Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P17 docx

disrupted his studies. During one of his forced suspensions, Kent read Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765– 69), which led him to decide on a legal career. Following college he secured a clerkship with the attorney general of New York, and he was admitted to the New York bar in 1785. Kent began his law practice in Poughkeepsie, New York. In 1790 he was elected to the New York state legislature, where he served three terms. A steadfast Federalist and supporter of the U.S. Constitution, Kent was committed to a strong national government. After losing a congressional race in 1793, he moved to New York City, where he practiced law and served as a professor of law at Columbia University. Kent became a member of the New York Supreme Court in 1798, and served as chief justice from 1806 to 1814. He is credited with transforming the court into a professional, respected bench. He introduced the practice of issuing written as well as oral opinions, and was instrumental in appointing an official reporter to collect the written opinions into official LAW REPORTS . Kent believed that such reports were necessary so that past precedents could be read and cited more easily. During his time on the court, Kent addressed the then burning issue of whether English precedents could claim the authority of law in the United States. Some members of the New York bar felt that the American Revolution would be unfinished until the United States had a body of law of its own, untainted by the laws of its former imperial master. Kent disagreed. He argued that the predict- ability of justice was an indispensable require- ment for achieving the commercial progress and stable social order sought by the Federalists. He further suggested that citation and the following of precedent were the best means to judicial predictability. Like many Federalists he admired the stability of the English common law and he maintained that it was the best system ever devised to ensure justice and order. Although he did not follow precedent blindly, Kent believed that previous decisions should not be expressly overturned except when absolutely necessary. Kent was appointed chancellor of the New York Court of Chancery in 1814. This court was a court of equity, which applied rules of fairness, rather than a court of law, which applied common and statutory law to the resolution of disputes. Most of the matters before it involved commercial disputes. As chancellor Kent was empowered to do justice based on the particular facts of each case and the equitable principles that had developed in England. He used his equity powers to effect his sense that commercial bargains ought to be subject to some equitable scrutiny to ensure that unconscionable advantage was not taken. By law Kent was forced to retire from the bench at age 60, in 1823. He returned to the private PRACTICE OF LAW and was reappointed to a professorship at Columbia. He was consulted by lawyers and judges about legal issues, and gave a series of lectures at Columbia that became, in revised form, the core of his Commentaries. This treatise, which was published in four volumes, was similar to Blackstone’s Commentaries in scope but did not follow Blackstone’s precisely in form. Kent’s Commentaries covered INTERNA- TIONAL LAW , the Constitution and government of the United States, the municipal laws of the states, personal rights, and real and PERSONAL PROPERTY . It quickly became an authoritative and classic example of the U.S. treatise tradition. Five editions were published in Kent’s lifetime, and many more followed in the nineteenth century. The twelfth edition (1873) was edited by OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. James Kent. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 148 KENT, JAMES Kent died December 12, 1847, in New York City. CROSS REFERENCE Blackstone’s Commentaries. KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS In 1970 the United States was in the middle of the VIETNAM WAR, and anti-war demonstrations among students around the country were frequent. However, one at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio (near Akron) turned deadly. In 13 seconds of rifle fire, four students were killed and nine others injured by a NATIONAL GUARD contingent called in to quell the crowd. The tragic event cast the university into the international spotlight, and changed the face of student demonstrations forever. The rioting had begun on Friday, May 1, 1970, when several students organized an on- campus demonstration to protest U.S. troops entering Cambodia. That evening, a crowd of drinking and agitated students moved off campus and began BREAKING windows in the center of town. Police were called in to disperse the crowd. The Kent city mayor, having heard rumors of a radical plot in the making, declared a state of emergency and Ohio officials called in the National Guard. Local bars were closed by authorities, and rioters were herded back toward the campus with tear gas. By Saturday the agitated demonstrators had threatened local merchants and surrounded the on-campus barracks of the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), setting the building on fire. When firemen attempted to extinguish the blaze, the rioters punctured or cut open their water hoses. National Guard troops again cleared the campus. The hostility intensified on Sunday, when the crowd failed to disperse on orders