Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 1 P49 ppt

delay or postponement in the proceeding, which is not attributable to the accused, usually con- stitutes a ground for bail—in some jurisdictions, by absolute right; more frequently, at the dis- cretion of the court. In jurisdictions in which it is neither proscribed nor regarded as an absolute right, the grant of bail pending a motion for a new trial, a review, or an appeal is also discretionary. The grant of bail is then determined in light of the probability of reversal, the nature of the crime, the likelihood of the defendant’s escape, and the character of the defendant. The decision to grant or deny bail is reviewable, but the scope of the review is limited to whether the court abused its discre- tion in its determination. The amount of bail set is within the discretion of the court. Once fixed, it should not be modified, except for GOOD CAUSE.An increase cannot be authorized when the ARREST WARRANT specifies the amount of the bail. An application for a change in bail is presented to the court by a motion based on an AFFIDAVIT (a voluntary written statement of facts) confirmed by the oath of the person making it. The affidavit must be taken before a person autho- rized to administer such an oath and must contain the facts justifying the change. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution and the provisions of most state constitutions prohibit excessive bail, meaning bail in an amount greater than that necessar y to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial. The Bail Reform Act of 1984 helped to set guidelines allowing courts to consider the danger a defendant might present if released on bail. This response to the problem of crimes committed by individuals who had been released on bail marked a significant departure from earlier philosophies surrounding bail. Bail laws took on a new importance; they would ensure the appearance of the defendant in proceedings, and they would see to the safety of the community into which the defendant was released. Pursuant to the 1984 act, if the court deems that the accused may, in fact, pose a threat to the safety of the community, the accused may be held without bail. In 1987, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, addressed the constitutionality of holding an individual without bail while awaiting criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that due process was not violated by the detention of individuals without bail. Breach and Forfeiture A breach of the bail bond occurs in both civil and criminal actions when the defendant “jumps bail” or “skips bail”—that is, deliberate- ly fails to return to court on the specified date, thereby forfeiting the amount of the bond. The act of jumping bail is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon statute. The mandatory appearance required in a bail arrangement consists not merely of responding to the charge s but also of attendance by the defendant at the trial and SENTENCING by the court. Appearance by counsel ordinarily does not prevent a breach, although under some statutes, where the offense is a misdemeanor, such an appearance might be sufficient. When a bond is breached, the court enters a judgment of FORFEITURE of the bail. In some jurisdictions, the judgment is appealable, but only if the failure to comply with the conditions of the bond was excusable and the state suffered no loss of rights against the defendant. A final judgment normally cannot be entered on recognizance or bail bond without additional proceedings. Such proceedings are usually of a civil nature and follow the forfeiture of bail. These proceedings can be commenced by a WRIT (a court order) of scire facias (a judicial writ requiring the person against whom it is brought to SHOW CAUSE why the party bringing it should not have advantage of such record) or by an independent action. FURTHER READINGS Bredefeld, Nicole J. 2001. “The Bail Reform Act of 1984 and Felons who Possess Weapons: Discrepancy among the Federal Courts.” Seton Hall Legislative Journal 26 (September). Colbert, Douglas L., Ray Paternoster, and Shawn Bushway. 2002. “Do Attorneys Really Matter? The Empirical and Legal Case for the Right of Counsel at Bail.” Cardozo Law Review 23 (May). Goldfarb, Ronald. 1965. Ransom: A Critique of the American Bail System. New York: Harper & Row. Israel, Jerold H., and Wayne R. LaFave, eds. 2006. Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limitations in a Nutshell. 7th ed. Eagan, MN: West. LaFave, Wayne R., Jerold H. Israel, and Nancy J. King, eds. 2007. 2006 Supplement to Modern Criminal Procedure and Advanced Criminal Procedure. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West. Sharma, R. 2002. Human Rights and Bail. New Delhi, India: APH. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 468 BAIL Thomas, Wayne H. 1976. Bail Reform in America. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. U.S. House of Representatives. 