Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 8 P4 pdf

hand, if the government covertly silences a dissenter in private, the legal system exposes itself to charges of persecution, which compro- mises the public’s respect for the law. By prosecuting dissenters in OPEN COURT before an impartial judge and an unbiased jury, the U.S. legal system attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of the govern- ment and dissenters. Historically, many regimes have been unable to achieve this delicate balance. In ancient Greece, 500 Athenian jurors made a martyr out of Socrates when they sentenced him to death for corrupting the youth and criticizing government officials. The Roman governor Pontius Pilate sparked concerted religious opposition to his government by condemning Jesus of Nazareth for blasphe- mously claiming to be the Son of God and King of the Jews. In 1735, British authorities planted the seeds of rebellion in the American colonies when they unsuccessfully prosecuted journalist John Peter Zenger for SEDITIOUS LIBEL. A third common type of political trial involves nationalists who challenge a govern- ment’s authority to represent them. Nationalists speak for an identifiable group of people who share a common characteristic, such as race, religion, or ethnicity. Trials of nationalists call into ques tion both the unity of society and the capacity of a regime to speak for the people. Governments prosecute nationalists in part to publicly affirm their ability and resolve to govern the populace. Faced with certain defeat in the short run, many nationalists still present a vigorous defense to raise political awareness and record their battle for posterity. The 1922 trial of MOHANDAS K. GANDHI,for example, served as a lightening rod of nationalism in India by uniting opposition against the oppressive imperial government of Great Britain. The TREASON trials of Nelson Mandela in Pretoria, which took place in the late 1950s and early 1960s, similarly raised the conscious- ness of blacks in South Africa and focused the world’s attention on the apartheid system of government. In both cases, though the nation- alists were temporarily silenced by the regimes they opposed, their causes ultimately prevailed as their people were given an equal voice in the affairs of government. The fourth type of political trial involves the trial of entire regimes, or the leading members of a particular government. When governments are overthrown by a coup or revolution, the new regime must decide how to treat members of the old regime. In some instanc es, members of the old regime are granted CLEMENCY, and efforts are made to assimilate them into society. In other instances, members of the old regime are expelled from office and banished from the country and deprived of their citizenship. How- ever, in a great number of cases, the old regime is put on trial by the new regime and prosecuted for every transgression, great and small. These trials can serve at least two purposes. First, they can highlight the malignant qualitie s of the demised regime. Second, they can underscore the virtue of the new regime by tempering the vengeful calls for summary executions that regularly follow the cessation of hostilities in a revolution, civil war, or other type of military co nflict. The Nuremberg WAR CRIMES trials, in which 24 of the top Nazis were tried by the Allied powers following WORLD WAR II , provide a modern example in which members of a vilified regime were afforded a full assortment of legal protections despite demands for summary execution. Other exam- ples include the trials of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was tried in separate proceedings before a special Iraqi tribunal in 2005 and 2006 for crimes against humanity. Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. He was executed on December 30, 2006. In a limited sense, all trials have a political element. As one of the three branches of government, the judiciary is an inherent part of the political system. Additionally, all trials carry with them tangible political ramifications by delineating the rights and responsibilities of civil and criminal litigants. Because many Andrew Hamilton (standing, arm extended) defends New York printer and journalist John Peter Zenger in his 1735 political trial on charges of seditious libel. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 18 POLITICAL TRIAL judicial decisions are considered precedent, the legal principles established in one case may be applied to other members of society in a subsequent analogous case. However, in the United States the term political trial has acquired a broader meaning. A trial is generally characterized as political when it presents a question that transcends the narrow issue of guilt or innocence by implicat- ing larger societal, cultural, or international considerations. The WATERGATE trials of the mid- 1970s, for example, focused on the legal issues of breaking and entering, CONSPIRACY, and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. However, these trials also dramatized the fall of a president and the consequences of abusing power. Political trials often present basic dilemmas that engage the public in a common dialogue. These trials may prompt society to examine, and even reconsider, its fundamental values. Certain political trials, such as the Nuremberg and Watergate trials, have helped define an era or a nation. FURTHER READINGS Carville, James. 