to do so. The Ohio Riot Act was read to them and tear gas was fired. The hostile rioters regrouped and moved into town, where the Riot Act was again read to them and tear gas was again used. Several persons, including guardsmen, were injured. By noon on Monday, May 4, approximately 2,000 demonstrators gathered and were ordered to disperse. They respo nded with curses and rocks. Eventually, tear gas w as again employed but was ineffectual in the afternoon breeze. As the crowd grew more agitated, it was herded by guardsmen toward an athletic practice field surrounded by fence. After being pelted with rocks, the guardsmen receded but were followed by angry demonstrators, some as close as 20 yards. Guardsmen turned and fired several shots toward the demonstrators, felling several of Students approach one of the four classmates slain when National Guard troops opened fire on protesters during the May 1970 riots at Kent State University. UPI/CORBIS-BETTMANN. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS 149 them. Within seconds, four persons lay dying and nine more were wounded; all 13 were students. A University ambulance moved through the crowd, announcing over a public address system that demonstrators were to pack their things and leave the campus immediately. Shock and disbelief of the tragic events spread worldwide within hours. By the follow- ing morning, James A. Rhodes, governor of Ohio, had called in the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI). RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , invited six Kent student representatives to meet with him after the ir meeting with a state congressman. On May 21, 1970, Attorney General JOHN MITCHELL announced that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT would investigate the shootings to determine whether there had been criminal violations of federal laws. Two weeks later, the Ohio legisla- ture passed a new campus riot bill providing for swift action and stiff penalties for those charged in connection with disturbances at state-assisted colleges and universities. By June 10 the first private lawsuit for WRONGFUL DEATH was filed in federal court by the father of a killed student. Governor Rhodes and two Ohio National Guard commanders were named as defendants. The parent also filed a second suit against the state of Ohio in local Portage County Court of COMMON PLEAS. A few days later, the White House announced the naming of a special commission to investigate campus unrest at Kent, as well as the deaths of two black students at Jackson State University in Mississippi. In September 1970, the President’s Com- mission on Campus Unrest released its general report, which found the National Guard shoot- ings “ unwarranted.” The report also found that the “violent and criminal” actions by students contributed to the tragedy and caused them to bear responsibility for deaths and injuries of fellow students. According to Kent State University Library archives, the report concluded that “The Kent State tragedy must surely mark the last time that loaded rifles are issued as a matter of course to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators.” A special state GRAND JURY issued indictments against 25 persons in October 1970, but found, in its 18-page report, that the guardsmen were not subject to criminal prosecution because they “fired their WEAPONS in the honest and sincere belief that they would suffer serious bodily injury had they not done so.” A federal district judge upheld the indictments against the individuals in January 1971. However, several private lawsuits against the state of Ohio were dismissed on grounds of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals then ordered a lower court to consider on the merits any suits in which liability was based on the actions of individual Ohio state agents. The Sixth CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals, mean- while, upheld the Portage County Court’s GAG ORDER prohibiting discussion of the shootings by 300 witnesses and others connected with the grand jury indictments. It also upheld the federal grand jury’s 25 indictments and the district court’s order to destroy the grand jury’s report as prejudicial. Going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court was a challenge to Ohio’s new anti-riot laws, but the Court, in a 6–1 decision, took no action and refused to delay scheduled trials. In November 1972, the first student was tried and convicted of the MISDEMEANOR of interfering with a fireman. The jury could not reach a VERDICT on FELONY charges of ARSON, rioting, and throwing rocks at firemen. A few more students pleaded guilty to first-degree riot charges. Prosecutors then dropped all charges against 20 remaining defendants on grounds of lack of evidence, having put their strongest cases first and not being successful in any felony convictions. In May 1972 the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) filed several suits totaling $12 million in damages in federal district court against the Ohio National Guard and the Stat e of Ohio. More than a year later, in August 1973, the Justice Department announced that it would reopen its investigation. Also in 1973, a federal grand jury reviewed Justice Department evi- dence and issued indictments against eight former guardsmen, officially charging them with violating the CIVIL RIGHTS of students. In 1974 a federal district judge acquitted the guardsmen of all charges, ruling that U.S. prosecutors failed to prove willful or intentional deprivation of civil rights. