu (a.k.a. 55, five-five, Santigie Khanu, Santigie Kanu, S.B. Khanu, S.B. Kanu, Santigie Bobson Kanu, Borbor Santigie Kanu), senior member of the AFRC, Junta and AFRC/RUF forces, member of the Junta Governing Body, the Supreme Council. Trial Judgment July 19, 2007: guilty, 50 years single term of imprisonment. Appeal Judgment February 22, 2008: guilty, 50 years single term of imprisonment.

CDF trial

Samuel Hinga Norman, National Coordinator of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF) and Commander of the Kamajors, first in command. Died February 22, 2007.

Moinina Fofana, National Director of War of the CDF, second in command. Trial Judgment October 9, 2007: guilty on several counts, 6 years total term of imprisonment. Appeal Judgment May 28, 2008, guilty on several counts, 15 years total term of imprisonment.

Allieu Kondewa (a.k.a. Allieu Musa) High Priest of the CDF, directly answerable to Samuel Hinga Norman. Trial Judgment October 9, 2007: guilty on several counts, 8 years total term of imprisonment. Appeal Judgment May 28, 2008, guilty on several counts, 20 years total term of imprisonment.

RUF trial

Issa Hassan Sesay (a.k.a. Issa Sesay), senior officer and commander in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta, and AFRC/RUF forces. From 1993-1997 RUF Area Commander. From 1997-1999 RUF Battle Group Commander, subordinate only to Sam Bockarie (RUF Battle Field Commander), Foday Sankoh (Leader RUF) and Johnny Paul Koroma (Leader AFRC). During the AFRC regime, member of the Junta Governing Body. In 2000, RUF Battle Field Commander, subordinate only to Foday Sankoh and Johnny Paul Koroma. Trial Judgment February 25, 2009: guilty on 16 counts, sentenced to 52 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber upheld the sentence on October 26, 2009.

Morris Kallon (a.k.a. Bilai Karim), senior officer and commander in the RUF, Junta, and AFRC/RUF forces. From 1996-1998 RUF Deputy Area Commander. From 1998-1999 RUF Battle Field Inspector, subordinate only to Issa Sesay (RUF Battle Group Commander), Sam Bockarie (RUF Battle Field Commander), Foday Sankoh (Leader RUF) and Johnny Paul Koroma (Leader AFRC). During the Junta regime member of the Junta Governing Body. In 2000, RUF Battle Group Commander. From June 2001 Battle Field Commander, subordinate only to Foday Sankoh and Johnny Paul Koroma. Trial judgment February 25, 2009: guilty on 16 counts, sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber upheld the sentence on October 26, 2009.

Augustine Gbao (a.k.a. Augustine Bao), senior officer and commander in the RUF, Junta, and AFRC/RUF forces. From 1996-1998 senior RUF Commander in Kailahun District, subordinate only to the RUF Battle Group Commander, the RUF Battle Field Commander, Foday Sankoh (Leader RUF) and Johnny Paul Koroma (Leader AFRC). From 1998-2002 Overall Security Commander in the AFRC/RUF forces, subordinate only to Foday Sankoh and Johnny Paul Koroma. From 1999-2002 also Joint Commander of AFRC/RUF forces in the Makeni area, Bombali District, subordinate only to the RUF Battlefield Commander, Foday Sankoh (Leader RUF) and Johnny Paul Koroma (Leader AFRC). Trial judgment February 25, 2009: guilty on 14 counts, sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber upheld the sentence on October 26, 2009.

Other indictments by the Special Court for Sierra Leone

The indictments against Foday Saybana Sankoh, Leader and founder of the RUF, and against Samuel Bockarie, Commander in Chief of the RUF, were withdrawn on December 8, 2003, due to the deaths of the two accused.

The whereabouts and fate of Johnny Paul Koroma (a.k.a. JPK), leader of the AFRC, are unknown. The indictment against him remains in force.

More about the Special Court for Sierra Leone

Legitimacy/legal competence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

• The Special Court has universal jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity and war crimes.
• The Special Court tries only those accused who allegedly bear most responsibility for crimes in Sierra Leone from November 30, 1996. (Article 1(1) of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
• Accused person’s position (Head of State) does not bar jurisdiction for crimes against humanity or war crimes. (Article 6(2) of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone).

Personal jurisdiction of the Special Court

The personal jurisdiction of the Special Court refers to its power to prosecute only “those who bear the greatest responsibility” for the grave crimes committed in Sierra Leone from November 30, 1996. The prosecutor of the Special Court has defined the phrase “bearing the greatest responsibility” to mean those individuals who served as major commanders in the various fighting factions. While many individuals might have been involved in the conflict in Sierra Leone, it is left with the prosecutor to determine who falls in the category of “those who bear the greatest responsibility.” The statute of the court provides that the official position of an individual, whether as head of state, will not stop the prosecutor from bringing charges against him. While many heads of states have been linked with the conflict in Sierra Leone, such as Presidents Ahmed Tejan Kabbah of Sierra Leone, Blaise Campore of Burkina Faso, Muamarr Ghadafi of Libya, or Lansana Conteh of Guinea, it is the prosecutor’s duty to determine where the evidence leads him. In this case, the prosecutor determined that the evidence led him to Mr. Taylor.