2000. Bounty Hunter Responsibility Act of 1999: Hearing before the Subcom- mittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 2964, March 30, 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ judiciary/hju65062.000/hju65062_0f.htm; website home page: http://commdocs.house.gov (accessed July 5, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Due Process of Law; Eighth Amendment; Recognizance. BAIL BOND A written promise signed by a defendant or a surety (one who promises to act in place of another) to pay an amoun t fixed by a court should the defendant named in the document fail to appear in court for the designated criminal proceeding at the date and time specified. A bail bond is one method used to obtain the release of a DEFENDANT awai ting trial upon criminal charges from the custody of law enforcement officials. The defendant, the defen- dant’s family and friends, or a professional bail bond agent (or bail agent) executes a document that promises to forfeit the sum of money determined by the court to be commensurate with the gravity of the alleged offense if the defendant fails to return for the trial date. Most defend ants are financially unable to post their own bail, so they seek help from a bail agent, who, for a nonrefundable fee of 10 to 20 percent of the amount of the bail, posts bail. A bail agent become s liable to the court for the full amount of bail if the defendant fails to appear for the court date. Before agreeing to assume the risk of posting bail, the bail agent requires collateral from the defendant, such as jewelry, SECURITIES, or written guaranties by creditworthy friends or relatives of the defendant. This collateral acts as security to ensure repayment for any losses the bail agent might incur. If the defendant appears to be a “poor risk,” and unlikely to return to court for trial, the bail agent will refuse to post bail. A defendant who has a record of steady employment, has resided in the community for a reasonable length of time, and has no prior criminal record is considered to be a good risk. The bail agent, the defendant, or another interested party posts bail in the form of the bail bond at the court where the defendant is required to return for the proceeding. The court clerk issues a bail ticket or similar document, which is sent to the police to notify them that bail has been met. The defendant is released from custody when the bail ticket is received by the police. LIABILITY under the bail bond ends when the defendant fulfills the conditions of the bond by appearing in court on the specified date, or if the terms of the bond become impossible to execute, such as by the death of the defendant or by his or her arrest, detention, or imprisonment on another offense in the same or different jurisdiction. If a defendant fails to appear for trial on the date specified in the bail bond, the court will issue a WARRANT for the defendant’s arrest for “jumping bail,” and the amount of the bond will be forfeited to the court. The bail agent is generally authorized by statute to arrest the defendant and bring him or her back for criminal proceedings. Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Oregon have enacted laws making it illegal to post bail for profit, thereby outlawing the occupation of bail bond agent. A bail bond may be similarly used in cases of civil arrest to prevent a defendant from fleeing a jurisdiction to avoid LITIGATION or fraudulently concealing or disposing of assets in order to become JUDGMENT PROOF (incapable of satisfying an award made against him or her if the PLAINTIFF is successful). FURTHER READINGS Berand, Laura, and Jean Montoya. 2002. Criminal Litigation in Action. Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Marcus, Paul, and Jack Zimmerman. 2009. Criminal Procedure in Practice. 3d ed. Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Simmons, Don, Jr. 2002. “Making a Living off Making Bail.” Roanoke Times & World News. CROSS REFE RENCES Asset; Collateral; Judgment Proof. BAILEE One to whom personal property is entrusted for a particular purpose by another, the bailor, accord- ing to the terms of an express or implied agreement. CROSS REFE RENCE Bailment. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BAILEE 469 v BAILEY, FRANCIS LEE The career of ATTORNEY F. Lee Bailey is a celebrated one. Few criminal defense lawyers have earn ed as much success or notoriety as the tough-talking former Marine lieutenant, known for winning what have often been considered hopeless cases. Early in his career, Bailey built a reputation for fastidious attention to detail as an investigator who could ferret out the minutiae needed to acquit his clients. His CROSS-EXAMINATION style—long on hard-hitting machismo—earned him comparisons to some of the twentieth century’s most noted lawyers. By his mid-30s, he had won a string of victories in shocking, nationally publicized cases, includ- ing an important U.S. Supreme Court ruling on PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. His books on law became bestsellers, but controversy followed his criti- cisms of the legal system and his sometimes risky defense strategies. In 1994 he joined the defense team in the trial of O. J. SIMPSON for the MURDER of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman. Bailey might never have become a lawyer if he had not dropped out of college. Born in the Boston suburb of Waltham, Massachusetts, on June 10, 1933, he was the so n of an advertising man and a schoolteacher who founded a large nursery school. In his teens, Bailey excelled at Kimball Union Academy, a prep school, and won a scholarship to attend Harvard in 1950. His goal was to study English. Yet academia could not hold him for long; he wanted adventure. Dropping out of Harvard at the end of his sophomore year, he enrolled in the Navy flight-training program and eventually joined the Marines, where he at first flew jet fighters. Soon Bailey had switched gears and was defending accused service members as part of the legal staff at the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina. Military life would leave