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision related to the tragedy. In the 1974 case of Scheur v. Rhodes, the Court reversed a lower court that found state officials immune from private suits by the parents of slain students. In 197 5 all individual ci vil suits were GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 150 KENT STATE STUDENT KILLINGS consolidated into one case, Krause v. Rhodes. Following a 15-week trial, a federal jury, by a 9–3 vote, acquitted all 29 defendants, including Ohio Governor James Rhodes. The decision was appealed and in 1977 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered a retrial, based on evidence that at least one member of the jury had been threatened and assaulted. In January 1979 an OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT was reached in all of the consolidated civil cases and approved by the Ohio State Controlling Board. The $675,000 settlement was dispersed among 13 plaintiffs, the largest amount going to an injured student who was paralyzed in the incident. According to Kent University Library archived documents, the compensation was accompanied by a statement from the defen- dants that the May 4, 1970, tragedy “should not have occurred.” The statement also noted that the Sixth Circuit had upheld as “lawful” the university’s ban on rallies and its May 4 order for the students to disperse. The statement concluded, “We hope that the agreement to end this litigation will help assuage the tragic moments regarding that sad day.” FURTHER READINGS Caputo, Philip. 2005. 13 Seconds: A Look Back at the Kent State Shootings. Detroit: Chamberlain. Kent State Univ. Libraries, Special Collections and Archives Web site. 1995. Legal Chronology May 5, 1970–January 4, 1979. Available online at http://www.library.kent. edu/page/10300; website home page: http://www. library.kent.edu (accessed August 5, 2009). Koestler-Grack, Rachel A. 2005. The Kent State Tragedy. Edina, MN: ABDO & Daughters. CROSS REFERENCES Protest; Riot; Vietnam War. KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS See VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES. KEOGH PLAN A retirement account that allows workers who are self-employed to set aside a percentage of their net earnings for retirement income. Also known as H.R. 10 plans, Keogh plans provide workers who are self-employed with savings opportunities that are similar to those under company pension plans or individual retirement accounts (IRAs). However, Keogh plans allow for a much higher level of contribu- tion, depending on the type of plan selected. Keogh plans were established in 1962 by the Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) and modified by provisions in the EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT of 1974 (29 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (26 U.S.C. A. § 1 et seq.), and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.). Keogh plans are considered tax shelters because Keogh contributions, which are deduct- ible from a taxpayer’s gross income, and the earnings they generate are considered tax free until they are withdrawn when the contributor retires or dies. At the time of withdrawal, the money is taxable as ordinary income. Self-employed individuals are defined as people who pay their own SOCIAL SECURITY taxes on their net income. This net income cannot include any investment earnings, wages, or salary. The self-employment does not have to be full-time; in fact, workers who are self- employed on the side can have a separate IRA or other retirement account in the pension plan of the company that pays their wages or salary. Self-employed taxpayers who own a busi- ness and set up a Keogh plan for themselves are also required to set up a Keogh plan for each employee who has worked for their company for at least 1,000 hours over a period of three or more years. The lev el of contributions allowed depends on the type of Keogh plan chosen. Four different types of Keogh plans are available: profit sharing, money-purchase pen- sion, paired, and defined benefit. Profit sharing plans are most often set up by small businesses because they require a minimal contribution by employees. The maximum amount that may be contributed to this type of plan is 13.04 percent of an employee’s net income, up to a total of $22,500 per year. Money-purchase pension plans are often used by high-income earners because the percentage contribution is fixed on an annual basis; the amount can be changed only once a year or through termination of the plan. This plan’s contribution limit is 20 percent of net income, up to a total of $30,000 per year. Paired plans merge the benefit of the high contributions allowed by money-purchase pen- sion plans with the flexibility of profit sharing plans. For example, an employee may make a money-purchase plan contrib ution of 7 percent GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KEOGH PLAN 151 and then contribute between 0 and 13 percent of her or his remaining net income to a profit sharing plan. With this plan, an employee can make the maximum 20 percent contribution the money purchase plan allows but still be able to change the contribution amount throughout the year. Defined-benefit plans require a minimum contribution of $30,000 per year, so are not available to everyone who is self-employed. Generally, contributors to these plans will employ an actuary to determine the amount of money to be contributed. Contributors to all Keogh plans are eligible to begin receiving benefits when they are age 59 1 2 . At this point the payments are taxed as income. If any portion of the money in a Keogh plan is withdrawn early (before age 59 1 2 ), a 10 percent penalty tax is impos ed, in addition to the normal income tax. A 15 percent penalty tax is imposed if the contrib utor does not start receiving benefits before age 70 1 2 . Money can be collected from a Keogh plan in several different ways. The two most common ways are lump sums and installments. Lump- sum payments are subject to regular income taxes. However, with a tax break called forward averaging, just one tax is paid. This tax is determined by calculating the total amount that would have been paid if the money had been collected in installments. This advantage reduces the amount of total income tax paid on the plan. Installment distributions can be set up in several different ways and for various lengths. For example, they can be paid annually for ten years or annually for the number of years the recipient is expected to live. Each distribution is taxed as ordinary income. In the event that the contributor dies before reaching age 59 1 2 , the contributor’s heirs will receive the money that is in the Keogh plan, minus income taxes. In this case no penalty taxes are imposed for early withdrawal. As a general rule of thumb, Keogh plan accounts are judgment proof. Their funds can be seized or garnished only in certain situations. For instance, the government can take Keogh funds to pay personal back taxes owed, and a spouse, ex-spouse, or children may be declared entitled to receive a portion of Keogh money by a court order if the contributor owes alimony or CHILD SUPPORT . FURTHER READINGS Cheeks, James E. 1989. The Dow Jones–Irwin Guide to Keoghs. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin. Jones, Sally M. 1998. “Maximizing Deductible Contribu- tions to a One-Participant Retirement Plan.” The Journal of Taxation 88, no. 2 (February). “Keogh Plan Exempt from Bankruptcy Estate, Appeals Court Rules.” 1998. Tax Management Financial Plan- ning Journal 14 (January 20): 15–6. Tyson, Eric. 2006. Personal Finance for Dummies. Indiana- polis: Wiley. v KEVORKIAN, JACK Jack Kevorkian has become the most well- known advocate in the United States for the cause of physician-assisted SUICIDE. Having helped an estimated 130 terminally or chroni- cally ill individuals kill themselves between 1990 and 1999, Kevorki an sparked a national debate on the ethical issues involved in EUTHANASIA,or mercy killing. Although Kevorkian has argued that his actions have prevented needless suffer- ing for patients in pain and that it has allowed them to die with dignity, others see his work as a violation of the medical profession’s most cherished ethical principles affirming life over death. Working in an area of vexing ethical issues, Kevorkian was championed as a breaker of unnecessary taboos surrounding death. His crusade ended in 1999 when a Michigan state court convicted him of second-degree MURDER. Kevorkian became a focus of national attention in 1990, after he assisted the suicide of Janet Adkins, a 45-year-old woman who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, a degenera- tive disease of the brain that causes memory loss and intellectual impairment. Adkins had heard through the media about Kevorkian’sinvention of a “suicide machine” that allowed individuals who were ill to administer a lethal dose of poison to themselves. The machine, which Kevorkian assembled out of $45 worth of materials, consisted of three dripping bottles that delivered successive doses of three fluids: a harmless saline solution; a painkiller; and, finally, a poison, potassium chloride. When Adkins contacted Kevorkian about using the machine on her, Kevorkian agreed to assist her. Kevorkian diagnosed Adkins as suffering from Alzheimer’s and arranged to perform the ASSISTED SUICIDE in a public park, in his rusting, 1968 Volkswagen van. After Kevorkian had inserted an intravenous needle into her arm, Adkins pressed a red button that caused the machine to administer the painkiller and then the poison. Within five GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 152 KEVORKIAN, JACK minutes, Adkins died of heart failure. Within days, Kevorkian had become a national media celebrity, appearing on such television shows as Nightline, Geraldo, and Good Morning, America. This first of Kevorkian’s assisted suicides illustrated the objections that many observers raise toward Kevorkian’s methods. Although she had begun to show early signs of Alzheimer’s, Adkins was otherwise in good health and was not terminally ill; she committed suicide more out of fear of future suffering than out of current suffering. She had joined the Hemlock Society— an organization that advocates voluntary eutha- nasia for terminally ill patients—even before she became ill. In addition, Adkins’sAlzheimer’s might have impaired her ability to make decisions. Some observers wondered whether she was also suffering from depression, a treatable mental illness. Moreover, in cases in which a terminally ill patient has expressed a desire to die, established rules of medical ethics require that two independent doctors must confirm that the patient’s condition is unbearable and irreversible; Kevorkian had ignored this requirement. Kevorkian was charged with first-degree murder in the