1998. And the Horse He Rode in On: The People vs. Kenneth Starr. New York: Simon & Schuster. Christenson, Ron. 1999. Political Trials: Gordian Knots in the Law. 2d ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Press. Hiss, Anthony. 1999. The View from Alger’s Window: A Son’s Memoir. New York: Knopf. Jackson, Robert H. 1946. The Case against the Nazi War Criminals. New York: Knopf. Lahav, Pnina. 2000. “The Chicago Conspiracy Trial: Character and Judicial Discretion.” Univ. of Colorado Law Review 71 (mid-winter). Levine, Mark, George C. McNamee, and Daniel Greenberg. 1970. Tales of Hoffman (From the Trial of the Chicago 7). New York: Bantam. Rotunda, Kyndra Miller. 2008. Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. CROSS REFERENCES Black Panther Party; Chicago Eight; Civil Rights Movement; Communism; Davis, Angela Yvonne; Iraq War; King, Martin Luthe r, Jr.; Nuremberg Trials; Pacifism; T horeau, Henry David. v POLK, JAMES KNOX James Knox Polk, eleventh president of the United States, served just one term in office, but in that time he was extremely influential in shaping the country’s evolution into a large and politically formidable nation. Polk’s primary achievements came in the area of foreign affairs, where he completed the ANNEXATION of Texas; directed the Mexican War (1846 – 48); and nego- tiated w ith Great Britain for the acquisition of the Oregon territory. In domestic policy, Polk was a strong advocate for lowering tariffs and establishing an independent t reasury for the United States. Historians and presidential scholars consistently rate Polk among the most effective and important presidents of the United States. James Po lk was born on November 2, 1795, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He graduated from the University of North Car- olina at Chapel Hill and went on to study law, establishing a successful practice in Columbia, Tennessee. Polk soon embarked on a political career, entering the Tennessee Legislature in 1823 and the U.S. House of Representatives in 1825. In Congress, Polk fought to defend individual freedoms, the rights of the states against the centralizing tendencies of the national govern- ment, and a strict interpretation of the Consti- tution. In 1839 Polk was elect ed governor of Tennessee. However, his two -year term in office was undistinguished, and he was defeated in the 1841 and 1843 gubernatorial races. After his second defeat, Polk’s political career appeared to be over, but events took a surprising turn. MARTIN VAN BUREN, who had served as Andrew Jackson’s vice president from 1833 to 1837 and as president from 1837 to 1841, was expected to be the DEMOCRATIC PARTY’s presidential nominee for the 1844 election, but Van Buren’s candidacy was derailed when he announced in April 1844 that he was opposed to the annexation of Texas on the grounds that it would constitute aggression against Mexico. Van Buren’s support immediately eroded, be- cause the annexation of Texas was a controver- sial political item widely supported by ANDREW JACKSON and his followers. By the time the Democrats held their nominating convention in late May, the party was in turmoil. Van Buren’s supporters failed to generate the support needed for their candidate and Polk was nominated to be the presidential candidate instead. The Whig presidential candidate in 1844 was the powerful and influential HENRY CLAY of Kentucky, who had held important positions in both the House and the Senate in addition to serving as SECRETARY OF STATE under JOHN QUINCY ADAMS . The campaign was hard fought and bitter. Polk eventually won with 170 electoral votes compared with Clay’s 105; in the popular THE PEOPLE OF THIS CONTINENT ALONE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN DESTINY . —JAMES K. POLK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION POLK, JAMES KNOX 19 vote, Polk received just 38,000 more votes than Clay, out of the almost 2,700,000 votes cast. The Polk administration added approxi- mately 1.2 million square miles to the United States, increasing its size by fifty percent. The addition resulted from the three major foreign policy matters Polk oversaw: the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, and negotiations with Great Britain over the Oregon territory. Polk inherited the Texas issue from the administration of JOHN TYLER. Tyler had wrestled with Congress over methods for annexing Texas, which had existed as the independent Lone Star Republic since winning its indepen- dence from Mexico in 1836. Tyler and Congress had agreed that Texas would be given the opportunity to vote for annexation, and Polk continued this approach. The Texas congress eventually approved annexation and wrote a state constitution, which the voters approved in a general REFERENDUM. In Dece mber 1845, the U.S. Congress completed the transaction by admitting Texas as the 28th state. The annexation led to territorial disputes that resulted in war between the United States and Mexi co. For several years relations between the United States and Mexico had been rocky, primarily because the United States had made financial claims against the Mexican govern- ment. Since winning its independence from Spain in the early 1820s, Mexico had had a series of unstable governments, and foreign nationals often lost property during the result- ing revolutions. Those individuals and their governments lodged claims against the Mexican government, and by the mid-1840s, these