its mark on him. More than 40 years later, he would write articles about jets for Flying magazine and, while defending Simpson, would say that he had spoken with a witness who was a veteran, as one Marine to another. The experience of fighting courts-martial convinced Bailey to become a lawyer in civilian life. Leaving the service with the rank of second lieutenant, he entered Boston University Law School, which admitted him on the strength of his considerable MILITARY LAW practice. Once again, his ambition could scarcely be satisfied in books, and the precocious student founded a private detective agency. The firm did fieldwork F. Lee Bailey. JASON LAVERIS/ FILMMAGIC/GETTY IMAGES Francis Lee Bailey 1933– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1930 2000 1975 1950 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ 1933 Born, Waltham, Mass. 1952 Left Harvard to become Navy (later Marine) fighter pilot 1960 Graduated top of class from Boston University Law School 1966 Argued Sheppard case before Supreme Court; Sheppard won acquittal on retrial 1974 Unsuccessful defense of Patricia Hearst in SLA trial 1971 The Defense Never Rests: The Art of Cross-Examination published 1982 Beat drunk driving charge with help of Robert Shapiro 1994 O.J. Simpson charged with murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman 1995 Defense team won acquittal in O.J. Simpson trial 2001 Florida Supreme Court banned Bailey from practicing law in Fla. 2003 Supreme Court of Massachusetts upheld decision to disbar Bailey 1961–73 Vietnam War 1950–53 Korean War 1939–45 World War II GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 470 BAILEY, FRANCIS LEE to help attorneys prepare their cases, and Bailey claimed to devote sixty hours a week to this endeavor alone. It paid off: he handled some two thousand cases, honed his skills as an investigator, and la ter sold the agency. The long extracurricular hours did not stop him from finishing, in 1960, at the top of his class with the highest grade point average in the school’s history. Bailey next studied the lie detector at the Keeler POLYGRAPH Institute in Chicago, a tool much used in the courtrooms of the era. The skill he acquired there led to his first job, at age 27, as a polygraph expert hired by the defense in a highly publicized Boston trial, the Torso Murder case—so named because prosecutors charged the DEFENDANT, George Edgerly, with dismembering his wife and dumping the pieces of her body in the Mer rimack River. Edgerly had failed a lie detector test, making the case difficult for the defense. Bailey was hired to help turn the case around. When the lead attorney suffered a heart attack, Bailey took over the case and won an acquittal for the defendant. His victory in the Edgerly case was the first of several in high profile cases over the next decade. Most notable was Bailey’s role in the murder appeal of Dr. SAMUEL H. SHEPPARD,who had been convicted of second-degree murder in the bludgeoning death of his wife, Marilyn Sheppard. In 1966, Bailey helped convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the trial judge had erred in not shielding Sheppard from pretrial publicity, thus denying him a fair trial— establishing an important new standard for defendants’ rights (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600). He subsequently cleared Sheppard. The Sheppard case launched Bailey’s career. Not only was he now proven in court, he was also attaining celebrity status. News magazines extolled his skills at cross-examination, with Life Magazine saying in 1967 that he was “methodi- cal and relentless, boring in and tunneling under his prey like a determined badger.” Frequently, comparisons to the fictional televi- sion character Perry Mason cropped up, which Bailey resented; just as often came comparisons to the great criminal defense lawyer CLARENCE DARROW , which he did nothing to discourage. Preparation and analysis were Bailey’s most renowned legal skills, yet what brought him public attention was his talent for theatrics. His style was swaggering: he could thunderously tell a courtroom that the charges against his client were “10 pounds of hogwash in a five-pound bag” or declare that he had just won a “thumping acquittal.” He viewed LITIGATION as “the true substitute for gladiatorial combat.” By the time the ABC television network gave him a slot in 1967 on the program Good Company, where he chatted up celebrities, he was himself a household name. His 1971 book, The Defense Never Rests: The Art of Cross-Examination, became a bestseller. Several legal, nonfiction, and fiction books followed. For Bailey, fame was a double-edged sword that brought both attention and criticism. Often sought out by the news media for his opinions, he used their interviews as soapboxes from which to call for legal reforms. He argued that criminal defense attorneys needed several addi- tional years of training; held that fewer frivolous lawsuits would tie up the courts if the U.S. legal system were to imitate the more rigorous British one; and, on the lecture circuit, even suggested that crime could be prevented by making it illegal for people to carry more than $500 at a time. He also simply liked the limelight: As the equally famous attorney Melvin M. Belli recalled, he and Bailey once stood at a bar betting each other $5 over who w ould be recognized first. Not all of Bailey’s pronounce- ments met with praise; his outspokenness was sometimes seen as grandstanding. Ironically, for the attorney who had won Sheppard, he was criticized