Adkins case, but a judge ruled that prosecutors failed to show that Kevorkian had planned and carried out Adkins’s death. Attempts to prosecute Kevorkian were ham- pered by Michigan’s lack of any law against physician-assisted suicide. Most other states have laws that make this act a FELONY. In early 1991 a Michigan judge issued an injunction barring Kevorkian’s use of the suicide machine, and in the same year, the state of Michigan suspended his medical license. Kevor- kian defied such legal actions and continued to help ailing people to end their lives. Now that he no longer could prescribe drugs, Kevorkian assisted with suicides by providing a contraption that administered carbon monoxide through a gas mask. As he practiced assisted suicide and published on the subject—describing it in his own terms as “medicide” or “planned death”— he continued to be surrounded by controversy. For example, an autopsy that was performed on the body of the second person whom he had helped to commit suicide, a patient who had complained of a painful pelvic disease, found no evidence of any disease. Jack Kevorkian. GETTY IMAGES Jack Kevorkian 1928– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1925 2000 1975 1950 ◆ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1928 Born, Pontiac, Mich. 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1998 Michigan ballot Proposal B, which would have legalized euthanasia, was defeated 1952 Earned M.D. from University of Michigan, began internship in pathology 1959 The Story of Dissection published 1960 Medical Research and the Death Penalty published 1960–66 Worked as general pathologist at Pontiac (Mich.) General Hospital 1970–76 Worked as chief of pathology at Saratoga General Hospital in Detroit 1990 Janet Adkins became first person to commit suicide with Kevorkian’s help 1991 Prescription Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death published; Michigan suspended his medical license 1992 Michigan Legislature passed bill outlawing assisted suicide 1994 Failed in attempt to place assisted-suicide ballot initiative to voters in Michigan; acquitted in two trials for 1993 arrests 1999 Convicted of second-degree murder and delivery of a controlled substance; sentenced to 10–25 years in prison 1998 Acknowledged assisting in at least 130 suicides; 60 Minutes broadcast videotape of Kevorkian administering lethal injection to terminally ill patient Thomas Youk; charged in Michigan with murder of Youk 1996 Acquitted in two separate trials of four assisted suicides ◆ 2008 Ran (unsuccessfully) for U.S. Congress as an independent 2007 Released on parole; promised not to assist in any more suicides GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KEVORKIAN, JACK 153 In 1992 the Michigan Legislature passed a bill outlawing assisted suicide, designed specifi- cally to stop Kevorkian’s activities (Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1021). This law was used to charge Kevorkian with assisting in the death of Thomas W. Hyde, Jr., in August 1993. Kevorkian was jailed twice that year, in November and Decem- ber. During his second jail stay, he embarked on an 18-day fast in which he protested his arrest by drinking only juice. His bail was reduced and was paid by Geoffrey Fieger, a flamboyant lawyer who has done a great deal for Kevorkian’scause as his friend and legal counsel. Kevorkian was found not guilty. Kevorkian then attempted to place before Michigan voters a ballot initiative, Movement Ensuring the Right to Choose for Yourself (MERCY), which sought to amend the Michigan Constitution in order to guarantee competent adults the right to request and to receive medical assistance in taking their own lives. However, he failed to garner enough signatures to put the initiative on the 1994 ballot. In December 1994 the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the law that had made assisted suicide a crime, and in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kevorkian’sappeal. Kevorkian continued to assist in suicides even as prosecutors in his home county unsuccessfully attempted to convict him on charges of murder or assisted suicide. On May 14, 1996, an Oakland County CIRCUIT COURT jury again acquitted Kevorkian of assisted suicide. In that case, the prosecution had argued that assisted suicide was a crime under Michigan common law. After the acquittal, county prosecutors suggested then that it was unlikely that they would take Kevorkian to trial again. In his actions and his statements, Kevorkian flouted the ethical standards of the medical profession on the issue of assisted suicide. The AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, a national profes- sional association of physicians, specifically forbids the practice of physic ian-assisted sui- cide. Many doctors deplore Kevorkian’s tech- niques and see them as endangering the trust that must exist between physician and patient. Even the Hemlock Society opposes Kevorkian’s actions, citing his lack of typical procedural precautions. In 1998 Kevorkian allowed the CBS televi- sion program 60 Minutes to tape the lethal injection of Thomas Youk, a patient who was suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. After the broadcast, county prosecutors again brought a second-degree murder charge against Kevor- kian, who served as his own counsel in his trial. On March 26, 1999, a jury in Oakland County convicted him of second-degree murder and illegal delivery of a controlled substance. He was sentenced in April 1999 to 10 to 25 years in prison. During the next three years, he sought to appeal the conviction to appeals court in Michigan. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Michigan Supreme Court declined to review the appellate court’s decision. Lawyers repre- senting Kevorkian sought to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it declined to review the case. He spent eight years in prison and was paroled in June of 2007 after promising not to assist in any more suicides. Kevorkian’s efforts in the cause of assisted suicide were only the latest in a series of his unconventional, even morbid, attempts to make a name for himself in the area of medical research. Kevorkian had earned the nickname Dr. Death in 1956, only four years after obtaining his medical degree, when he began making what he called death rounds at the Detroit-area hospital where he was employed. During those rounds,heexamineddeadbodiesinorderto collect evidence supporting his contention that the time of a person’sdeathcouldbedetermined from the condition of the person’s eyes. Kevorkian caused more controversy—and lost his job at the University of Michigan—in 1960, when he published the book Medical Research and the Death Penalty, in which he argued for the vivisection (i.e., the conduct of medical experi- ments on live subjects) of prisoners who had been sentenced to death. Claiming it would be “a unique privilege to be able to experiment on a doomed human being,” he outlined a plan in which the prisoner-subject would be anesthe- tized at the time of execution, then used for scientific experiments lasting hours or months, and finally executed using a lethal overdose. According to Kevorkian, this practice would create both a more painless execution and greater advances in medical research. The use of condemned prisoners for medical experimenta- tion and organ donation has remained a consistent theme for Kevorkian. His 1991 book Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death rehashes these same arguments while also making a case for assisted suicide. In another THE VOLUNTARY SELF -ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND MORTALLY DISEASED OR CRIPPLED LIVES TAKEN COLLECTIVELY CAN ONLY ENHANCE THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE . —JACK KEVORKIAN GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 154 KEVORKIAN, JACK unsuccessful venture, Kevorkian re-created experiments in which Soviet scientists had taken blood from recently deceased individuals and transfused it to live patients. In a later article that set forth his plans for assisted suicide, Kevorkian suggested setting up suicide clinics: “The acceptance of planned death implies the establishment of well-staffed and well-organized medical clinics (‘obitoria’) where terminally ill patients can opt for death under controlled circumstances of compassion and decorum.” As his use of the terms obitoria and medicide indicate, Kevorkian has a pen- chant for coining words. He dubbed his first suicide machine alternately a mercitron or a thanatron—the latter from the Greek word for death, thanatos—and has used the word obitiatry to indicate the medical specialization in death. Kevorkian was born May 26, 1928, in Pontiac, Michigan. Named Murad Kevorkian at birth by his Armenian immigrant par ents, he was the first of his family to attend college. He attended the University of Michigan Medical School and did his internship at Detroit-area hospitals. Acquaintances of Kevorkian testify to his prodigious intellect. The retired physician has demonstrated talent as a writer, painter, and composer. A series of 18 paintings that he made on such grisly topics as GENOCIDE, hanging, and cannibalism created a stir in Michigan during the 1960s. Kevorkian also has commented that his unconventional ideas have been influenced by the history of his Armenian ancestors, particularly the genocide in which 1.5 million Armenians were killed during WORLD WAR I by the Turks. Kevorkian has never married. Although many deplore his actions, Kevor- kian has increased public awarene ss of some of the most difficult ethical issues surrounding DEATH AND DYING. With medical technology’s increasing ability to prolong life have come more situations that bring great pain and suffering. Ke vorkian’s efforts to ass ist people in their deaths, although often falling short of accepted professional s tandards of diagnosis and care, have sparked a needed discussion on these issues. Nevertheless, even supporters of euthanasia sought to distance themselves from Kevorkian’s practices after his convictions, drawing distinctions between his practices and their own beliefs in physician-assisted suicide. Since he was paroled in 2007, Kevorkian has spoken to large audiences, addressing a crowd of 4,867 people at the University of Florida in January 2008. In February 2009 Kevorkian lectured to students and faculty at Nova Southeastern University in Davie, Florida, discussing tyranny, the criminal justice system and politics. At the end of this lecture, Dr. Kevorkian unveiled an American Flag with a swastika where the field of stars should reside. He claimed the flag was intended to shock and remind everyone that this is where America is headed if changes are not made. In 2008 Kevorkian ran for the U.S. Congress to represent Michigan’s 9th Congressional Dis- trict, as an independent. His efforts did not get him elected, but he did receive 9,000 votes. FURTHER READINGS Betzold, Michael. 