section 162(a), the court identified two lines of interpretation: one held that the term meant “usual and customary,” the other held that the term was intended to distinguish payments of a capital nature from payments of a recurring nature, which were thus deductible currently. In Bertolini the court held that this second line of interpretation was more consistent with legisla- tive intent, and thus ruled that kickbacks made by the Bertolini Trucking Company were tax deductible. In a very similar case, the same court came to a different conclusion. In Car-Ron Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 758 F.2d 1132 (6th C i r. 1 985), Ca r-Ron A sphalt Paving Company had paid legal kickbacks to Nicholas Festa, the same contractor to whom Bertolini Trucking had paid kickbacks. As in Bertolini the TAX COURT had ruled that such payments were not tax deductible because they were not necessary and ordinary. As not in Bertolini, the appeals court ruled that the payments Car-Ron had made to Festa were not necessary business expenses, because throughout its 13-year history, the company had obtained nearly all of its contracts without making such payments. Beginning in the 1970s the health care industry became the particular focus for government efforts to prevent kickbacks. As health care costs escalated in the late 1980s and 1990s, efforts to prevent FRAUD intensified, resulting in 1995 in the passage of the MEDICARE Fraud Statute (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1320a–1327b). This statute prohibits kickback schemes such as those in which hospitals pay physicians in private practice for patient referrals, and drug companies and medical device manufacturers pay physicians to prescribe their products to patients. The Medicare Fraud Statute makes it illegal for anyone to pay or receive “any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate)” to induce the recipient to purchase, order, or recommend purchasing or ordering any service reimbursable under Medicare or MEDICAID. Some experts in the area of health care fraud suggest that the Medicare Fraud Statute should be used as a model for constructing a general antikickback statute that would prevent kickback arrangements in all areas of the health care industry, not just Medicare and Medicaid. FURTHER READINGS Chemerinsky, Erwin. 1983. “Controlling Fraud against the Government.” Notre Dame Law Review 58. Szarwark, Ernest J. 1986. “Bribes, Kickbacks, and Rebates: How New Developments Affect the Tax Results.” The Journal of Taxation 64. Williams, Charles J. 1995. “Toward a Comprehensive Health Care Anti-Kickback Statute.” Univ.of Missouri—Kansas City Law Review 64. KIDNAPPING Kidnapping is the crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time. The law of kidnapping is difficult to define with precision because it varies from jurisdic- tion to jurisdiction. Most state and federal kidnapping statutes defin e the term kidnapping vaguely, and courts fill in the details. Generally, kidnapping occurs when a per- son, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person’s consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Under the MODEL PENAL CODE (a set of exemplary criminal rules fashioned by the American Law Institute), kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function (Model Penal Code § 212.1). Kidnapping laws in the United States derive from the COMMON LAW of kidnappin g that was developed by courts in England. Originally the crime of kidnappin g was defined as the unlawful and non-consensual transportation of a person from one country to another. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states began to redefine kidnapping, most notably eliminating the requirement of inter- state transport. At the federal level, Congress passed the LINDBERGH ACT (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]) in 1932 to prohibit interstate kidnapping. The Lindbergh Act was named for Charles A. Lindbergh, a celebrated aviator and Air Force colonel whose baby was kidnapped and killed in 1932. The act provides that if a victim is not released within 24 hours after being abducted, a court may presume that the victim was transported across state lines. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 158 KIDNAPPING This presumption may be rebutted with evi- dence to the contrary. Other federal kidnapping statutes prohibit kidnapping in U.S. territories, kidnapping on the high seas and in the air, and kidnapping of government officials (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq., 1751 et seq.). A person who is convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to prison for a certain number of years. In some states, and at the federal level, the term of imprisonment may be the remainder of the offender’s natural life. In jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital offense if the kidnapping results in death. Kidnapping is so severely punished because it is a dreaded offense. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offense, or underlying crime. It involves violent deprivation of liberty, and it requires a special criminal boldness. Further- more, the act of moving a crime victim exposes the victim to risks above and beyond those that are inherent in the underlying crime. Most kidnapping statutes recognize different types and levels of kidnapping and assign punishment accordingly. New York State, for example, bases its definition of first-degree kidnapping on the purpose and length of the abduction. First-degree kidnapping occurs when a person abducts another person to obtain ransom (N.Y. Penal Code § 135.25 [McKinney 1996]). First-degree kidnapping also occurs when the abduction lasts for more than 12 hours and the abductor intends to injure the victim; to accomplish or advance the commission of a felony; to terrorize the victim or a third person; or to interfere with a governmental or political function. An abduction that results in death is also first-degree kidnapping. A first-degree kidnapping in New York State is a class A-1 felony, which carries a sentence of at least 20 years in prison (§ 70.00). New York State also has a second-degree kidnapping statute. A person is guilty of second- degree kidnapping if he or she abducts another person (§ 135.20). This crime lacks the aggravat- ing circumstances in first-degree kidnapping, and it is ranked as a class B felony. A person who is convicted of a class B felony in New York State can be sentenced to one to eight years in prison (§ 70.00). Two key elements are common to all charges of kidnapping. First, the asportation or detention must be unlawful. Under various state and federal statutes, not al l seizures and asportations constitute kidnapping: Police offi- cers may arrest and jail a person they suspect of a crime, and parents are allowed to reasonably restrict and control the movement of their children. Second, some aggravating circumstance must accompany the restraint or asportation. This circumstance can be a demand for money; a demand for anything of value; an attempt to affect a function of government; an attempt to inflict injury on the abductee; an attempt to terrorize a third party; or an attempt to commit a felony. In most states, kidnapping statutes specify that any unlawful detention or physical move- ment of a child, other than that performed by a parent or guardian, constitutes kidnapping. An abduction of a child thus need not be accompanied by some other circumstance, such as extortion or physical injury, to qualify for the highest level of kidnapping charge. In the absence of an aggravating circumstance, an unlawful, non-consensual restraint or move- ment is usually charged as something less than the highest degree or level of kidnapping. Many states have enacted special laws for car- jacking, a specialized form of kidnapping. Generally, car-jacking occurs when one person forces a driver out of the driver’sseatandsteals the vehicle. Car-jacking is a felony whether the aggressor keeps the victim in the car or forces the victim from the car. In California a car-jacking statute is contained within the penal code’s chapter on kidnapping, and it carries a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Cal. Penal Code § 209.5 [West]). Kidnapping laws are similar to laws on unlawful or felonious restraint, parental kid- napping, and FALSE IMPRISONMENT. These crimes cover the range of unlawful-movement and unlawful-restrain t cases. Felonious or unlawful restraint, also known as simple kidnapping, is the unlawful rest raint of a person that exposes the victim to physical harm or places the victim in SLAVERY. It is a lesser form of kidnapping because it does not require restraint for a specified period or specific purpose (such as to secure money or commit a felony). False imprisonment is a relatively inoffensive, harm- less restraint of another person. It is usually a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than a year in jail. Parental kidnapping is the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KIDNAPPING 159 abduction of a child by a parent. The law on parental kidnapping varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction: Some jurisdictions define it as a felony; others as a misdemeanor. Many states consider parental kidnapping to be less offen- sive than classic kidnapping because of the strong bond between parents and children. The chief judicial concern with the charge of kidnapping is DOUBLE JEOPARDY, which is multiple punishment for the same offense. It is prohib- ited by the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Kidnapping often is an act that facilitates another offense, such as RAPE, ROBBERY, or assault. Rape, robbery, and assault often involve the act of moving a person against his or her will, which is the GRAVAMEN (i.e., the significant element) of a kidnapping charge. Thus, a persistent problem w ith kidnapping prosecutions is in determining whether a kidnapping conviction would constitute a second punishment for the same act. Legislatures have passed statutes, and courts have fashioned rules, to prevent and detect double jeopardy in kidnapping cases. Generally, these laws and rules hold that for kidnapping to be charged as a separate crime, some factor must set the asportation apart from a compan- ion crime. Most courts will sustain multiple convictions if the asportation exposes the victim to increased risk of harm or results in harm to the victim separate from that caused by the companion offense. In other jurisdictions, the test is whether the asportation involves a change of environment or is designed to conceal a companion offense. In most states, an asportation of a few feet may constitute the separate offense of kidnap- ping; in other states, distance is not a factor. In New York State, for example, the focus of the kidnapping statute is not distance, but purpose. Thus, an asportation of 27 city blocks might not constitute kidnapping if it is merely incidental to a companion crime (People v. Levy, 15 N.Y.2d 159, 256 N.Y.S.2d 793, 204 N.E.2d 842 [N.Y. 1965]). Likewise, an asportation from the borough of Manhattan to the borough of Queens might not constitute kidnapping if it plays no significant role in the