by the Massachusetts BAR ASSOCIATION for saying too much outside of court, and in 1971 the Supreme Court of New Jersey barred him for a year from practicing law there for similar reasons. In 1974 Bailey faced his Waterloo when he unsuccessfully defended the publishing heiress PATRICIA HEARST. Hearst had stunned U.S. citizens when, after being kidnapped, she was photo- graphed carrying an automatic weapon in a San Francisco bank heist. On trial for ROBBERY, she claimed to have been brainwashed by her abductors, a terrorist group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). In orches- trating her defense, Bailey was widely criticized for the risky strategy of putting her on the WITNESS STAND, w here she took the FIFTH AMENDMENT 42 times to avoid answering ques- tions. Years after her conviction, Hearst herself blamed Bailey, arguing in a 1980 appeal that the attorney had been less interested in her defense than in writing a book about the case. The U.S. THOSE WHO THINK THE INFORMATION BROUGHT OUT AT A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS THE TRUTH , THE WHOLE TRUTH , AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ARE FOOLS . —FRANCIS BAILEY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BAILEY, FRANCIS LEE 471 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “Bailey’s potential CONFLICT OF INTEREST is virtually admitted,” and granted Hearst a new hearing (United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190 [9th Cir. 1980]). After the Hearst trial, Bailey disappeared from public view for a time. Nevertheless, his reputation as “flamboyant” and a “legend” persisted and he continued to win cases. In 1982 he attracted national attention again when he beat a drunk driving charge with LEGAL REPRESENTATION from his friend, ROBERT L. SHAPIRO.Baileycomplainedthat the police had picked on him because he was famous. Soonhe was campaigning publicly against what he saw as police harassment, warning, “The cops have decided to set some fierce public examples of their new hard line, probably to scare drivers into going easy on the booze.” He promptly wrote a legal self-help book titled How to Protect Yourself against Cops in California and Other Strange Places, purporting to be a guide to avoiding unfair drunk driving convictions. In 1994 the trial of Simpson returned Bailey to the spotlight when he and Shapiro were hired for the defense team. However, before the trial even began, the old friends engaged in a public feud. Shapiro accused Bailey of trying to destroy his credibility by leaking information to the press, comparing Bailey to a snake and demanding his removal from the case. In reply, Bailey criticized his colleague’s “public outburst.” According to Newsweek, Simpson admonished the two bicker- ing attorneys, reminding them that his life was at stake. The spat died down, and in March of 1995 Bailey cross-examined a key prosecution witness, police detective Mark Fuhrman. Surrounded by high expectations, the cross- examination was widely portrayed as a come- back attempt for the 62-year-old Bailey. He rose to the occasion with high expectations of his own, promising to “dismantle” Fuhrman. The defense had branded the detective a racist and alleged that he had planted a key piece of evidence at Simpson’s estate: a bloody glove. Bailey’s difficult job was to prove that Fuhrman had planted evidence and had once used the pejorative nigger; Fuhrman never conceded either point, despite several days of grilling on the stand. PROSECUTOR MARCIA CLARK attacked Bailey on several points, arguing that he had misrepresented what a Marine sergeant would TESTIFY to as to Fuhrman’s language in the Marines and that he was manufacturing evi- dence with his conjecture that Fuhrman had sneaked the blood y glove to the crime scene in a plastic bag in his sock. After Bailey’s questioning of Fuhrman, several prominent legal analysts argued that he had flopped. He defended his performance in Time magazine using a comparison that recalled the earliest praises of his career: “I’m not Perry Mason; nobody is. Other lawyers whom I respect told me that given what I had to work with, it was good. Norman Mailer called me and said it was flawless. So I feel good.” In March of 1996 Bailey himself became the subject of criminal prosecution after he and the United States government had a disagreement over who was entitled to millions of dollars of stock formerly held by Claude Duboc, a drug dealer and client of Bailey. The government demanded FORFEITURE of the stock, but Bailey said a plea bargain he had negotiated with the government on behalf of Duboc allowed Bailey to keep it. When Bailey refused to surrender 2.3 million dollars to the federal district court in Tallahassee, Florida, he was sentenced to six months in jail for CONTEMPT.InAugustof2000a federal judge held Bailey in contempt of court for failing to turn over the Duboc moneys. However, the judge declined to jail or fine Bailey on the grounds that federal prosecutors failed to properly trace the moneyor to recover assets from Bailey. In November of 2001 the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision based on Bailey’s mishandling of the Duboc stock funds that ordered Bailey to be disbarred from practicing law in Florida. In April of 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu- setts issued a unanimous decision upholding the decision to disbar Bailey on the grounds that he deliberately broke ethics rules. During the 2000s, Bailey has traveled the country giving lectures on his career and cases. He has appeared as a legal commentator on television shows such as Larry King Live, Today, and Good Morning America. He also writes fiction and non-fiction works. FURTHER READINGS Ash, Jim. August 31, 2001. “Bailey’s Future as Lawyer Rests with State’s High Court.” The Palm Beach Post. Bailey, F. Lee. 1971. The Defense Never Rests. New York: Stein and Day. “Contempt Ruling for F. Lee Bailey: He’s Spared Jail in Legal Fees Dispute.” August 18, 2000. Newsday, A13. CROSS REFERENCES Hearst, Patty; Cochran, Johnnie L. , Jr.; Simpson, O. J. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 472 BAILEY, FRANCIS LEE BAILIFF An individual who is entrust ed with some authority, care, guardianship, or jurisdiction over designated persons or property. One who acts in a managerial or ministerial capacity or takes care of land, goods, and chattels of another in order to make the best profi t for the owner. A minor officer of a court serving primarily as a messenger or usher. A low-level court official or sheriff’s deputy whose duty is to preserve and protect orderly conduct in court proceedings. BAILMENT The temporary placement of control over, or possession of, personal property by one person, the bailor, into the hands of another, the bailee, for a designated purpose upon which the parties have agreed. The term bailment is derived f rom the French bailor, “to deliver.” It is generally considered to be a contractual relationship because the bailor and bailee, either expressly or impliedly, bind themselves to act according to particular terms. The bailee receives only control or possession of the property while the bailor retains the ownership interests in it. During the specific period a bailment exists, the bailee’s interest in the property is superior to that of all others, including the bailor, unless the bailee violates some term of the agreement. Once the purpose for which the property has been delivered has been accomplished, the property will be returned to the bailor or otherwise disposed of pursuant to the bailor’s directions. A bailment is not the same as a sale, which is an intentional transfer of ownership of PERSONAL PROPERTY in exchange for something of value. A bailment involves only a transfer of possession or custody, not of ownership. A rental or lease of personal property might be a bailment, depending upon the agreement of the parties. A bailment is created when a parking garage attendant, the bailee, is given the keys to a motor vehicle by its owner, the bailor. The owner, in addition to renting the space, has transferred possession and control of the vehicle by relinquishing its keys to the attendant. If the keys were not made available and the vehicle was locked, the arrangement would be strictly a rental or lease, because there was no transfer of possession. A gratuitous loan and the delivery of property for repair or safekeeping are also typical situations in which a bailment is created. Categories There are three types of bailments: (1) for the benefit of the bailor and bailee; (2) for the sole benefit of the bailor; and (3) for the sole benefit of the bailee. A bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is created when there is an exchange of performances between the parties. A bailment for the repair of an item is a bailment for mutual benefit when the bailee receives a fee in exchange for his or her work. A bailor receives the sole benefit from a bailment when a bailee acts gratuitously—for example, if a restaurant, a bailee, provides an attended coatroom free of charge to its customers, the bailors. By virtue of the terms of the bailment, the bailee agrees to act without any expectation of compensation. A bailment is created for the sole benefit of the bailee when both parties agree the prop erty temporarily in the bailee’s custody is to be used to his or her own advantage without giving anything to the bailor in return. The loan of a book from a library is a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee. Elements Three elements are generally necessary for the existence of a bailment: delivery, acceptance, and consideration. Actual possession of or control over prop- erty must be delivered to a bailee in order to create a bailment. The delivery of actual possession of an item allows the bailee to accomplish his or her duties toward the property without the interference of others. Control over property is not necessarily the A library patron’s use of library books and materials is an example of a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION BAILMENT 473 same as physical custody of it but, rather, is a type of constructive delivery. The bailor gives the bailee the means of access to taking custody of it, without its actual delivery. The law construes such action as the equivalent of the physical transfer of the item. The delivery of the keys to a safe-deposit box is constructive delivery of its contents. A requisite to the creation of a bailment is the express or implied acceptance of possession of or control over the property by the bailee. A person cannot unwittingly become a bailee. Because a bailment is a contract, knowledge and acceptance of its terms are essential to its enforcement. Consideration, the exchange of something of value, must be present for a bailment to exist. Unlike the consideration required for most contracts, as long as one party gives up something of value, such action is regarded as good consideration. It is sufficient that the bailor suffer loss of use of the property by relinquishing its control to the