1993. Appointment with Dr. Death. Troy, Mich.: Momentum. Goldsworthy, Joan. 1991. “Jack Kevorkian.” In Newsmakers: 1991 Cumulation. Huber, Stephen W. 2002. “High Court Won’t Hear Appeal by Kevorkian.” The Oakland Press. Kevorkian, Jack. 1991. Prescription Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death. New York: Prometheus Books. Murphy, Brian. 2000. “Jack Kevorkian Continues Crusade from Prison Cell.” The Seattle Times. CROSS REFERENCE Physician-Assisted Suicide KEY NUMBERS ® A system devised by West Group involving the classification of legal subjects that are organized within their publications according to specific topics and subtopics. Each topic and subtopic is given a key number that consists of one or more digits preceded by the symbol of a key assigned to each individual classification. A particular point of law can be traced through different law books by following the cases listed under a Key Number in each series. West Group, formerly the West Publishing Company, developed the Key Number System of Classification during the decade spanning 1897–1906. The system is a valuable research tool because once the topic and Key Number have been located, a researcher has ready access to all American cases that have litigated that issue provided those cases have been reported. More than 425 Key Numbers in the system are arranged by subject matter under seven main headings—persons, property, contracts, torts, crimes, remedies, and government—and 32 subdivisions of the system. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KEY NUMBERS ® 155 Key Numbers are also a vital component of Westlaw, TM an on-line resource for conducting COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEGAL RESEARCH. The Key Numbers employed on Westlaw are identical to those used in the print counterparts to the on-line system. FURTHER READINGS Kunz, Christina L., et al. 2008. The Process of Legal Research. 7th ed. Frederick, MD: Aspen. KEYCITE TM An interactive, computer-assisted citatory service that allows legal researchers to verify the validity of a case and to find all references that have cited that case as authority. Every day, lawyers are asked by their clients to persuade judges to rule in their favor. One way in which they try to accomplish this task is by citing prior legal decisions, called precedent, that support their clients’ positions. Depending on its factual similarity to a pending legal dispute, a relevant precedent can control or influence the outcome of a case. Consequently, lawyers look for ways to make precedents appear more persuasive, while courts look for ways to determine which precedents are relevant, impor- tant, or controlling in their jurisdictions. KeyCite is designed to expedite the process of assessing a case’s presidential value. Released by West Group in July 1997, KeyCite was initially available only through Westmate, an online software package that allows subscribers to Westlaw, TM West’s computer-assisted re- search service, to connect through their person- al computer modems over a telephone line into a central mainframe computer located in Eagan, Minnesota. By the end of 1997, however, KeyCite was also made available to customers over the INTERNET and through West Group’s CD-ROM software package called Premise. TM The majority of users now use the service through Westlaw on the Internet. KeyCite uses graphical markers to signify the status or history of a case. A red flag warns that a case is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains, meaning that a case has been reversed, vacated, superseded, overruled, or abrogated in some respect. A yellow flag warns that a case has some negative history, meaning that a point of law contained in a case has been amended, modified, limited, or called into doubt, but not completely eviscerated. A blue letter H indicates that a case has some history, but no known negative history, which generally means that a case contains a point of law that has been appealed, affirmed, discussed, relied on as precedent, or otherwise cited as relevant authority. KeyCite also employs graphical markers to signify the extent to which courts have subsequently relied on a case. Stars are used torevealtheextenttowhichonecasediscusses another: four stars indicate that a case has been “examined,” meaning that the cited case has received m ore than a printed page of treatment in anothe r decision; three stars indicate that a case has been “discussed,” meaning that the cited case has received more than a paragraph of treatment in another decision, but less than a full printed page; two stars indicate that a case has been “cited,” meaning that the cited case has received less than a paragraph of treatment in another decision; and one star indicates that a case has been “mentioned,” meaning that the cited case has been briefly referenced in another decision. Quotation marks are used in KeyCite displays to signify that a cited case has been quoted by another court. Based on the idea that cases cited more frequently tend to be more significant, KeyCite tallies citation counts for every case within its coverage. Although KeyCite coverage is not comprehensive, it is available for a growing number of types of authorities. Beginning coverage for state case citations varies according to jurisdiction. Citator coverage now also covers state and federal statutes. KeyCite integrates many of the features already found on Westlaw. KeyCite results can be limited to a particular date range, so that only the most recent cases citing a particular precedent are displayed. They also can b e restricted by jurisdiction, so lawyers in one state can focus on legal authority in their home jurisdictions, without bein g side tracked b y cases from foreign jurisdictions. Finally, Key- Cite allows headnotes (i.e., summaries of legal rules and principles established by courts that are added by West Group editors to cases published in the National Reporter System) from particular cases to be traced through subsequent opinions. FURTHER READINGS “LexisNexis and Westlaw Features Compared.” 