commission of another crime (People v. Lombardi, 20 N.Y.2d 266, 282 N.Y.S.2d 519, 229 N.E.2d 206 [Ct. App. 1967]). Some states have eliminated the asportation element from their kidnapping statutes. In Ohio, for example, kidnapping is defined in part as restraining the liberty of another person (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.01 [Baldwin 1996]). This definition creates an increased risk of double jeopardy in kidnapping convictions because, by definition, every robbery, rape, or assault would constitute kidnapping. However, the Ohio state legislature has enacted a statute that prohibits multiple convictions for the same conduct unless the defendant exhibits a separate animus (i.e., a separate intent) to commit a separate crime (§ 2941.25). Whether the prosecution proves a separate animus to kidnap is a question of fact based on the circumstances surrounding the crime. In State v. Logan (60 Ohio St. 2d 126, 397 N. E.2d 1345, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 373 [1979]), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the defendant could not be convicted of both rape and kidnapping when he had moved the victim a mere few feet and had released the victim immediately after the rape. Under the facts of the case, the asportation had no significance apart from the rape offense. According to the court, the defendant had displayed no animus beyond that necessary to commit rape, so punishment for both rape and kidnapping was not warranted. In contrast, in State v. Wagner (191 Wis. 2d 322, 528 N.W.2d 85 [Ct. App. 1995]), the appeals court upheld a separate conviction for kidnapping. In Wagner, the defendant approached two women on two separate occasions in a laundromat. Both times, the defendant tried to force the women into a bathroom to rape them. He was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree sexual assault, one co unt of kidnapping while armed, and one count of attempted kidnapping while armed. On appeal, he argued that he should not have been convicted of kidnapping because, under section 940.31(1)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes, kidnapping is defined in part as the carrying of a person “from one place to another,” and he had no t taken his victims to another place. The court disagreed, holding that forced movement from one room to another falls within the meaning of the kidnapping statute. Ultimately, the appeals court affirmed the defendant’s sentence of 72 years in prison. The kidnapping of children has presented a particularly emotional issue for lawmakers. In 1984, in response to the kidnapping and MURDER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 160 KIDNAPPING of his son Adam, John Walsh founded the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCM EC serves as a resource in providing assistance to parents, children, law enforcement, schools, and the community in recovering missing children and raising public awareness about ways to help prevent child abduction. In 1996 the kidnapping and murder of Amber Hagerman in Texas inspired the Dallas/ Fort Worth Association of Radio Managers and local law enforcement agencies in north Texas to create the nation’s first AMBER ALERT plan. The word AMBER, in addition to being Amber Hagerman’s first name, also serves as an acronym for America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. Amber Alert plans allow the development of an early warning system to help find abducted children by broadcasting information over radio and television to the public as quickly as possible. This information includes descriptions and pictures of the missing child, the suspected abductor, a sus- pected vehicle, and any other information available and valuable to identifying the child and suspect. An AMBER Alert plan has been implemen- ted in all 50 states, with 120 plans nationwide. With this growth, AMBER Alert plans have become increasingly effective. In 2001 only two children were recovered as a result of an AMBER alert plan. Just five years later, in 2006, 69 children were recovered as a result of an AMBER alert plan. In total, AMBER Alert plans have been credited with helping to save the lives of 443 children, with more than 90 percent of those recoveries occurring since October 2002. Due to the growing success of AMBER Alert plans, Congr ess enacted the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploita- tion of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, which was signed into law on April 30, 2003. The law, regarded by the NCMEC as “the most far- reaching legislation to date to protect America’s children,” creates a national network of AMBER Alert plans. It also provides for an AMBER Alert coordinator at the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), to oversee the communication network, and allocates $30 million in resources to enhancing the AMBER Alert plans already in place. Among those present the day that President GEORGE W. BUSH signed the PROTECT Act was Elizabeth Smart, a victim of a child kidnapping. At 14 years of ag e, on June 5, 2002, Elizabeth Smart was taken at knifepoint from her bedroom in the family’s Salt Lake City home. She was found in Sandy, Utah, nine months later, approximately 18 miles from her home. Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Eileen Barzee were with Elizabeth Smart when she was discovered, and they were ultimately indicted for her kidnapping. FURTHER READINGS AMBER Alert. Available online at www.amberalert.gov (accessed July 8, 2009). Blinka, Daniel D., and Thomas J. Hammer. 