bailee ; the bailor has given up something of value—the i mmedi- ate right to control the property. Rights and Liabilities The bailment contract embodying general principles of the law of bailments governs the rights and duties of the bailor and bailee. The duty of care that must be exercised by a bailee varies, depending on the type of bailment. In a bailment for mutual benefit, the bailee must take reasonable care of the bailed property. A bailee who fails to do so may be held liable for any damages incurred from his or her NEGLIGENCE. When a bailor receives the sole benefit from the bailment, the bailee has a lesser duty to care for the property and is financially responsible only if he or she has been grossly negligent or has acted in bad faith in taking care of the property. In contrast, a bailee for whose sole benefit property has been bailed must exercise extraordinary care for the property. The bailee can use the property only in the manner authorized by the terms of the bailment. The bailee is liable for all injuries to the property from failure to properly care for or use it. Once the purpose of the bailment has been completed, the bailee usually must return the property to the bailor, or account for it, de- pending upon the terms of the contract. If, through NO FAULT of his or her own, the return of the property is delayed or becomes impossible— for example, when it is lost du ring the course of the bailment—the bailee will not be held liable for nondelivery on demand or when a hurricane blows the property into the ocean. In all other situations, however, the bailee will be responsible for the tort of conversion for unjustifiable failure to redeliver the property as well as its unauthorized use. The provisions of the bailment contract may restrict the LIABILITY of a bailee for negligent care or unauthorized use of the property. Such terms may not, however, absolve the bailee from all liability for the consequences of his or her own FRAUD or negligence. The bailor must have notice of all such limitations on liability. The restrictions will be enforced in any action brought for damages as long as the contract does not violate the law or PUBLIC POLICY. Similarly, a bailee may extend his or her liability to the bailor by contract provision. Termination A bailment is ended when its purpose has been achieved, when the parties agree that it is terminated, or when the bailed property is destroyed. A bailment crea ted for an indefinite period is terminable at will by either party, as long as the other party receives DUE NOTICE of the intended termination. Once a bailment ends, the bailee must return the property to the bailor or possibly be liable for conversion. FURTHER READINGS Cross, Frank B., et al. 2008. West’s Legal Environment of Business: Test Cases, Ethical, Global, and E-commerce Environments. Florence, KY: South-Western. Duhaime, Lloyd. “Bailment.” Duhaime.org. Available online at http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Bailment. aspx; website home page: http://www.duhaime.org (accessed August 28, 2009). Hall, Kermit L. 1996. A History of American Legal Culture: Cases and Materials. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Bad Faith; Conversion; Damages; Negligence. BAILOR One who places control over or possession of personal property in the hands of another, a bailee, for its care, safekeeping, or use, in accordance to the terms of a mutual agreement. CROSS REFERENCE Bailment. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 474 BAILOR BAILOUT See ECONOMIC BAILOUT. BAIT AND SWITCH A deceptive sales technique that involves advertis- ing a low-priced item to attract customers to a store, then persuading them to buy more expens ive goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the advertised item on hand or by disparaging its quality. This practice is illegal in many states under their CONSUMER PROTECTION laws. v BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE Ella Josephine Baker helped found the U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT and or ganize three national CIVIL RIGHTS organizations. Baker was born in Norfolk, Virginia, on December 13, 1903, the second of three children of Georgianna Ross Baker and Blake Baker. Baker’s mother insisted that her children do well in school, because she felt that they needed an education in order to live a full life. Baker was sent to a private boarding school from ninth grade to twelfth grade, after her mother decided that she and her siblings were not receiving high-quality instruction in the public school they had been attending. In 1918 Baker began studying at Shaw University, an all-black school in Raleigh, North Carolina, that offered high school and college-level instruction. Baker graduated from Shaw University in 1927, ranked first in her class. However, she did not have enough money for further schooling to become either a medical missionary or a social worker, occupations to which she had aspired. Her college degree in hand, she went to New York City. While living in New York, Baker wrote articles for Harlem newspapers, including the West Indian Review. Living and working in Harlem during the mid- to late 1920s, she became a part of the Harlem Renaissance, a ▼▼ ▼▼ Ella Josephine Baker 1903–1986 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆ 1993 561 African American elected officials in U.S. and state legislatures 1986 Died, New York City 1932 Helped start nationwide program for blacks to buy co-ops 1938 Joined NAACP as assistant field secretary 1939–45 