2009. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Available online at GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 156 KEYCITE TM http://www.law.csuohio.edu/lawlibrary/resources/ lawpubs/LexisNexisandWestlawFeaturesCompared.html; website h ome page: http://www. law.csuohio.edu (accessed September 5, 2009). Teshima, Daryl, 1999. “Cite Wars: Shepard’s v. KeyCite.” Law Office Computing 9 (Oct-Nov). Westlaw Advantage: Keycite web site. Available online at http://west.thomson.com/westlaw/advantage/keycite/; website home page: http://west.thomson.com (accessed August 5, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Citator; Westlaw®. KEYES, WADE, JR. See CONFEDERATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL. KICKBACK The seller’s return of part of the purchase price of an item to a buyer or buyer’s representative for the purpose of inducing a purchase or improperly influencing future purchases. Under federal law kickbacks involving government officials or funds provided by the government are illegal. Kickbacks between a contractor and a government official or govern- ment employee are prosecuted under the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 201. Kickbacks between private contractors working under a federal contract are prosecuted under 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 51–58, otherwise known as the Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act of 1986. Kick- backs to employees or officials of foreign governments are prohibited under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78dd-1 et seq.). Most states have commercial bribery statutes prohibiting various forms of kickbacks. One notable public figure accused of profit- ing from a kickback scheme was Spiro T. Agnew, vice PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES under RICHARD M . NIXON. While governor of Maryland, Agnew oversaw a system in which engineering firms working under state construction contracts paid kickbacks that went 25 percent to the state official who arranged the deal, 25 percent to the official who brought the deal to Agnew, and 50 percent directly to Agnew himself. In another arrangement Agnew demanded a kickback of five cents for every pack of cigarettes sold in vending machines located in Maryland state buildings. These kickbacks were secret, illegal, and not reported on Agnew’s income tax returns. Agnew continued to collect them after he became vice president. He resigned the vice presidency in 1973 as part of a PLEA bargain that allowed him to avoid going to jail for income TAX EVASION in connection with those kickbacks. Though many types of kickbacks are prohibited under federal and state law, kick- backs are not illegal per se. If a kickback does not specifically violate federal or state laws and such kickbacks are made to clients throughout the industry, the kickback may be normal, legal, and even tax deductible. According to section 162(a) of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (26 U.S.C.A. § 162), “all the ordinary and necessary expenses” that an individual or business incurs during the taxable year are dedu ctible, including kickbacks as long as the kickbacks are not illegal and are not made to an official or employee of the federal government or to an official or employee of a foreign government. On several occasions the courts have ruled on the deductibility of specific legal kickbacks. In most cases the courts have found these kickbacks to be not deductible because they are not ordinary in the sense of usual and customary. In Bertoloni Trucking Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 736 F.2d 1120, 84-2 U.S.T.C. P 9591 (1984), however, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit interpreted the term ordinary quite differently. Reviewing Supreme Court cases dealing with the interpretation of ordinary in Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon, was accused of taking kickbacks while he was governor of Maryland and later vice president. On October 10, 1973, he chose to resign from office rather than face a conviction for tax evasion. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION KICKBACK 157 . and Westlaw Features Compared.” 2009. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Available online at GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 1 56 KEYCITE TM http://www .law. csuohio.edu/lawlibrary/resources/ lawpubs/LexisNexisandWestlawFeaturesCompared.html; website. and government—and 32 subdivisions of the system. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KEY NUMBERS ® 155 Key Numbers are also a vital component of Westlaw, TM an on-line resource for. plans with the flexibility of profit sharing plans. For example, an employee may make a money-purchase plan contrib ution of 7 percent GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KEOGH PLAN