Legal Brief -- Cronin v. Town of Amesbury
Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F. Supp 375 (D. Mass 1995)
Type of Action
The action was an appeal on the part of Michael Cronin to the United States District Court in Massachusetts. It was an appeal on the grounds that a hearing into the determining of his job status took well over three years and that violated his due process rights. The court had to decide if the delay was a violation of his due process rights or if the investigation was "above-board."
Facts of the Case
Michael Cronin was a police chief in Amesbury. At some point, a pornographic letter was found in Cronin's desk and it was signed "Mike." When brought to the attention of the higher-ups, Cronin was suspended with pay pending a further investigation. However, this revelation did nto appear until three years after the letter was found and copies were made. The suspension was matched with three charges being brought against Cronin by Town Manager Joseph Faye. Faye was fired not long thereafter and was replaced with Donna Stewart. Stewart posted a total of nine charges against him and there was a hearing for all of the charges. Of those, Cronin was found guilty of two and was issued a 90 day suspension. The letter itself was deemed to be irrelevant to his duties and so it was basically disregarded. Cronin appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission thereafter. Prior to that hearing taking place, Cronin was demoted...
Around the same time, a copy of the letter was released to the press. The aforementioned newer City Manager Donna Stewart left her post nad was replaced by John Koelsch who brought two new charges against Cronin including lying under oath and conducting unbecoming an officer. Koelsch designated himself the hearing officer for the Civil hearing and found him guilty of lying under oath. He was then dismissed immediately. Cronin appealed again and eventually won a reversal of the suspension and was restored to Chief with back-pay.
Contentions of the Parties
While things eventually worked out for Cronin, he brought legal action because he said it took too long (3+ years) to get his justice and that this was a violation of his due process rights. The other side argued that no violate of his free speech rights occurred and that Cronin eventually got the resolution he always would have gotten anyway, apparently (OpenJurist, 2014).
Issue
The issue is whether the three-year delay, mostly stemming from multiple city managers doing a lot of different things and the notification of the letter being found in his desk not occurring for several years after it was first found was found (Leagle, 2014).
Decision
The overall decision is that while it is possible for a person's legal consequences, founded or not, to be delayed to the point where justice is not or could not be rendered, it was found that…
Due Process and the Significance of Interpretation The concept of "Due Process" is a uniquely American one, the significance of which has changed as much as has the societal and political times of the American nation. Today, some critics argue that Due Process is a thing of the past, what with the passing and signing into law of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes the military to arrest and detain
This 'law and order' approach, however, will tend to invoke discomfort amongst civil libertarians, who will object to the danger that this poses to the constitution. Accordingly, we consider the Due Process Model of criminal justice, which U.S. Legal (2010) identifies as a mode of administration which emphasizes procedural regularity, adherence to the terms of the Constitution and meaningful commitment to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. As USLegal
In modern criminal procedure and practice, the Sixth Amendment also provides specific requirements of police, such as where criminal defendants express the desire to consult legal counsel. Irrespective of whether or not such a request precedes or follows the common recitation of Miranda warnings by arresting authorities, the Supreme Court has now long-regarded any expression of request for legal counsel as the immediate cut-off point of any further questioning (Colon, 2004;
In addition to rulings related to due process in trials, the Supreme Court made several rulings highlighting the importance of due process in police detentions in the 20th century. In 1936, the Court ruled that confessions extracted through coercion would not be acceptable as evidences. Initially, the court condemned "police brutality" and later extended it to "psychological as well as physical coercion of prisoners" (Lewis 97). In 1961, in the
Slaughterhouse Cases, Takings Clause PART I Slaughterhouse Cases 198 U.S. 45 Lochner v New York 1904 (Oyez, 2013) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Joseph Lochner The People of the State of New York TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FACTS -- Lochner was convicted but he appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the bakery labor law interfered with an employee's liberty to contract as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.. The employee has the right to substantive due process of
Supp. 749 (S.D. Miss1987), the court held that "The primary thrust of the educational process is classroom instruction; therefore minimum due process procedures may be required if an exclusion from the classroom would effectively deprive the student of instruction and the opportunity to learn. 676 F. Supp. 749, 752. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). In Ingraham, petitioner students filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981-1988, seeking damages