World War II 1954 Became president of NYC NAACP branch 1958 Appointed associate director of SCLC 1960 Helped found SNCC; beginning of sit-ins and Freedom Rides 1961–73 Vietnam War 1964 Helped organize Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party; 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 1965 Voting Rights Act passed 1970 179 African American elected officials in U.S. and state legislatures 1903 Born, Norfolk, Va. 1914–18 World War I 1927 Graduated from Shaw University; moved to New York City 1942 Promoted to director of branches for NAACP ▼▼ ▼▼ 19251925 19001900 19501950 19751975 20002000 ◆◆ ◆◆ Ella Baker. PHOTOGRAPH FROM/ BY THE NAACP COLLECTION, PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE 475 period of high artistic achievement and greater awareness of the possibilities for equality, justice, and true freedom. Baker participated in political discussions with many people, all over New York City. She later recalled, “Wherever there was a discussion, I’d go. It didn’t matter if it was all men, and maybe I was the only woman it didn’t matter.” In the early days of the Great Depression, Baker was working for a Harlem newspaper along with George Samuel Schuyler, who was well known in the black community for his writing and who frequently railed against racial prejudice. In one article, Schuyler proposed that African Americans set up cooperatives to purchase goods in larger quantities, at lower prices than they could get otherwise. The response to this article was so positive that Schuyler decided to set up a cooperative on his own with Baker’s help. Baker learned a great deal in this experience, and became an ac- knowledged expert on consumer affairs, a new idea that she helped introduce to the black community nationwide. In 1935 she was hired by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a group of programs set up by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL, to teach people living in Harlem how to purchase the most for the litt le money they had. Baker worked for the WPA until 1938, when she left to become an assistant field secretary for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP), the first civil rights organization established in the United States. At that time the NAACP had fewer members in the South than in any other part of the United States, and most of its members were professionals—doctors, lawyers, and teachers. Baker believed that the organization had to reach the larger population of working people in order to accomplish its tasks. She targeted factory workers, household workers, and con- struction workers and tried to get them to support the NAACP. By 1941, thanks to Baker and the other NAACP field staffers, the NAACP’s southern membership rolls had increased significantly. In 1942 Baker was promoted to director of branches for the organization. In that position, she helped branch offices organize fund-raising and membership drives and encouraged them to become involved in local affairs to improve the lot of black people in their communities. Through her contact with the branch offices, the organization be came aware of court cases they could bring on behalf of blacks who were denied their civil rights, such as access to public institutions of higher education. In 1954 Baker was named as president of the New York City branch of the NAACP. In May of that year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873. The Court ruled in Brown that “separate but equal” schools for blacks and whites were unconstitutional. As a result, school districts in cities across the nation had to make sure they were not violating the law. Based on her experience raising her niece, Jackie, Baker believed that New York City schools were segregated, and she and other community leaders pressured city hall to examine the school system more closely for evidence of illegal SEGREGATION. The next year, the mayor of New York City asked Baker to join his newly created Commission on School Integration. To present the commission’s findings to parents of schoolchildren, Baker set up meet- ings around New York City. When she found that many parents were deeply concerned over the quality of their neighborhood schools , Baker encouraged them to petition the school board to allow their children to attend schools of their own choosing. In response to the petitions, New York developed one of the first open-enrollment plans for public schools. Open enrollment allowed public school students to attend schools outside their own neighbor- hoods, without requiring them to change their residency or pay extra tuition or transportation costs. A new chapter in the civil rights movement began when ROSA PARKS refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus on December 1, 1955. In Montgomery black passengers could sit only in the back of the bus, behind the first ten rows of seats. Whites could sit in the black section of the bus, but when they did, a black person could not sit next to or in front of a white person. And black people could be forced to give up their seats if a white person had no place to sit. Parks was an officer of the NAACP’s Montgomery branch and had worked with Baker on the NAACP’s Leadership Conference, a program designed to help local members STRONG PEOPLE DON ’T NEED STRONG LEADERS . —ELLA BAKER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 476 BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE develop their leadership skills. In support of Parks, leaders of Montgomery’s black