claims amounted to millions of dollars. This dispute over claims had soured relations between the United States and Mexico, and the annexation of Texas brought ma tters to a crisis. As part of the annexation agreement, the U.S. government had consented to recognize Texas ’s claim to the Rio Grande boundary and to provide military protection to defend that boundary. For its part, Mexico had never given up hope of winning back Texas, and the United States’ annexation, together with the assertion of the Rio Grande boundary, the placement of U.S. troops along the border, and the longstanding claims dis- agreement, led Mexico to break off diplomatic relations with Washington and accuse the United States of initiating war. In response, Polk sent a representative to negotiate with the Mexican government, offer- ing to buy California and New Mexico and James K. Polk. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS James Knox Polk 1795–1849 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1775 1850 1825 1800 ❖ ◆◆◆ ◆ 1775–83 American Revolution 1795 Born, Mecklenburg County, N.C. 1818 Graduated from University of North Carolina 1812–14 War of 1812 1823 Entered Tenn. Legislature 1825 Entered U.S. House 1839–41 Served as governor of Tenn. 1849 Died, Nashville, Tenn. 1845 Texas admitted as 28th state of the Union 1846 Mexican War began; Oregon Territory boundary set at 49th parallel 1845–49 Served as 11th president 1848 Peace treaty ended Mexican War; Mexico ceded territories from Texas to Calif. to U.S. ◆◆ ❖ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 20 POLK, JAMES KNOX relinquish U.S. claims against Mexico in return for a recognition of the Rio Grande boundary. The Mexican government refused to negotiate, and by spring of 1846, skirmishes were begin- ning to break out along the border. Polk requested that Congress declare war, which it did by an overwhelming margin. Though the United States lacked a powerful professional army, volunteers signed up in droves. The war lasted until September 1847, when the Mexican government agreed to enter into peace negotia- tions. In the resulting agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico agreed to recognize the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas and to cede New Mexico and upper California to the United States; for its part, the United States agreed to relinquish all claims against Mexico and to pay the Mexican government $15 million. The third major foreign policy issue requir- ing Polk’s attention was the dispute between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon territory, which stretched from the northern boundary of California to the Alaska panhandle, including what is now Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Both countries claimed the area but had agreed in 1818 to occupy it jointly, with the provision that either party could terminate the agreement with a year’s notice. The United States had repeatedly requested to resolve the issue by extending the 49th parallel boundary that existed between the two countries east of the Rocky Mountains, but Britain had refused, insisting on the Columbia River as the boundary. The situation had remained unresolved, and British fur traders had continued to dominate the area into the 1830s. At that time, however, increasing numbers of U.S. settlers migrated into Oregon and pressed the United States to address their needs and defend their interests. After the 1844 presidential election, the issue became heated. As U.S. statements on the issue became more angry and aggressive, the British government grew concerned that war might break out, and it entered into earnest negotia- tions with the United States. In July 1845, Polk once again offered to draw the boundary at the 49th parallel, but the British minister in Washington rejected the offer. Furious, Polk withdrew the offer, instead reas serting the U.S. claim to the entire territory. In his first message to Congress in Decem- ber 1845, Polk continued this hard line on Oregon, asking Congress to provide the one year’s notice that the United States was ter- minating its joint occupancy agreement with Great Britain. In addition, he asked that juris- diction be extended to Americans living in Oregon and that militar y protection be pro- vided to emigrants along the route to Oregon. Finally, Polk reasserted the MONROE DOCTRINE, which held that North America was not open to any further colonization by European powers. Polk’s tough stance apparently spurred Great Britain to renew negotiations, and this time it agreed to the 49th parallel boundary. The treaty was signed on June 15, 1846. A principal goal of Polk’s domestic agenda was to eliminate the high tariffs that had be en imposed in 1842 under the Tyler administra- tion. Polk believed that low tariffs were crucial for the success of the agricultural sector, and after strong and sustained LOBBYING, he was able to persuade Congress to reduce tariffs in July 1846. A second focus of Polk’s domestic efforts was the establishment of an independent treasury for the United States. Previously, the government’s funds had been held in national banks or in various state banks, but Polk argued that the government’s money should not be deposited in banks at all, but should be held in its own independent treasury. Despite Polk’s many successes, presidential scholars agree that he utterly failed in his ability to foresee the catas trophic consequences that the SLAVERY issue