1995. “Court of Appeals Digest.” Wisconsin Lawyer 68 (April). Diamond, John L. 1985. “Kidnapping: A Modern Defini- tion.” American Journal of Criminal Law 13. Hillebrand, Joseph R. 1991. “Parental Kidnapping and the Tort of Custodial Interference: Not in a Child’s Best Interests.” Indiana Law Review 25. Kaplan, John, and Robert Weisberg. 2008. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. 6th ed. New York: Aspen. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “AMBER Alert Program 1984–2009.” Available online at www.ncmec.org (accessed July 8, 2009). Oliphant, Robert E. 2010. Family Law. 3d ed. New York: Aspen. Onion, John F. 1995. “Mass Media’s Impact on Litigation: A Judge’s Perspective.” Review of Litigation 14. Smart, Tom, and Lee Benson. 2005. In Plain Sight: The Startling Truth behind the Elizabeth Smart Investigation. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. CROSS REFERENCES Hearst, Patty; Lindbergh Kidnapping. KILBERG DOCTRINE A principle applied in lawsuits involving conflicts of law that provides that a court in the place where a wrongful death action is brought is not bound by the law of the place where the conduct causing death occurred concerning limitations on damages. The rationale behind the KILBERG DOCTRINE is that laws that set limitations on damages are procedural and, therefore, the law of the forum should be applied. KIN Relation by blood or consanguinity; relatives by birth. The term kin is ordinarily applied to relationships through ties of blood; however, it is sometimes used generally to include family relationships by affinity. Kindred is a synonym for kin. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KIN 161 v KING, EDWARD Edward King was a lawyer whose 1844 nomi- nation to the U.S. Supreme Court failed because of political animosity between Congress and the president who proposed him. King was born January 31, 1794, in Philadelphia. He was well educated and studied law under the prominent Pennsylvania lawyer Charles Chauncey. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1816 and soon after entered politics, first as a Federalist and then as a Democrat. Before he was 30 years old, he had established himself as a leader of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in Pennsylvania. King became clerk of the Philadelphia orphans’ court in 1824. The following year, he was named president judge of the Philadelphia Court of COMMON PLEAS. He was a highly respected jurist who did more to establish Pennsylvania’s equity courts than did all the other judges of the state. Equity courts provided a necessary alternative for petitioners whose claims did not fit into the strictly prescribed rules of the common-law or common-pleas courts. Litigants seeking nonmonetary damages, such as an injunction or specific per formance of a contract, were without remedy before the establishment of equity jurisdiction. About the time King was rising to national prominence on the strength of his judicial reputation, the federal government was in flux. Many southern Democrats had become disen- chanted with President ANDREW JACKSON and his policies, which they claimed eroded states’ rights and led to the economic depression that followed his administration. In 1840, the newly formed WHIG PARTY, born of the South’s alienation from Jackson, named WILLIAM H. HARRISON and JOHN TYLER as its candidates for president and vice president, respectively. Harrison won the elec- tion; one month after his inauguration, he died, and Tyler ascended to the presidency. Tyler, who had originally been a Democrat, lacked strong congressional support from either the Democrats or the Whigs. When he nomi- nated King to the Supreme Court on June 5, 1844, the Senate voted to postpone consider- ation of the proposal. Tyler reappointed King on December 4; in January 1845, the Senate again tabled the nomination. Finally, Tyler withdrew King’s nomination on February 7. King continued as president judge in the common-pleas court until his retirement from the judiciary in 1852. Shortly afterward, he was appointed by Pennsylvania’s governor to a commission to revise the state’s criminal code. The revision, written mainly by King and then reported to the legislature, was adopted almost literally as prepared. King spent the remaining years of his life traveling and studying. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society and for many years was president of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of Jefferson Me dical College. He died in his hometown of Philadelphia on May 8, 1873. v KING, MARTIN LUTHER, JR. For 13 turbulent years, Martin Luther King Jr. was the inspirational leader and moral arbiter of the U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.Anadvocateof nonviolence, King helped organize well-publicized boycotts, marches, and demonstrations to pro- test segregation and racial injustice. From 1955 to 1968, he was the impassioned voice of African Americans who sought the abolishment ▼▼ ▼▼ Edward King 1794–1873 17751775 18251825 18501850 18751875 18001800 ❖ 1794 Born, Philadelphia, Pa. 1775–83 American Revolution ◆ 1816 Admitted to Pennsylvania bar ◆ 1824 Served as clerk at Philadelphia Orphan's Court ◆ 1825 Named president judge of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas ◆ 1840 Whig Party formed ◆◆ 1844 Nominated to U.S. Supreme Court but failed to gain confirmation 1845 Renominated to U.S. Supreme Court but again failed to gain confirmation ◆ 1852 Retired from judiciary ◆❖ 1873 Died, Philadelphia, Pa. 1853 Appointed by Pennsylvania's governor to revise the state's criminal code 1861–65 U.S. Civil War GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 