Sentencing Guidelines: Fair or Unfair? S entencing guideline systems for determining criminal sentences have dramatically changed the way pun- ishment is meted out in U.S. courtrooms. Twenty-two states and the federal govern- ment use sentencing guidelines, which require a judge to calculate a criminal sentence using a mathematical formula. Points are assigned based on the defen- dant's offenses, prior criminal record, and other factors. A total is calculated, and the sentence is computed. A judge has very little room to depart from the sentence mandated by the guidelines. There has been controversy over the fairness and the legitimacy of using sentencing guidelines, with the most criticism directed at the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The criticism comes mostly from defense attorneys and judges, who argue that the guidelines give prosecutors too much power in the criminal justice system and give too little discretion to judges to shape a sentence to fit the individual defendant. Defenders of sen- tencing guidelines contend that they are a vast improvement over the way sentencing has traditionally been done, eliminating “judge shopping” and the arbitrary and disparate sentencing practices that come with unbridled judicial discretion. Congress authorized the U.S. Sentenc- ing Guidelines in 1984. The U.S. Sentenc- ing Guidelines C ommission, a s even- member panel appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, issued the first set of guidelines in 1987. The guide- lines have been constantly changed, mostly by the commission, but also by congressional legislation. In addition, Congress has exercised its veto power over amendments proposed by the commis- sion. By 1996 the federal guidelines had grown to an 850-page manual, containing complex formulas for computing different types of sentences. Proponents of federal sentencing guidelines believe that they reduce sen- tencing disparity and guarantee harsher punishment for federal felons, many of whom are convicted for selling illegal narcotics. Before the guidelines were created, the proponents argue, defendants tried to avoid judges who handed out tough sentences and to find one who would be lenient. Thus, in one court a bank robber would get an eighteen-year sentence, while in another a robber convicted of the same crime would receive only five years in prison. In addition, there was evidence to suggest that minorities received the harshest treatment. Sentenc- ing guidelines have, therefore, reduced the arbitrary dispensation of punishment. Proponents also contend that be- cause the guidelines provide predictable sentences, they serve as a deterrent to crime. Criminals know the formula of past conviction plus new conviction equals a certain criminal sentence. Crim- inals no longer can play the angles in the criminal justice system to their advantage but must face a definite punishment. Defendersof the guidelines also believe that the reduction of judicial discretion reduces the stress suffered by federal trial judges. No longer do judges have to wrestle with their emotions in devising an appro- priate sentence. The guidelines provide an efficient means of delivering a criminal sentence that conforms to public policy goals setout by Congressand theguidelines commission. Critics of the federal guidelines con- tend that whereas the idea of uniform criminal sentences may seem attractive, in practice the guidelines have created another arbitrary system of sentencing. A major criticism is the shift in power from the judge to the federal prosecutor. Because the criminal charge will trigger, upon conviction, a particular sentence in the guidelines, a prosecutor's charging decision is the most important one in the case. A prosecutor can determine whether a defendant's time in prison is short or long by manipulating the charges and a case's extenuating circumstances. Critics argue that prosecutorial dis- cretion has replaced judicial discretion, allowing defendants who hire defense counsel knowledgeable in the workings of the guidelines to negotiate plea agree- ments that reduce the charges and accom- panying jail time. Defendants with less effective counsel receive longer sentences. Critics point to the disparate sentences received by defendants involved in the same crime. Therefore, it is clear that prosecutors can manipulate the charges, with judges powerless to change the sentencing outcome. Critics, especially federal judges, decry the loss of discretion to shape a criminal sentence that is appropriate to the indi- vidual. The federal guidelines impose mathematical formulas, reducing a human being to the number of points on a sentencing grid worksheet. Judges are forced to ignore the particular circum- stances of the case and the individual and hand out the sentence dictated by the guidelines. Those judges who depart from the guidelines and give more lenient or more severe sentences invariably invite appellate review of their decisions. Another criticism is that the guidelines reflect political concerns more than peno- logical ones. Critics charge that Congress, in its zeal to be regarded as tough on crime, has imposed severe penalties that are out of proportion to the nature of some of the offenses. In addition, Congress has vetoed some sentencing commission revisions to the guidelines that it has regarded as politically unacceptable. Critics also object to the growing complexity of the guidelines, analogizing the various provisions to the Internal Revenue Code. The sentencing commis- sion's continuous revisions, contend critics, have undermined the stability of the guidelines and lessened the goals of predictability and uniformity. CROSS REFERENCES Determinate Sentence; Three Strikes Laws. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 118 SENTENCING the option of either serving a prison term or standing outside J.C. Penney carrying a sign that advised passersby of her transgression. Similarly, in Seattle, a youthful car thief was sentenced to 90 days in detention, a monetary fine, and 16 months of supervision, during which time he was required to wear a sign saying, “I’ma car thief.” Critics, including the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) deplore such punish- ments as forms of public humiliation. Juvenile court judges possess tremendous discretion in sentencing. In 1995, Judge Wayne Creech, of the Berkeley County Family Court, in South Carolina, ordered 15-year-old Tonya Kline to be physically tied, 24 hours per day, to her mother, Deborah Harter. This order was imposed on Kline and Harter after Kline was charged with truancy, shoplifting, and house- breaking. Under the tethering conditions, Kline and Harter were allowed to separate only to go to the bathroom and to shower. FURTHER READINGS Branham, Lynn S. 2005. The Law of Sentencing, Corrections, and Prisoners’ Rights in a Nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Oliss, Philip. 1995. “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Discretion, the Safety Valve, and the Sentencing Guide- lines.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 63. Stith, Kate. 1998 Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Spohn, Cassia C. 2002. How Do Judges Decide?: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Tonry, Michael. 2004. Sentencing Matters.New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Capital Punishment; Corporal Punishment; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Drugs and Narcotics; Incarceration; Juvenile Law; Plea Bargaining; Prison. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL The doctrine first enunciated by the U.S. Suprem e Court in PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896), to the effect that establishing different facilities for blacks and whites was valid under the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT as long as they were equal. The theory of separate but equal was used to justify segregated public facilities for blacks and whites until in BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA , KANSAS, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), the Supreme Court recogni zed that “separate but equal ” schools were “inher- ently unequal.” The principle of “separate but equal” was further rejected by the CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a et seq.) and in subsequent cases, which ruled that racially segregated public facilities, housing, and accom- modations violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of laws. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Integration; “Plessy v. Ferguson” (Appendix, Primary Document). SEPARATE MAINTENANCE A decree or judgment, after a specifically filed action, that requires one spouse to provide financially for the other while they are living apart, under the terms of a separation agreement. The spouses remain legally married and thus not yet eligible for remarriage. The rules vary from state to state, and some states, such as Michigan, provide for this type of action in lieu of a sepa- ration action. FURTHER READING Krause, Harry D., and David D. Meyer. 2007. Family Law in a Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West. CROSS REFERENCE Alimony. SEPARATION A termination of COHABITATION of HUSBAND AND WIFE either by mutual agreement or, in the case of judicial separation, under the decree of a court. In 1995 a South Carolina juvenile court judge sentenced 15-year-old Tonya Kline to be shackled to her mother, Deborah Harter, for six weeks. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION SEPARATION 119 A sample separation agreement. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ referred to as Husband and ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ referred to as Wife, agree: The parties were lawfully married on ________________________________________, _______, at ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Troubles have occurred between the parties, and they have agreed to live separate and apart. The parties nevertheless desire to resolve certain issues and consequently, have entered into this agreement. The parties have children born of this marriage who are as follows: Name Age Date of Birth 1). __________________________ ________ _________________ 2). _________________________ _________ _________________ 3). _________________________ _________ _________________ The parties have made a complete disclosure to one another of financial matters and each is satisfied that they have had sufficient disclosure of the parties individual and joint finances. The parties have each been advised by counselors of their own choice regarding their legal rights and any disclosures made herein. The hu sband shall assume the following debts and shall not hold the wife responsible for the same: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The wife shall assume the following debts and shall not hold the husband responsible for the same: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Neither party shall incur any further debts which may result in joint liability. In the event that either party incurs a debt on joint credit of the parties, that party shall be responsible for the total amount of that debt. As child support, _________________________ (husband/wife) shall pay support _________________ (weekly, monthly) the amount of ______________________ Dollars ($__________). The (husband/wife) shall maintain health insurance for the benefit of ______________________________________________________ . Personal property of the parties shall be divided as follows: The Husband shall have the following property: ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Wife shall have the following property: ____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SEPARATION AGREEMENT (name and address) (name and address) (name and location) [continued] GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 120 SEPARATION CROSS REFERENCE Divorce. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE See RELIGION. SEPARATION OF POWERS The division of state and federal government into three independent branches. The first three articles of the U.S. Constitu- tion call for the powers of the federal govern- ment to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judiciary. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of “checks and balances,” where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny. Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The If any debts are associated with the items of property divided herein, the party receiving the same shall assume the debt and hold the other party harmless from such debts. Any property not specifically divided herein shall be subject to distribution at a later time. The _____________________________ (husband/wife) shall have temporary possession of the residence owned by the parties located at ____________________________________. Expenses related to the residence shall be borne by the parties as follows: Husband: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Wife: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ The parties agree that this agreement is intended to be a final disposition of the matters agreed upon herein. This agreement may be introduced into evidence and incorporated in a final decree of dissolution of marriage. In the event that any disputes occur regarding this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees regarding such enforcement. _____________________________________ __________________ _____________________________________ __________________ _____________________________________ __________________ _____________________________________ __________________ _________________________________ My commission expires on: Warning: These forms are provided AS IS. They may not be any good. Even if they are good in one jurisdiction, they may not work in another. And the facts of your situation may make these forms inappropriate for you. They are for informational purposes only, and you should consult an attorney before using them. SEPARATION AGREEMENT Signature of Husband Date Signature of Wife Date Witness for Husband Witness for Wife Date Date Notary Public A sample separation agreement. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION SEPARATION OF POWERS 121 legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—headed by the president—implem ents the laws. The judi- ciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. The system of federal taxation provides a good example of each branch at work. Congress passes legislation regarding taxes. The president is responsible for appointing a director of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to carry out the law through the collec- tion of taxes. The courts rule on cases concerning the application of the tax laws. Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or VETO it. The Congress, through the SENATE, has the power of ADVICE AND CONSENT on presidential appoint- ments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president. Most judges are appointed, and therefore Congress and the president can affect the judiciary. Thus, at no time does all authority rest with a single branch of government. Instead, power is measured, apportioned, and restrained among the three government branches. The states also follow the three-part model of government, through state governors, state legislatures, and the state court systems. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863 (1952), the U.S. SUPREME COURT summarized the constitutional system of checks and balances in a more formulaic fashion: First, “[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authoriza- tion of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Second, “[w]hen the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Finally, “[w]hen t he President t akes measure s incompa ti- ble with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his p o wer is at its low est ebb,” and the Court can sustain his actions “only by disabling the Congress from a cting upon the s ubject. “ Our system of government in the United States is largely credited to JAMES MADISON and is sometimes called the “Madisonian model.” Madison set forth his belief in the need for balanced government power in The Federalist, No. 51. However, the concept of separation of powers did not originate with Madison. It is often attributed to the French philosopher Baron Montesquieu, who described it in 1748. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Madison played a leading role in persuading the majority of the Framers to incorporate the concept into the Constitution. CROSS REFERENCES Congress of the United States; Constitution of the United States; Judicial Review; Presiden t of the United States; Presidential Powers; Supreme Court of the United States. SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS On September 11, 2001, in the deadliest case of domestic TERRORISM in the history of the United States, a group of 19 terrorists hijacked four U.S. airliners for use as missiles against targets in New York City and Washington, D.C. The events shocked the country and the world and focused the Bush administration on a world- wide WAR ON TERRORISM. Morning of the Attack At 8:45 A.M. (EST), American Airlines Flight 11, hijacked after departing from Boston, crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Approximately 18 minutes later, another hijacked Boston flight, United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Within an hour of the attacks, the Port Authority shut down all tunnels and bridges in the New York area, and the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) shut down all New York airports. Soon thereafter, the FAA took the unprecedented step of halting all air traffic nationwide. About an hour after the initial attack against the World Trade Center, a Boeing 757, Ameri- can Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Penta- gon. The crash happened at approximately the same time as an ev acuation at the White House. At 10:05 A.M., the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. At 10:10 A.M., the northwest wall of the Pentagon was hit. As the Pentagon was attacked, another hi- jacked flight, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in Pennsylvania, killing everyone aboard. Later, an investigation discove red that the passengers attempted to overcome the four hijackers. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 122 SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS Passengers had learned their likely fates from cell phone calls informing them about the World Trade Cen ter crashes. Government authorities later speculated that the plane’s hijackers could have been targeting Camp David, the White House, or the U.S. Capitol building. At 10:28 A.M., the north tower of the World Trade Center collapsed from the top down. As with the collapse of the first tower, debris rained down and a huge cloud of smoke and dust enveloped a wide area. Hundreds of rescue workers died as they attempted to evacuate the people from the buildings. At 5:20 P.M., Building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed, and because it fell exactly into its footprint many concluded it was imploded. President GEORGE W. BUSH was visiting a Florida elementary school when he learned of the attacks. He quickly departed, stopping at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska, before heading back to Washington. During the afternoon, Osama Bin Laden and the militant Islamic group, al Qaeda, surfaced as the main suspects. In an address to the nation during the evening of September 11, Bush vowed that the United States would make no distinction between terrorists committing the attacks and those nations harboring them, although he did not name Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, until more evidence could be collected against him. 9/11 Commission Report The National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was charged with conducting a thorough review of the terrorist attacks. The commission first convened on November 26, 2002, and issued its final report on July 22, 2004. Former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean chaired the commission, which consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans. The commission interviewed more than 1,200 people in ten countries and reviewed more than two million documents related to the attacks. The 585-page report concluded that the attacks were largely the result of failures of the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY . The commission concluded that those agencies had failed to share informa- tion, which made it difficult for the agencies to track leads that could have prevented the attacks. According to Kean, the attacks were “a failure of policy, management, capability, and above all, a failure of imagination.” The commi ssion closed on August 21, 2004. The report was one of the last pieces of investigation by the federal government regard- ing the attacks. Follo wing that report, many people, including hundreds of scientists, voiced criticism of the report and published analyses explaining evidence not covered in the official report. Controversy surrounding the events and those respon sible for them continues. Osama Bin Laden’s Role Bin Laden, one of 50 children of a billionaire Saudi family, purportedly used his approximately $300 million inheritance to fund al Qaeda. Al Qaeda (Arabic, “the Base”) was organized by bin Laden in the late 1980s, bringing together “Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion,” according to the U.S. STATE DEPART- MENT .AlQaeda’s goal, the U.S. government has maintained, is to “establish a pan-Islamic Caliph- ate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems ‘non-Islamic’ and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.” In 1998 bin Laden issued a fatwah,areligious edict calling for attacks on U.S. civilians. He had previously issued a fatwah urging the killing of U.S. troops. Bin Laden and his organization are believed responsible for the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Sudan, which killed 17. He has been indicted for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and thousands more were injured; four al Qaeda members were convicted in connec- tion with those incidents. He has also been charged in connection with events in Somalia in A graphic rendering of the yet-to-be- completed National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS 123 October 1993, in which 18 U.S. servicemen died. His terrorist activities garnered him a spot on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List in 1999. The United States captured al Qaeda member Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan in 2003. The 9/11 Commission concluded in 2004 that Mohammad was the actual master- mind behind the attacks. As of 2009, he faced charges of committing WAR CRIMES and MURDER. Military Response On October 7, 2001, the United States sent warplanes and cruise missiles to Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda military installations and terrorist camps supported by the Taliban regime of that country. Great Britain joined the strikes, with intelligence efforts and logistical support provided by France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and others. In all, about 40 nations joined in a coalition with the United States, President Bush reported in an address to the country shortly after the strikes began. The president characterized the fight against TERRORISM as involving military commitments, law enforcement actions, legislative and diplo- matic actions, financial actions, and assistance to Afghanistan. Concurrent with the air strikes, Bush announced a humanitarian component of “Operation Enduring Freedom”: airlifts of food, medicine, and supplies to the Afghan people. On October 8, 2001, he issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER establishing the HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT ,to“coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United Stat es.” The air attacks against Afghanistan were followed by a controlled ground assault, as the United States assisted the Northern Alliance, a foe of the Taliban regime, in toppling the existing Afghan government. By December 2001 the Taliban had effectively been removed from power, and the United States and other nations began a process of rebuilding that country. Although bin Laden was constantly targeted during the attacks, the United States failed to capture him during the attack on the Taliban regime. Bin Laden remained alive as of 2009, though he remained in hiding after the attacks in 2001. The United States has also continued its assault on terrorists and the nations that harbor them since September 11. In March 2003 the United States attacked Iraq, purportedly for Iraq’s violation of resolutions banning its possession of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.The Bush administration sought support for the attacks by claiming that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gave support to bin Laden and al Qaeda. On May 1, 2003, Bush proclaimed on na- tional television that the mission in Iraq was a victory for the United States. U.S. forces continued to meet resistance, however, and Hussein remained at large. Massive searches for weapons of mass destruction turned up noth- ing. U.S. forces captured Hussein in December 2003. After a trial by the interim government in Iraq, Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity, and he was executed by hanging on December 30, 2006. The war in Iraq continued as of 2009. Domestic Response Congress responded to the attacks, with the urging of the president, by passing the USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, and other legislation designed supposedly to provide enhanced pro- tection against further attacks. Congress renewed the USA PATRIOT ACT in 2006, despite resistance based on allegations of abuses by government agents. In December 2001, U.S. officials raided the offices of two Muslim charities headquartered in Illinois, the Glob al Relief Foundation (GRF) and the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF). These organizations were believed to have contributed money to terrorists who planned unspecified attacks on the United States. The crackdown on these groups was also a result of the U.S. government’s belief that bin Laden and the al Qaeda network use charitable groups, manufacturing companies, and credit card FRAUD to raise money for terrorist operations. Cracking down on the fund-raising became one of the Bush administration’s strategies for defeating terrorism. Federal authorities under the Bush admin- istration aggressively pursued suspected terror- ist activities. Evidence emerged suggesting that federal agents had abused their authority by conducting searches without warrants. In 2002 the United States began to use a detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to house foreign GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 124 SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS nationals suspected of terrorist activities. Nu- merous allegations arose about abuses at the detention center, including the U.S. use of torture methods to elicit information from detainees. In early 2009 President BARACK OBAMA announced plans to the close the base, but the U.S. SENATE in May 2009 voted to block funds necessary to close it. Effects of the Attacks The September 11th attacks had a devastating impact on the U.S. airline industry. American Airlines and United Airlines each lost two planes during the attack, and the U.S. govern- ment ordered that all planes in the country remain grounded for a week following the attacks. In response to the heavy losses incurred by the airlines, Congress enacted the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230, which was signed into law 11 days after the Septemb er 11th attacks. The act was designed to compen- sate air carriers for their losses during and after the attacks and also to preserve the continued vitality of the air transportation system in the United States. Despite this legislation, United Airlines filed for BANKRUPTCY in 2002, and American Airlines bordered on bankruptcy during much of the period following the attacks. Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines later filed for bankruptcy. The attacks had a greater impact on the victims of the attacks and their families. As part of PUBLIC LAW Number 107-42, Congress enacted the Septemb er 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide a form of recovery for the victims of the attacks. The U.S. Attorney General’s Office administers the fund through a SPECIAL MASTER. Recovery under these provisions is limited to those who were physically injured during the attacks, so victims of non-physical, economic loss cannot recover. The fund received a total of 4,419 injury claims, but nearly 1,600 of those were rejecte d because the party filing the claim lacked medical or other proof. Many who filed claims said they endured long-term breathing problems caused by their work on the rubble that was left after the attacks. The average payout to those who receive part of the fund was $1.8 million. FURTHER READINGS Crotty, William, ed. 2004. The Politics of Terror: The U.S. Response to 9/11. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press. Dudziak, Mary L., ed. 2003. September 11 in History: A Watershed Moment? Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press. Friedman, Norman. 2003. Terrorism, Afghanistan, and America’s New Way of War. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Gokay, Bulent, and R. B. J. Walker, eds. 2003. 