would have for the nation. A slaveholder with plantations in Tennessee and Mississippi, Polk never actively defended slav- ery, but he failed to see the importance that it would have, instead believing that it was an aggravating side issue that hampered the resolution of more important problems. During his presidency Polk appointed two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court: LEVI WOOD- BURY of New Hampshire in 1845 (a recess appointment later confirmed by the Senate) and ROBERT COOPER GRIER of Pennsylvania in 1846. Polk left office when his term ended in 1849, remaining faithful to his election promise that he would serve only one term as president. Polk returned to Tennessee exhausted and in ill health. Just three months after leaving office, Polk died unexpectedly on June 15, 1849. He was 54 years old. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION POLK, JAMES KNOX 21 FURTHER READINGS Bergeron, Paul H. 1994. “James K. Polk.” Encyclopedia of the American Presidency, edited by Leonard W. Levy and Louis Fisher. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bergeron, Paul H. 1987. The Presidency of James K. Polk. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas. Haynes, Sam W. 2002. James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse. New York: Longman. Leonard, Thomas M. 2001. James K. Polk: A Clear and Unquestionable Destiny. Wilmington, Del.: S.R. Books. Pletcher, David M. 1996. “James K. Polk.” The Presidents, 2d ed., edited by Henry F. Graff. New York: Scribner. POLL TAX A specified sum of money levied upon each person who votes. In the nineteenth century, following the passage of the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, some Southern states formerly levied a poll tax to the detriment of African Americ an voters. Since the mid-1960s, poll taxes, as a prerequisite to voting in federal elections, have been prohibited by the TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution and have been held unconstitu- tional for state elections under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), because they violate the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. v POLLACK, MILTON Two of the nation’s great financial crises form the bookends of Milton Pollack’s legal career. Pollack began his first phase of that career, as a SECURITIES lawyer, just two weeks before the 1929 STOCK MARKET crash. Sixty years later, as a federal district court judge, he used his knowledge and experience to resolve a multibillion-dollar disaster that was left when Drexel Burnham Lambert, a powerful Wall Street investment bank, collapsed into BANKRUPTCY. The lawsuits relating to Drexel were expected to drag on for decades, but under Pollack’s guidance they were resolved and completed in just over three years. Pollack considered the Drexel CLASS ACTION suit (In re Drexel, 960 F. 2d 285 [2d Cir. 1992 ]) and the resulting bankruptcy reorganization to be his “lifetime masterpieces.” Milton Pollack. AP IMAGES ▼▼ ▼▼ Milton Pollack 1906–2004 1900 1950 1975 2000 1925 ❖ 1914–18 World War I 1939–45 World War II ◆◆ 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆◆ 1906 Born, New York City 1929 Earned J.D. from Columbia Law School ◆ 1944 Left Unger and Pollack and started own law firm ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1928 Stock market crash 1967 Appointed U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York 1983 Took senior (semiretired) status on the court 2004 Died, New York City 1986 Ivan Boesky pled guilty to a criminal charge; paid $100 million fine and was barred from securities trading for life 1988 Drexel Burnham Lambert pled guilty to insider trading, stock manipulation, and falsified records, resulting in $640 million fine 1993 Presided over trial of Victor Posner and barred him from ever heading a publicly traded company 1997 Approved investor class action settlements stemming from 1980s insider-trading complaints 2001 Dismissed shareholder suits against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. in scathing criticism of plaintiffs 2002 Chosen by federal panel to handle investor claims in class action settlement against Merrill Lynch & Co. ❖ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 22 POLL TAX Pollack was born September 29, 1906, in New York City. He attended Erasmus High School and then Columbia College and Law School, where he received a bachelor of arts degree in 1927 and a doctor of JURISPRUDENCE degree in 1929. He was admitted to the N ew York bar in 1930. Pollack married Lillian Klein on December 18, 1932. After graduation, Pollack joined the law firm of Gilman and Unger. By 1937 Gilman and Unger had become Unger and Pollack, and by 1943 Pollack had proved himself to be a force in both the legal and financial communities by winning a $4.5 million shareholder lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (Singer v. General Motors Corp., 136 F. 2d 905 [2d Cir. 1943]). In 1944 Pollack set out on his own. Over the next two decades, he established himself as an outstanding litigator. On June 12, 1967, after almost 40 years as a practicing attorney, Pollack was appointed as U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York by President LYNDON B. JOHNSON. Pollack authored more than 150 opinions rela- ting to securities-regu lation matters and many other issues. In 1983 Pollack took senior (or semiretired) status. As a senior judge, he played a prominent role in major Wall Street