162 KING, EDWARD of JIM CROW LAWS (a series of regulations enacted to keep the races separate) and the guarantee of equal housing, education, voting rights, and employment. Although countless U.S. citizens contributed to the success of the CIVIL RIGHTS movement, King is its most enduring symbol. Before his mission was cut short by an assassin’s bullet in 1968, he succeeded in permanently raising the social, economic, and political status of all people of color. King was born January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. At an early age, he demonstrated the intellect and drive that would propel him to national prominence. After skipping his senior year of high school, he enrolled in Atlanta’s Morehouse College, at the age of 15. He earned a degree in sociology from Morehouse in 1948. Because both his father and grandfather were Baptist preachers, it was not surprising when King entered Crozer Theological Seminary, in suburban Philadelphia, at age 19. After gradu- ating from Crozer as class valedictorian, King enrolled in Boston University’s renowned School of Theology, where he earned a doctor’s degree in 1955. While in Boston, he met and married Coretta Scott, a student at the Boston Conservatory. The young couple moved to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1954, after King accepted a position as minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. He was only 26 years old and had lived in Montgomery for just 18 months when an African American bus rider changed the course of his life forever. On December 1, 1955, seamstress ROSA PARKS took a personal stand against the South’sJim Crow laws when she refused to give up her seat to a white person and move to the back of a city bus. In Montgomery, segregated seating on buses was mandated by ordinance. Parks’s defiant act galvanized the city’s African Ameri- can community. A bus boycott was or ganized to support Parks after her arrest and to put an end to segregated public transportation. When the Montgomery Improvement Association was created to direct the protest, a somewhat Martin Luther King Jr. 1929–1968 ▼▼ ▼▼ 19251925 20002000 19751975 19501950 ◆ ❖ 1939–45 World war II 1929 Born, Atlanta, Ga. 1947 Ordained as Baptist minister ◆ 1948 Graduated from Morehouse College 1950–53 Korean War ◆ 1955 Earned Ph.D. from Boston University; Montgomery bus boycott ◆ 1957 Helped found Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) ◆ 1960 Helped found Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) ◆ ◆ 1961–73 Vietnam War ❖ 1968 Assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. 1965 Malcolm X assassinated; Voting Rights Act passed; Watts riots ◆ 1964 Won Nobel Peace Prize; named Time magazine's Man of the Year; Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into law 1963 Letter from Birmingham City Jail published; gave "I Have a Dream" speech at March on Washington ◆ 1986 The third Monday in January declared national holiday honoring Dr. King and his legacy Martin Luther King Jr. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION KING, MARTIN LUTHER, JR. 163 surprised King was named president. Years later, those involved in the boycott explained that King was selected because of his powerful speaking style, his credibility as a clergyman, and his relatively low profile in Montgomery. Because King was a newcomer, he had not made any enemies within the African American community and had not been corrupted by dishonest white politicians. With leadership thrust upon him, King too k over the boycott. He rose to the challenge, creating peaceful strategies that placed the bus company in an economic squeeze and African Americans on the moral high ground. He was greatly influenced by Mohandas K. (“Mahatma”) Gandhi’s nonviolence movement in India. King denounced violence throughout the citywide boycott, only to encounter death threats, hate mail, physical attacks, mass arrests, and the bombing of his church and home. The possibility of death was constant, but King used his deep religious faith and inner strength to stare down fear. He told his followers, “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you. Remember, if I am stopped, this Movement will not stop, because God is with this Movement.” By November 1956 the boycott had taken the intended financial toll on the transit company. Seventy percent of Montgomery’s bus riders were African Americans, and they supported the boycott in droves. The campaign was declared a success when the buses were at last desegrega- ted in December 1956 and Montgomery’s ordinance was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (Owen v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S. Ct. 145, 1 L. Ed. 2d 114 [1956]). More important, King and his fellow African Americans discovered the power of social protest and the virtue of nonviolence. After Montgomery, King knew that his true calling was social activism. In 1957 he helped found the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFER- ENCE , an organization that would guide the growing civil rights movement. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, King took part in dozens of demonstrations throughout the South and was arrested and jailed for his CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. The national media and the administrations of Presidents DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and JOHN F. KENNEDY took notice. King became the torch- bearer for the nation’s civil rights struggle. In 1963 King and his fellow activists set out to integrate Birmingham, Alabama, which King called “the most thoroughly segregated city in the country.” Unlike Montgomery, where the issue was limited to bus ridership, Birmingham offered a forum for far-reaching objectives. King’s goal was to desegregate the entire community—its restaurants, hotels, department stores, rest rooms, and public facilities. As the sit-ins and marches began, the response by some white southerners was ugly. Extremists bombed an African American chu rch, killing four young girls who were attending Sunday School inside. Police commissioner Eugene (“Bull”) Connor ordered his officers to use high-pressure water hoses, police dogs, and clubs against the nonviolent demonstrators. Grade school and high school protesters were jailed alongside adults, and at one point, 3,000 African Americans were incarcerated in Birmingham. King himself was jailed and as a result wrote his historic 1963 essay Letter from Birmingham City Jail, an eloquent justification of nonviolent resistance to unjust laws. Throughout the saga, television cameras sent searing images of white brutality across the nation. As King hoped, federal intervention was required to handle the situation, and segrega- tion laws were forced off the books. Perhaps the crowning moment of King’s career was the 1963 March on Washington, when 250,000 people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds converged in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Here, King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, which described a world of racial equality and harmony. The speech end ed with these stirring words: When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’ s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able at last to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” King was successful in pressuring the U.S. Congress and President LYNDON B. JOHNSON to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a et seq.). The law guaranteed equal access for all U.S. citizens to public accommodations and facilities, employment, and education. In 1965 King’s campaign in Selma, Alabama, helped ensure the passage of the VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 NONVIOLENCE IS THE ANSWER TO THE CRUCIAL POLITICAL AND MORAL QUESTIONS OF OUR TIME ; THE NEED FOR MEN TO OVERCOME OPPRESSION AND VIOLENCE WITHOUT RESORTING TO OPPRESSION AND VIOLENCE . —MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 164 KING, MARTIN LUTHER, JR. et seq.), which extended the vote to previously disenfranchised African Americans in the Deep South. The act outlawed the tests, standards, and procedures that were routinely used to disqualify voters on the basis of race. King received several honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 . The same year, he was the first African American to be named Time magazine’s Man of the Year. Since 1986 the third Monday in January has been observed as a federal holiday in honor of King’s birthday. The last years of King’slifeweredifficult,as he struggled with bouts of depression over personal and professional failures. His hold on the civil rights movement was clearly weakening. Young African American activists were demand- ing a more militant approach to achieving social and economic justice. The angrier BLACK POWER MOVEMENT appealed to increasing numbers of African Americans who were impatient with the slow pace of King’s nonviolent tactics. King’s campaigns in northern cities such as Chicago were largely unsuccessful. On August 11, 1965, just days after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the African American Watts area of Los Angeles erupted into a riot that lasted six days. Thirty-four people were killed, and $30 million worth of property was damaged. After the upheaval in Watts, King’s message and influence were diminished. In 1967 King publicly criticized the United States’ involvement in Vietnam and earned the enmity of his former liberal ally President Johnson. Critics believed that King’s entry into the peace movement diluted his efforts to achieve further gains for African Americans. In the spring of 1968, King planned to participate in the Poor People’s Campaign, in Washington, D.C. Before going to the nation’s capital, he traveled to Memphis to support striking garbage workers there. On April 4, while standing on the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel, in Memphis, he was assassinated by James Earl Ray, a white man. According to those who knew him, King did not set out to become a martyr for civil rights. As ELLA J. BAKER, a longtime activist, said, “The movement made Martin rather than Martin making the movement.” King repr esents the dignity of the struggle and the sacrifice it required. Despite a tendency to deify King, he should be regarded not as a saint but as an extraordinary individual who used his prodi- gious talents to chan ge society. When asked to describe his possible legacy, King himself said, “I just want to leave a committed life behind.” FURTHER READINGS Abernathy, Donzaleigh. 2003. Partners to History: Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph David Abernathy, and the Civil Rights Movement. New York: Crown. Cook, Anthony E. 1997. The Least of These: Race, Law, and Religion in American Culture. New York: Routledge. DeBenedetti, Charles. 1988. Peace Heroes in Twentieth- Century America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press. Garrow, David J. 2010. The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.: From Solo to Memphis. Princeton, NJ: Yale Univ. Press. ———. 2004. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York: HarperCollins. Lawry, Robert P. 2002. “Ethics in the Shadow of the Law: The Political Obligation of a Citizen.