11 September 2001: War, Terror, and Judgment. Portland, OR: Frank Cass. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. http://www. gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf Parenti, Michael. 2002. The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond. San Francisco: City Lights Books. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Liberties; Terrorism; War on Terrorism. SEQUESTRATION In the context of trials, the isolation of a jury from the public, or the separation of witnesses to ensure the integrity of testimony. In other legal contexts the seizure of property or the freezing of assets by court order. In jury trials, judges sometimes choose to sequester the jurors, or place them beyond public reach. Usually the jurors are moved into a hotel, kept under close supervision twenty- four hours a day, denied access to outside media such as television and newspapers, and allowed only limited contact with their families. Although unpopula r with jurors, sequestra- tion has two broad pu rposes. The first is to avoid the accidental tainting of the jury, and the second is to prevent others from intentionally tampering with the jurors by bribe or threat. Trial publicity, public sentiment, interested parties, and the maneuverings and machina- tions of lawyers outside the courtroom can all taint the jurors’ objectivity and deny the defendant a fair trial. Judges are free to sequester the jury whenever they believe any of these factors may affect the trial’s outcome. Jury sequestration is rare. Typically ordered in sensational, high-profile criminal cases, sequestration begins immediately after the jury is seated and lasts until the jury has delivered its verdict. It is unusual for juries to be sequestered longer than a few days or a week. Occasionally, however, jurors are sequestered for weeks. The 1995 trial of former football star O. J.(ORENTHAL JAMES ) Simpson for murder was highly unusual: the Simpson jury was sequestered for eight and a half months—half as long as the period Simpson was imprisoned while under arrest and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION SEQUESTRATION 125 on trial. The experience provoked protest from the jurors and calls for leg al reform. The sequestration of witnesses differs from that of jurors. Whereas jurors are kept away from the public, witnesses typically are ordered not to attend the trial—or follow accounts of it—until they are to testify. This judicial order is intended to assure that the witnesses will testify concern- ing their own knowledge of the case without being influenced by testimony of prior witnesses. Witness sequestration also seeks to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing facts. Other definitions of sequestration relate to property. In CIVIL LAW, sequester has three distinct meanings. First, it means to renounce or disclaim, as when a widow appears in court and disclaims any interest in the estate of her deceased husband; the widow is said to seques- ter. Second, it means to take something that is the subject of a controversy out of the possession of the contendi ng parties and deposit it in the hands of a third person; this neutral party is called a sequestor. Third and most commonly, sequestration in civil law denotes the act of seizing property by court order. In litigation and EQUITY practice, sequestration also refers to court-ordered confiscation of property. When one party sues another over an unpaid debt, the plaintiff may secure a writ of attachment. As another form of sequestration, this legal order temporarily seizes the alleged debtor’s property in order to secure the debt or claim in the event that the plaintiff is successful. In equity practice—an ant iquated system of justice that is now incorporated into civil justice—courts seize a defendant’spropertyuntil the defendant purges herself of a charge of CONTEMPT. In INTERNATIONAL LAW, the term sequestration signifies confiscation. Typically, it means the appropriation of private property to public use. Following a war, sequestration means the seizure of the property of the private citizens of a hostile power, as when a belligerent nation sequesters debts due from its own subjects to the enemy. SERIATIM [Latin, Severally; separately; individually; one by one.] Describes opinions in a case written by each judge on the bench. The term is Latin for “in a series.” Without a clear majority opinion, precedent is far more difficult to discern. Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL, who led the Court from 1801 , led a reform away from the use of seriatim opinions. He believed that the Court would be a stronger institution if it articulated opinions as a whole. THOMAS JEFFER- SON favored the seriatim approach. Seriatim opinions are relatively rare in the modern era, but they are not unknown. They tend to occur in case s that are of unusual magnitude and significance, or when there is a broad range of opinion among the justices and a clearer consens us is not possible. FURTHER READINGS Kelsh, John P. 1999. “The Opinion Delivery Practices of the United States Supreme Court 1790–1945” Washington University Law Quarterly 77. George, Joyce J. 2007. Seriatim: The Supreme Court before John Marshall. New York: New York University Press Gerber, Scott. 1998. Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook. Buffalo, N.Y.: Hein & Co. SERJEANT AT LAW In English LEGAL HISTORY, an elite order of attorneys who had the exclusive privilege of arguing before the Court of Common Pleas and also supplied the judges for both Common Pleas and the Court of the King’s Bench. For six centuries starting in the 1300s, the serjeants at law ranked above all other attorneys in the kingdom. Only twelve hundred men were ever promoted to the dignity of serjeant, the last dying in 1921. Although the serjeants have never had an exact counterpart in the United States, the order has had a lasting impact on U.S. law: it has been cited as a reason for regarding U.S. attorneys as officers of the court and specifically for requiring court-appointed attorneys to subsidize the LEGAL REPRESENTATION of clients who cannot afford private attorneys. The serjeants at law originated in the Court of Common Pleas, one of the four superior courts at Westminster, in the fourteenth century. They had an antecedent in the thirteenth-century legal practitioners known as countors, aterm from the French meaning storytellers. Countors helped formulate the plaintiff’scounts,orcauses of action, and the preparatory work called counting. In the fourteenth century their role evolved and became a profession. The countors became servientes ad legem, or serjeants at law. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 126 SERIATIM The serjeants were an exalted order. Paid by the Crown and admitted to practice before a single court, they belonged to a closed society that had significant power. Only serjeants could argue in the Court of Common Pleas, and their ranks provided the only candidates for judges of the Common Pleas and the King’s Bench. By the fifteenth century, regard for the serjeants was so high that no practitioner in the legal profession was considered their equal. Serjeants came from the elite of the legal profession. The chief justice of the Common Pleas prepared a list of seven or eight of the best lawyers who had at least sixteen years’ experience, and the chancellor selected the new inductees. At their induction, an elaborate ceremony, they swore to serve the king’s people. The serjeants’ costume also distinguished them from other English attorneys. They wore a long, loose garment called a tabard, a hood, and a close- fitting white headdress called a coif. Eventually, from this costume, the serjeants became known as the ORDER OF THE COIF. The influence of the serjeants declined in the eighteenth century, and by the nineteenth century, their MONOPOLY on the Court of Common Pleas had ended. After the reorganization of the English justice system with the JUDICATURE ACTS of 1875, no more serjeants were created. In U.S. law, the legacy of the serjeants derives from their role as officers of the court. The position was similar to holding public office and, as such, carried duties: the serjeants could be commanded to serve indigent clients. In the twentieth century, U.S. federal courts turned to this tradition for justification in viewing attor- neys as officers of the court who also could be appointed to serve the needy. A significant example is the opinion in United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1965), where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals required a court- appointed attorney to subsidize the costs of vacating the conviction of an indigent client. In citing “an ancient and established tradition” for this practice, the court looked in part to the English tradition of the serjeants at law. SERVICE The delivery of a legal document that notifies the recipient of the commencement of a legal action or proceeding in which he or she is involved. The term service has various meanings, depending upon the context of the word. Under feudal law, tenants had a duty to render service to their lords in exchange for use of the land. The service required could take many fo rms: monetary payments, farm pro- ducts, loyalty, attendance upon the lord as an armed horseman, carrying the king’s banner, providing a sword or a lance, or plowing or other farm labor done for the king. In contract law, service refers to an act or deed, rather than property. It is a duty or labor done by a laborer under the direction and control of the one for whom the service is performed. The term implies that the recipient of the service selects and compensates the laborer. It is the occupation, condition, or status of being a servant and often describes every kind of employment relationship. In addition, service may be used to denote employment for the government, as in the terms civil service, military service or the armed service, or public service. In the area of domestic relations, the term refers to the uncompensated work, guidance, and upkeep an injured or deceased family member previously provided for the family; the injury or death of the provider of these services means that the work will have to be obtained from another source and at a price. In this context the term traditionally was restricted to the “services” of a wife under the theory that the husband’s duty was to provide support and the wife’s duty was to provide service. After injury to his wife, a husban d could bring an action on his own behalf against the responsible party for compensation of the loss of her aid, assistance, comfort, and society. The modern view holds that a wife may also sue for the loss of assistance and society of her husband. Service also means the delivery of a writ, summons and complaint, criminal summons, or other notice or order by an authorized server upon another. Proper service thereby provides official notification that a legal action or proceeding against an individual has been commenced. CROSS REFERENCES Feudalism; Service of Process. SERVICE MARK A TRADEMARK that is used in connection with services. Businesses use service mark s to identify their services and distinguish them from other GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION SERVICE MARK 127 . RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION SEPARATION OF POWERS 121 legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive. [continued] GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 120 SEPARATION CROSS REFERENCE Divorce. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE See RELIGION. SEPARATION OF POWERS The division of state and. lessened the goals of predictability and uniformity. CROSS REFERENCES Determinate Sentence; Three Strikes Laws. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 118 SENTENCING the option of either serving