disputes in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including the trials of JUNK BOND salesmen Michael R. Milken and Ivan F. Boesky. When the Drexel bankruptcy oc- curred, Pollack’s lifelong experience made him the logical choice to handle the resulting avalanche of complaints and actions. In 1989 Pollack appro ved a settlement that gave contro l over Drexel’s continued operation to high-level SEC officials. The settlement re- quired Drexel to cooperate in the government’s investigation of former employees and to cut all ties with former Drexel executive Milken. In 1991 Pollack authorized the payment of $46.8 million to 80,000 persons who claimed losses from Boeksy’s INSIDER TRADING and securities FRAUD. That same year, Pollack approved the settlement of a class action suit by Drexel creditors who had been defrauded by the firm’s securities transactions. Pollack also presided over the 1993 trial of corporate raider Victor Posner. Because Posner had conducted illegal takeovers and had had previous criminal dealings with Milken and Boesky, Pollack barred him from ever again heading a publicly traded company. Judge Pollack barred the Posners under the Securi- ties Law Enforcement Remedies Act of 1990 (Remedies Act) from acting as officers and directors of any public companies (Pub. L. No. 1-429, 104 Stat. 931). As a senior judge , Pollack was acknowledged as a troubleshooter who was quick to help his fellow judges. In addition to a full schedule in the Southern District of New York, Pollack also heard cases in Houston, Texas, during part of the year. Pollack was the recipient of the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service to Justice in 1995. The following year he was praised for his handling of the liquidation of Drexel Burnham Lambert assets. In a 2000 interview for the federal courts’ newsletter, Pollack stated his enjoyment of taking over long-delayed cases, particularly securities and trust cases, and getting them settled. He was known for imposing strict deadlines on legal counsel and for pushing cases to either settle or to go to trial, causing other judges to at times relay cases to him for this very purpose. Pollack continued to work on cases of major importance until his death in August of 2004 at the age of 97, making him the oldest federal judge still sitting when he died. FURTHER READINGS Arkin, Stanley S., and Kenneth P. Coleman. 1991. “Judicial Activism as an Art: Drexel Case.” New York Times (June 7). Brockway, Kim. 1998. “College Honors Noted Alumni for Exceptional Career Achievements.” Columbia Univer- sity Record (March 6). Feerick, John D., and Milton Pollack. 1994. “Remarks Delivered on the Occasion of the Presentation of the Fordham-Stein Prize to the Honorable Milton Pollack on October 26, 1994.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 22 (fall). Oakes, James L. 1989. “Grace Notes on ‘Grace Under Pressure’.” Ohio State Law Journal 50 (June). Rapoport, Michael. 1996. “Drexel’s Final Days.” Minneapolis Star Tribune (March 28). Riencke, Mary, and Nancy Lichterman, eds. 1979. The American Bench: Judges of the Nation. 2d ed. Minnea- polis: Reginald Bishop Forster. Robbins, David E., and Michael H. Stone, panelists. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Symposium on Arbitration in the Securities Industry. 1995. “Discovery.” Fordham Law Review 63 (April). CROSS REFERENCE Bonds. IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE , TRIAL BY AMBUSH AND SECRECY WAS CONSIDERED NORMAL IN THE COURTS OF LAW . —MILTON POLLACK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION POLLACK, MILTON 23 v POLLAK, WALTER HEILPRIN Walter Heilprin Pollak was a lawy er and civil libertarian who is credited with convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to first adopt the INCORPO- RATION DOCTRINE , which the Court has used to extend most of the provisions of the BILL OF RIGHTS to limit actions by state and local gov- ernments. Pollak is also remembered for his arguments for the defense in POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932), which extended the RIGHT TO COUNSEL in death penalty cases to state criminal trials. Pollak was born on June 4, 1887, in Summit, New Jersey. He graduated from Harvard University in 1907 and from Harvard Law School in 1910. He joined the prominent New York City law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, but in 1912 he left for the smaller firm of Simpson, Warren, and Cardozo. Pollak worked with BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO before Car- dozo left in 1914 to become a New York Court of Appeals judge. Following Card ozo’s depar- ture and the retirement of another partner, Pollak became partner in the firm of Englehard and Pollak. Pollak was an ardent supporter of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the Bill of Rights. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court Benjamin Gitlow’s conviction under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Act (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 160–161 [repealed 1967]) for “advocacy of criminal anarchy,” which was defined as the advocacy of “the duty, necessity or propriety of overthrowing or over- turning organized government by force or violence” ( GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 [1925]). Gitlow was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of five to ten years for distributing a left-wing pamphlet. Pollak argued that the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS were applicable to the states because the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEE NTH AMENDMENT protects “liberty” from abridgement by the states. By incorporating the FIRST AMENDMENT provisions into the Fourteenth Amendment, states could not restrain the free speech rights of persons such as Gitlow. Though the Court did not agree with Pollak that the New York law was unconstitutional, it did adopt his incorporation argument, holding that freedom of speech and the press “are among the most fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.” In Powell v. Alabama, Pollak returned to the Supreme Court to argue on behalf of the “Scottsboro boys,” a group of young African Americans sentenced to death for an alleged sexual assault on two white women. The defendants had not been provided effective legal counsel, and the trial had been a sham, evoking a public outcry in the North. Pollak convinced the Court that the defendants had been denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pollak also served on the staff of the National Commission of Law Observance and Law Enforcement, which came to be known as the WICKERSHAM COMMISSION. In 1931 the com- mission issued its 14-volume report, which revealed disturbing features of the U.S. criminal ▼▼ ▼▼ Walter Heilprin Pollak 1887–1940 18751875 19251925 19501950 19001900 ❖ ❖ 1887 Born, Summit, N.J. 1910 Earned LL.B. from Harvard Law School 1912 Joined law firm of Simpson, Warren, and Cardozo 1914 Formed law firm of Englehard and Pollak 1925 Argued Gitlow v. New York before the Supreme Court; lost appeal, but Court adopted his incorporation argument 1927 Argued Whitney v. California before Supreme Court 1932 Convinced Supreme Court to set aside convictions of “Scottsboro Boys” in Powell v. Alabama 1940 Died, New York City 1914–18 World War I 1931 Wickersham Commission released its report 1939–45 World War II 19 35 Supreme Court set aside the convictions resulting from the “Scottsboro Boys” retrials ◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆ MAN IS A FREE AGENT TO USE HIS TONGUE AND PEN , AS HE MAY USE HIS BRAIN AND BODY GENERALLY , FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT OR HARM IN THE CONDUCT OF HIS PRIVATE AFFAIRS . —WALTER H. POLLAK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 24 POLLAK, WALTER HEILPRIN justice system. It brought to public attention the use of “third-degree” interrogation methods against criminal suspects and the need for more professional police forces. Pollak helped write the report on the third degree and a staff report that demonstrated that prosecutors in a partic- ular case had condoned and probably encour- aged the giving of false testimony in convicting the defendant. The Supreme Court later agreed with Pollak’s conclusion on this case. In Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 (1935), the Court ruled that a state has denied due process if it deceives the trial judge and jury by presenting evidence known to be perjured. Pollak died on October 2, 1940, in New York City. RESOURCES Hall, Kermit, ed. 2005. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Pollak, Louis H. 1991. “Thomas I. Emerson: Pillar of the Bill of Rights.” Yale Law Journal 101 (November). ———. 1982. “Advocating Civil Liberties: A Young Lawyer Before the Old Court.” Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 17 (spring). POLLING THE JURY A practice whereby the jurors are asked individu- ally whether they assented, and still assent, to the verdict; it consists of calling the name of each juror and requiring a declaration of his or her verdict before it is recorded. Polling can be accomplished by questioning the jurors individually or by ascertaining the fact of unanimous concurrence by general questions. Once concurrence has been deter- mined, the polling concludes. If unanimous concurrence, when required, does not exist upon the poll, the jury can be either discharged or ordered to resume further deliberation. It is very rare that a polled jury will turn up a result different from that announced by the foreman, but it is not unheard of. For example, in a startling 2007 case in a federal district court in Texas, involving Dr. Gayle Rothenberg, who was facing 13 charges in connection with an alleged scheme to use an alternative to Botox, a guilty verdict was read after a three-week trial. However, when defense attorney Joel Androphy polled the jury, one member brought the proceeding to a halt when she indicate d, “That’s not my verdict.” Judge Ewing Werlein then sent the jurors back to continue deliberating, but they soon deadlocked, and the mat ter ended in a mistrial. v POLLOCK, FREDERICK As a legal scholar and historian, Sir Frederick Pollock was a leading figure in the moderniza- tion of English legal studies in the ni neteenth century. Pollock considered his works scientific and was from the positivist school of JURISPRU- DENCE , though he didn’t follow that school of thought rigorously. Born in London on Decem- ber 10, 1845 , Pollock was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, admitted to the bar in 1871, and soon rose to eminence in his field as an author of groundbreaking histories and textbooks. He taught law in his native England and lectured briefly in the United States in 1903 Frederick Pollock 1845–1937 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18251825 18751875 19001900 19251925 19501950 18501850 ❖ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ❖ ◆◆◆ ◆ 1845 Born, London, England 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1871 Called to English bar at Lincoln's Inn 1874 Started correspondence with Oliver Wendell Holmes 1883 The Land Laws published 1876 Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity published 1883–1903 Taught at Oxford University 1885 Became editor of the Law Quarterly Review 1895 Appointed editor of the Law Reports; History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I first published 1887 The Law of Torts published 1902–32 Oliver Wendell Holmes served on U.S. Supreme Court 1914–18 World War I 19 20 Served as King's Counsel 1937 Died, London, England 1939–45 World War II 1922 Essays in the Law published ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION POLLOCK, FREDERICK 25 and 1912. Besides his public contributions to legal scholarship, Pollock is rem embered for his decades-long private correspondence with U.S. Supreme Court Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR ., which was published posthumously. Beginning in the 1870s, Pollock wrote a series of books that marked a turning point in English legal scholarship. His approach was different from that of his predecessors, who had built their work on specific applications of the law. Pollock emphasized the law’s underlying principles. Written in a direct, clear style, works such as Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity (1876) and a companion work The Law of Torts (1887) became the standard legal texts for many years; more importantly, they served as models for other textbooks and thus helped to modernize English LEGAL EDUCATION. Pollock poss essed enormous talent and energy for scholarly work. In 1883 he began teaching at Oxford University as a professor of JURISPRUDENCE. That same year he published his classic work, The Land Laws, and two years later he became the first editor of the Law Quarterly Review. Over the next three decades, he pub- lished a number of books, including Spinoza, His Life and Philosophy (1880); Possession in the Common Law (with Robert S. Wright) (1888); A First Book of Jurisprudence (1896); The Expansion of the Common Law (1904); The Genius of the Common Law (1912); and The League of Nations (1920). Many of his books were reprinted several times, and his History of ENGLISH LAW Before the Time of Edward I (with FREDERIC W. MAITLAND) (1895; rev. ed. 1898) is still often cited by legal scholars. Contemporary law interested Pollock as much as LEGAL HISTORY, and he played an important role in reforming the English legal system. He immersed himself in public service, variously holding positions as a member of the PRIVY COUNCIL, judge of the Admiralty Cour t of the Cinque Ports, King’s Counsel, and chair- man of the Royal Commission on the Public Records. In 1895 he was appointed editor of the LAW REPORTS, charged with ove rseeing the production of reports on judicial opinions, and remained in that position for forty years. Such was his stature in the legal profession that even judges deferred to him. Among Pollock’s many admirers was his friend, Justice Holmes. The British law profes- sor and the U.S. Supreme Court justice carried on a correspondence for 60 years. The letters contain discussions of the legal issues of the day, descriptions of their lives, and, at least by Holmes, mischievous portraits of their con- temporaries. Each man admired the other’s national leg al system and his thinking: Pollock apparently borrowed ideas from Holmes for the first clear formulation of the doctrine of relative title—a concept related to ownership—in the 1880s. The correspondence was published as The Holmes-Pollock Letters, 1874–1932 (1961). Pollock died in London on January 18, 1937. FURTHER READINGS Gordley, James, and Mattei, Ugo. 1996. “Protecting Posses- sion.” American Journal of Comparative Law 44 (spring). Howe, Mark De Wolfe, ed. 1994. Holmes-Pollock Letters: The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Sir Frederick Pollock, 1874–1932. Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothman. Hudson, John, ed. 1996. The History of English Law: Centenary Essays on ‘Pollock and Maitland.’ New York: Published for the British Academy by Oxford Univ. Press. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. 1991. “The Modern Prima Facie Tort Doctrine.” Kentucky Law Journal 79 (spring). POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. A5–4decisionoftheSUPREME COURT, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157U.S.429,15S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed 759, on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108 (1895), declared the INCOME TAX Act of 1894 unconstitutional and ultimately led to the enactment of the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT , authorizing the imposition of an income tax by the federal government. Charles Pollock, a Massachusetts stock- holder employed by the New York defendant, Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after unsuccessfully suing the defendant in federal courts to prevent it from breaching its fiduciary duty by filing returns for and paying a federal income tax. The tax was levied upon the profits that the defendant earned, including interest it received from income-producing real estate and bonds of New York City. Pollock alleged that such a tax, authorized by the Income Tax Act of 1894, was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax upon the property itself (28 Stat. 509). Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution mandated that all direct taxes be apportioned among the several states and Section 8 of the same article required that direct taxes be uniform. Pollock argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that this tax did not satisfy either requirement. The tax [THE COURTS] MAY SUPPLEMENT AND ENLARGE THE LAW AS THEY FIND IT , OR RATHER THEY MUST DO SO FROM TIME TO TIME , AS THE NOVELTY OF QUESTIONS COMING BEFORE THEM MAY REQUIRE ; BUT THEY MUST NOT REVERSE WHAT HAS BEEN SETTLED . —FREDERICK POLLOCK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 26 POLLOCK V. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. was levied upon the rents or income of real property held by particular corporations and businesses and was, in effect, a direct tax upon the real property itself. Pollock also raised the issue as to the validity of the tax as levied upon New York City bonds. The Court accepted the reasoning that, since states were powerless to tax the operations or property of the United States, the United States had no constitutional power to tax either state instrumentalities or property. The Supreme Court ruled that the Income Tax Act of 1894 violated the Constitution and that the taxes imposed pursuant to it were void. It reversed the decree of the federal circuit court and remanded the case. The court sided with Pollock and agreed that the levy in question was a DIRECT TAX that was not apportioned among the states. As a result of the decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., Congress recognized the need for a constitutional provision permit- ting the levy of federal income tax without apportionment among the several states. How- ever, it took 18 more years before there w as sufficient support for the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. POLLS The place where voters cast their ballots. Heads; individuals; persons singly considered. An objection to a particular juror is called a challenge to the poll, as distinguished from a challenge to the array or panel, which is opposition to the jury as an entity, based on a universal defect among the jurors. POLLUTION The contamination of the air, water, or eart h by harmful or potentially harmful substances. The U.S. environmental movement in the 1960s emerged from concerns that air, water, and soil were being polluted by harmful chemicals and other toxic substances. During the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century, the mass prod uction of goods created harmful wastes, much of which was dumped into rivers and streams. The twentieth century saw the popular acceptance of the automobile and the internal combustion engine, which led to the pollution of the air. Rapidly expanding urban centers began to use rivers and lakes as repositories for sewage. Land pollution involves the depositing of solid wastes that are useless, unwanted, or hazardous. Types of solid waste include garbage, rubbish, ashes, sewage-treatment solids, indus- trial wastes, mining wastes, and agricultural wastes. Most solid waste is buried in sanitary landfills. A small percentage of municipalities incinerate their refuse, while composting is rarely employed. Modern landfills attempt to minimize pollu- tion of surface and groundwater. They are now located in areas that will not flood and that have the proper type of soil. Solid wastes are compacted in the landfill and are vented to eliminate the buildup of dangerous gases. Hazardous wastes, including toxic chemicals and flammable, radioactive, or biological substances, cannot be deposited in landfills, and the management of these wastes is subject to federal and state regulation. The federal government’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 6901 et seq.) is a comprehensive regulatory statute that creates a “cradle to grave” system of controlling the entire hazardous waste life cycle. Nuclear wastes are especially troublesome. Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 10101–226), which di- rected the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY to formally begin planning the disposal of nuclear wastes and imposed most of the costs of disposal on the NUCLEAR POWER industry. Since 1986 the Depart- ment of Energy has been unsuccessful in finding Garbage is dumped in a landfill located near Sumpter Township, Michigan. Modern landfills are engineered to minimize groundwater contamination, and through federal and state regulations are off-limits to the disposal of hazardous materials such as toxic or radioactive substances. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION POLLUTION 27 . Equity published 188 3–1903 Taught at Oxford University 188 5 Became editor of the Law Quarterly Review 189 5 Appointed editor of the Law Reports; History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I first published 188 7. North Carolina 181 2–14 War of 181 2 182 3 Entered Tenn. Legislature 182 5 Entered U.S. House 183 9–41 Served as governor of Tenn. 184 9 Died, Nashville, Tenn. 184 5 Texas admitted as 28th state of the Union 184 6 Mexican. Polk. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS James Knox Polk 1795– 184 9 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1775 185 0 182 5 180 0 ❖ ◆◆◆ ◆ 1775 83 American Revolution 1795 Born, Mecklenburg County, N.C. 181 8 Graduated from University of North Carolina 181 2–14 War