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 52 (spring). Available online at http://www. law.case.edu/student_life/journals/law_review/52-3/Lawry. pdf; website hom epage: http://www.law.case.edu (accessed August 5, 2009). Miroff, Bruce. 2000. Icons of Democracy: American Leaders as Heroes, Aristocrats, Dissenters, and Democrats. Lawrence, KS: Univ. Press of Kansas. Oates, Stephen B. 1994. Let the Trumpet Sound: The Life of Martin Luther King Jr. New York: Harper Perennial. CROSS REFERENCES Black Pan ther Party; Carmichael, Stokely; Cleaver, LeRoy Eldridge; Davis, Angela Yvonne; Evers, Medgar Wiley; Jackson, Jesse; Ku Klux Klan; “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” (Appendix, Primary Document); Liuzzo, Viola Fauver Gregg; Malcolm X; Marshall, Thurgood; Meredith, James Howard; NAACP; Randolph, A. Philip; Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Wilkins, Roy. KING, RODNEY G. The 1991 beating of Rodney G. King by Los Angeles, California, police led to state and federal criminal prosecution of the law enforce- ment officers involved in the assault, a civil jury award of $3.8 million to King for his injuries, and major reforms in the Los Angeles police department. In addition, the April 1992 acquit- tal of the white police officers for the beating of King, an African American, touched off riots in Los Angeles that rank as the worst in U.S. history. The controversy surrounding each of these actions raised the issues of race, racism, and police brutality in communities throughout the United States. On the evening of March 3, 1991, RODNEY KING was driving his automobile when a highway police officer signaled him to pull over GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KING, RODNEY G. 165 to the side of the road. King, who had been drinking, fled, later testifying that he was afraid he would be returned to prison for violating his parole. A high-speed chase ensued with a number of Los Angeles police officers and vehicles involved. The police eventually pulled King over. After King got out of his car, four officers—Stacey C. Koon, Laurence M. Powell, Timothy E. Wind, and Theodore J. Briseno— kicked King and hit him with their batons more than 50 times while he struggled on the ground. Unbeknownst to the officers, an amateur photographer, George Holliday, videotaped 81 seconds of the beating. The videotape was shown repeatedly on national television and became a symbol of complaints about police brutality. The four officers were charged with numer- ous criminal counts, including assault with a deadly weapon, the use of excessive force, and filing a false police report. Because of the extensive publicity surrounding the case, the trial of the four police officers was conducted in Simi Valley, a predominantly white community located in Ventura County, not far from Los Angeles. During the trial, the prosecution used the videotape as its principal source of evidence and did not have King testify. The defense also used the videotape, examining it frame by frame to bolster its contention that King was resisting arrest and that the violence was necessary to subdue him. The defens e also contended that the videotape distorted the events of that night, because it did not capture what happened before and after the 81 seconds of tape recording. On April 29, 1992, the jury, which included ten whites, one Filipino American, and one Hispanic, but no African Americans, found the four police officers not guilty on ten of the eleven counts and could not come to an agreement on the other count. The acquittals stunned many persons who had seen the videotape. Within two hours, riots erupted in the predominantly black South Central section of Los Angeles. The riots lasted 70 hours, leaving 60 people dead, more than 2,100 people injured, and between $800 million and $1 billion in damage in Los Angeles. Order was restored through the combined efforts of the police, more than 10,000 NATIONAL GUARD troops, and 3,500 Army and Marine Corps troops. In the riot’s aftermath, criticism of the Los Angeles police, which had escalated after the King beating, grew stronger. Many believed that the longtime police chief, Daryl F. Gates, had not sufficiently prepared for the possibility of civil unrest and had made poor decisions in the first hours of the riots. The view that Gates should be replaced because of the brutality charges, coupled with the determination by an independent commission headed by Warren G. Christopher (a distinguished attorney who served in the STATE DEPARTMENT during the Carter administration), placed increasing pressure on the police chief. Gates finally resigned in late June 1992. In August 1992 a federal GRAND JURY indicted the four officers for violating King’s CIVIL RIGHTS. Koon was charged with depriving King of DUE PROCESS OF LAW by failing to restrain the other officers. The other three officers were charged with violating King’s right against unreasonable search and seizure because they had used unrea- sonable force during the arrest. At the federal trial, which was held in Los Angeles, the jury was more racially diverse than the one at Simi Valley: Two jury members were black, one was Hispanic, and the rest were white. This time King testified about the beating and charged that the officers had used racial epithets. Observers agreed that he was an effective witness. The videotape again was the central piece of evidence for both sides. On April 17, 1993, the jury convicted officers Koon and Powell of violating King’s civil rights but acquitted Wind and Briseno. Koon