Temporal jurisdiction of the Special Court

The temporal jurisdiction of the Special Court refers to its power to prosecute only those crimes committed from November 30, 1996. While the court can hear evidence of crimes committed prior to November 30, 1996, it cannot find an accused guilty of any such crimes committed prior to that cut-off date. During Mr. Taylor’s trial, many witnesses have testified about events which took place prior to November 30, 1996, in which they alleged that Mr. Taylor was involved. While the prosecution can argue that these issues will build the foundation for the main charges against Mr. Taylor, the judges will not find him guilty based on any activities that occurred prior to November 30, 1996.

Territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court

The territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court refers to its powers to prosecute individuals only for crimes committed in the “territory of Sierra Leone.” While the Special Court can indict and prosecute persons other than Sierra Leoneans, such prosecutions would only be for crimes committed in the territory of Sierra Leone. During the trial of Mr. Taylor, many witnesses have spoken about events which took place in Liberia. The court, however, will only consider those events that took place in Sierra Leone or those events that took place in Liberia but were directly a part of the events taking place in Sierra Leone. For example, if a witness testifies about a meeting in Liberia relating to RUF activities, where Mr. Taylor was present, then such issues will be considered as part of events in Sierra Leone. Or if a witness testifies about arms or diamond trade in Liberia, but which were meant to impact the war in Sierra Leone, those issues will be considered as part of the evidence relating to the war in Sierra Leone. Other than that, if a witness testifies about how the NPFL fought in Liberia or how NPFL commanders were killed in Liberia, they will not form the basis of conviction for the conflict in Sierra Leone

Prosecutors Accuse Charles Taylor Of Using Child Soldiers In Liberia

http://www.ijmonitor.org/2010/01/prosecutors-accuse-charles-taylor-of-using-child-soldiers-in-liberia/

Prosecutors Accuse Charles Taylor Of Using Child Soldiers In Liberia

SUMMARY from CHARLES TAYLOR at the SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE

by Alpha Sesay

January 26, 2010

Charles Taylor recruited and used children for military purposes in Liberia and it was therefore no surprise to him to learn that Sierra Leonean rebel forces were also using child soldiers during the West African country’s 11-year conflict, prosecutors said today during the former Liberian president’s cross-examination.

Lead prosecutor Brenda Hollis who is conducting Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination went through evidence that Mr. Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group used child soldiers during the Liberian conflict. Mr. Taylor denied Ms. Hollis assertions. Ms. Hollis further suggested that because of Mr. Taylor’s actions in using child soldiers in Liberia, it came as no surprise to him to know that child soldiers were being used by Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), an illegal junta regime that overthrew the elected government of Sierra Leone in 1997. Mr. Taylor said that he had no idea of what the RUF and AFRC did in Sierra Leone. 

“You yourself had armed children, some as young as eight years old,” Ms. Hollis accused Mr. Taylor today.

“That is total nonsense. Every child that I held I put in an orphanage,” Mr. Taylor responded.

Mr. Taylor denied that his forces had child soldiers who patrolled the Liberian border with Ivory Coast in the early 1990s. He also said that it was not to his knowledge that children were acting as bodyguards to his NPFL commanders.

In response to prosecution allegation that he “used children as young as 10 to man check-points,” Mr. Taylor said that “I did not use any children as young as 10 to man check-points. There were soldiers and some of them had their relatives around them but I did not use any children to man check-points.”

As Ms. Hollis asserted that “use of child soldiers by the RUF and AFRC was no surprise to you,” Mr. Taylor responded that “I have no knowledge of what the AFRC and RUF did in Sierra Leone.”

In pointing out the activities of Mr. Taylor’s NPFL in Liberia, Ms. Hollis has been trying to convince the judges that Mr. Taylor knew of similar activities by Sierra Leonean rebel forces but could do nothing to stop them because he was doing the same things in Liberia. Referencing what the RUF rebels did in Sierra Leone, Mr. Taylor responded that “what they did in those areas was not in consistent pattern with me. That is not correct.”

“No surprise to you of what they (RUF) did in Sierra Leone because it is the same that you did in Liberia,” Ms. Hollis persisted. “You were not truthful when you said that crimes committed in Sierra Leone were of surprise to you because they did not happen in Liberia,” she added.

In his response, Mr. Taylor said that “I had no knowledge of the inner workings of the RUF and AFRC.” He added that crimes such as amputations were not committed in Liberia and cases of rape were severely dealt with.

“Your forces committed amputations,” Ms. Hollis said.

“You know that is not true because there are no records of amputations in Liberia,” Ms. Taylor responded.

On the crime of rape, Mr. Taylor said that “I was surprised at rape because people in the NPFL who committed rape in Liberia were executed.”

Ms. Hollis also told Mr. Taylor that “the crimes in Sierra Leone were a reflection of the crimes your troops committed in Liberia. Using children in combat was a reflection of what your forces did in Liberia.”

“That is totally erroneous and incorrect,” Mr. Taylor responded.

Mr. Taylor also today denied prosecution allegations that his forces massacred civilians in Liberia and that he failed to take action against them. Ms. Hollis pointed that NPFL commanders such as Mark Guan, Melvin Sogbandi, Momoh Gibba and Mr. Taylor’s son Chuckie Taylor, all at one point or the other led forces to kill civilians in various towns and villages including Bomi County, Lofa County and Gbatalla. He said that he never received reports that any of these commanders had killed civilians. As Ms. Hollis tried to present documents in support of her assertion, such as the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report, the judges ruled that such evidence was probative to the guilt of the accused, and since the prosecution had not proved that the use of such new documents will be in the interest of justice or that it will not affect the fair trial rights of the accused, they could not be used in the cross-examination of Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination continues tomorrow.