commu- nity, including Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr., organized a boycott of the Montgo mery bus system. The boycott lasted from December 1, 1955, until December 20, 1956, when blacks in Montgomery heard that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on December 17 that Montgomery’s bus segregation laws were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S. Ct. 145, 1 L. Ed. 2d 114 [Nov. 13, 1956], reh’g denied, 352 U.S. 950, 77 S. Ct. 323, 1 L. Ed. 2d 245). After the success of the MONTGOMERY BUS BOYCOTT , Baker and others eventually convinced King to call a meeting of southern black leaders to plan to extend the battle. The meeting King called was to take place in Atlanta on January 11, 1957. The evening before, several locations in Montgomery were bombed, including homes of white and black supporters of the civil rights movement. King and the Rev. RALPH D . ABERNATHY, whose home was one of those bombed, left the meeting to investigate the incidents. Baker and an associate stayed in Atlanta to manage the conference with Coretta Scott King and the Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth. This meeting was the beginning of the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE (SCLC), an umbrella organ ization for groups fighting for civil right s. One of the SCLC’s first nationwide efforts was the Crusade for Citizenship, a voter registration program. By September 1959, when the organization had not motivated masses of African Americans to register, Baker proposed three changes that she believed would result i n a stronger organization. The first suggestion was to create an overarching plan to coordinate the activities of SCLC member groups. The second was to actively develop the leadership skills of people in the member organizations who had demonstrated abilities in that area. The third was to organize black southerners to fight every form of discrimination by using mass action and nonviolent resistance. One method of nonviolent resistance, the sit-in, was used as early as 1942 by a civil rights organization called the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to protest racial discrimina- tion. Not until 1960, however, were sit-ins widely used as a form of protest. In February 1960, four black students sat at the lunch counter in a Woolworth’s store in Greensboro, North Carolina. They were refused service, because it was a “whites-only” lunch counter, but remained seated until the store closed for the day. News of the incident spread quickly, and area high school and college students joined them in the following days. By the end of March, students had staged sit-ins in many other southern cities. Baker realized that although the sit-ins w ere generating publicity for the civil rights movement, their influence would be greater if they were better coordinated, so in April 1960 Baker organized a conference for student civil rights activists at Shaw University. More than 300 students attended the meeting, which was the genesis of the STUDENT NONVIOLENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE (SNCC). Among those attending were Marion Barry, future mayor and future city council member of Washington, D.C., and Julian Bond, future Georgia legislator. Baker resigned from the SCLC and became SNCC’s adviser and organized its main office. SNCC developed a unique, separate identity within the civil rights movement because of Baker’s style of leadership. Baker believed that everyone in an organization should lead it, so she made sure that everyone in attendance at meetings stated an opinion, and that no other single civil rights leader or organization, includ- ing the NAACP and King, directed the activities of the committee. When SNC C nearly split apart over whether to pursue direct action (such as the Montgomery bus boycott and the Greensboro sit-ins) or voter registration, Baker suggested that the organization could do both, setting the stage for the 1961 Freedom Rides. The Freedom Rides were begun in 1961 as a response to a 1960 ruling, Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 206, 81 S. Ct. 182, 5 L. Ed. 2d 206, in which the Supreme Court decided that inter- state buses and trains, and the facilities in the terminals that served them, could not constitu- tionally remain segregated. The ruling was flagrantly ignored throughout the South. The Freedom Riders, who were both black and white, intended to stop the segregation by traveling together along the routes where segregated facilities were located. The Freedom Rides drew the attention of the Congress, which began debate on a civil rights bill in the summer of 1963 . The 1964 Civil Rights Act, as the bill was called, was finally passed on July 2, 1964, guaranteeing African Americans EQUAL PROTECTION in the use of hotels, restaurants, and other public GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BAKER, ELLA JOSEPHINE 477 . director of branches for NAACP ▼▼ ▼▼ 19 2 519 25 19 0 019 00 19 5 019 50 19 7 519 75 20002000 ◆◆ ◆◆ Ella Baker. PHOTOGRAPH FROM/ BY THE NAACP COLLECTION, PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE. passed 19 70 17 9 African American elected officials in U.S. and state legislatures 19 03 Born, Norfolk, Va. 19 14 18 World War I 19 27 Graduated from Shaw University; moved to New York City 19 42. to late 19 20s, she became a part of the Harlem Renaissance, a ▼▼ ▼▼ Ella Josephine Baker 19 03 19 86 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆◆◆◆◆◆ 19 93 5 61 African American elected officials in U.S. and state legislatures 19 86 Died,