and Powell were sentenced to two and a half years in prison. King filed a civil lawsuit against the police officers and the city of Los Angeles. After A still from amateur photographer George Holliday’s videotape of the March 3, 1991, beating of Rodney King by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 166 KING, RODNEY G. settlement talks broke down, the case went to trial in early 1994. On April 19, 1994, the jury awarded King $3.8 million in COMPENSATORY DAMAGES . However, the jury refused to award King punitive damages. In July 1994, the city of Los Angeles struck a deal whereby King agreed to drop any plans to appeal the jury’s VERDICT on punitive damages. In return, the city of Los Angeles agreed to expedite payment of King’s compensatory damages. Since the civil trial, King has endured some difficult times, including being arrested for drunk driving twice, as well as for assaulting his 16-year-old daughter and possession of illegal narcotics. He has been convicted of hit- and-run driving for allegedly speeding off in his car while his wife was trying to get out, and being under the in fluence of PCP after he crashed his car into a house. In 2007 he was shot while riding his bike, although he recov- ered. He checked himself into a rehabilitation clinic for alcoholism in 2008 and was later a cast member of the reality show Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, hosted by Dr. Drew Pinsky, who ran the facility King was using. FURTHER READINGS Braxton, Greg. 2008. “Show of Redemption.” The Journal Gazette. October 23. Cannon, Lou. 1997. Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD New York: Times Books. Deitz, Robert. 1996. Willful Injustice: A Post-O.J. Look at Rodney King, American Justice, and Trial by Race. Washington, D.C.: Regnery. Linder, Douglas O. “A Trial Account.” Famous American Trials: Los Angeles Police Officers’ (Rodney King Beating) Trials, 1992 &1993. Available online at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects /ftri als/lapd/ lapd.html; website home page: http://www.law.umkc. edu (accessed September 5, 2009). “Rodney King Shot While Riding Bike,” 2007. Los Angeles Times. (November 30) Available online at http://articles. latimes.com/2007/nov/30/local/m e-king30 (accessed November 25, 2009). KING’S BENCH OR QUEEN’S BENCH The highest co mmon-law court in England until its end as a separate tribunal in 1875. The Court of the King’s Bench or Court of the Queen’s Bench derived from the royal court first established by William the Conq ueror in the eleventh century. The royal court, called the CURIA REGIS, was not a judicial body in the modern sense. Rather, it was an assembly of English lords and noblemen that resolved matters of special importance to the king. As the king traveled about England, the royal co urt followed, advising him and deciding cases. The royal court was reorganized by the Crown in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and renamed the Court of the King’s Bench or Court of the Queen’s Bench. This court existed as an alternative to the Court of COMMON PLEAS, which was comprised of professional judges. At first the two courts heard different types of cases. However, over the course of several centuries, the Court of the King’s Bench or Court of the Queen’s Bench expanded its jurisdiction to hear virtually any case. This encroached on the power of the Court of Common Pleas, and the two courts competed for cases. In 1873 Parliament abolished the Court of the King ’s Bench or Court of the Queen’s Bench—then under Queen Victoria—and merged it in to the High Court of Justice as the King’s Bench Division. The King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice is empowered to hear appeals of certain cases. The High Court of Justice is akin to a U.S. trial court. It has two other divisions: the Family Division and the Chancery Division. FURTHER READINGS Baker, J.H. 1990. An Introduction to English Legal History. London, England: Butterworths. Blatcher, Marjorie. 1978. The Court of King’s Bench, 1450– 1550. London, England: Athlone. Kambour, Sarah Obaditch. 1994. “Symposium on the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1990s: Facing Health Care Reform, Regulation, and Judicial Controls.” Seton Hall Law Review 24. CROSS REFERENCE English Law. v KISSINGER, HENRY ALFRED As a scholar, adviser, and U.S. secretary of state, Henry Alfred Kissinger was an important figure in international affairs in the late twentieth century. The German-born Kissinger became a U.S. citizen in the 1930s; emerged as a leading theorist at Harvard in the 1950s; advised presidents during the 1960s; and defined the course of U.S. foreign policy for much of the 1970s. He won great acclaim for his pragmatic vision of foreign policy as well as for his skills as a peace negotiator. In 1973, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in securing a cease- fire in the VIETNAM WAR. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION KISSINGER, HENRY ALFRED 167 . code 1 861 65 U.S. Civil War GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 162 KING, EDWARD of JIM CROW LAWS (a series of regulations enacted to keep the races separate) and the guarantee of equal. JR. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 164 KING, MARTIN LUTHER, JR. et seq.), which extended the vote to previously disenfranchised African Americans in the Deep South. The act outlawed. for lawmakers. In 1984, in response to the kidnapping and MURDER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 160 KIDNAPPING of his son Adam, John Walsh founded the National Center for Missing