The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/term_papers/13.txt

Text File | 1994-10-25 | 12KB | 139 lines

                         Question Presented

                          Is it proper to admit an applicant to law school, that may have no real hope of admission to the
California State Bar, due to a criminal record in which the applicant pleaded guilty to, and was
convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for the brutal rape
and murder of a thirteen year old girl, then sent a video tape of the murdered child to the parents
as well as an audio tape describing the rape and murder in detail, and while serving the sentence
was a model prisoner that received a Bachelor of Science degree in Biblical Studies and Theology,
graduating summa cum laude with a 3.98 grade point average, and passing the LSAT with a score
in the top 3% nationally, the applicants sentence was commuted and is a convicted felon on
lifetime parole that cannot vote, own a firearm, or work as a stockbroker or barber in California
and the applicant has showed remorse for his crime and since his release from prison his wife, a
former California District attorney, professes applicants complete rehabilitation as do  friends and
neighbors and in order to pay redemption, the applicant works for a pro bono organization
providing legal advice and counceling to inmates and thier families and was forthright regarding
his criminal past and prison sentence on the application?

                                                   Short Answer
     No, it is not proper to admit an applicant to law school, that may have no real hope of admission
to the California State Bar, due to a criminal record in which the applicant is a convicted felon on
lifetime parole for rape and first degree murder.  The facts show the requitred elements neccesary
to prohibit the applicants addmission to the State Bar.  Applicant comitted first degree murder
which is a crime involving moral turpitude irrespective of criminal conviction and is grounds
for disbarment as well as grounds for the denial of admittance to the state bar.  Whith no
possibility of admission to the California State Bar, a law school may deny admiission on the same
basis. It would be unethical to admit an applicant to law school, in light of the fact that the
     applicant will most likely never be permitted to practice law.
                         Facts
     A convicted killer, Jeffrey Gommer, has applied for admission to Pacific Western University of
Law.  Gommer brutally raped and killed a thirteen year-old girl, and sent a video tape to the
parents showing their child after the murder.  Gommer also sent an audio tape, describing the rape
and murder in detail.  Gommer pleaded guilty and was convicted of first degree murder and
aggravated statutory rape and was sentenced to prison for thirty years.  Prior to this, Gommer had
one misdemeaner assault and battery, in an incident with a teenage girlfriend in 1970.
      During Gommer's incarceration, Gommer was a model prisoner who enrolled in bible study
courses, stress management courses, and any other self improvement course the department of
corrections offered.  Gommer earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biblical Studies and
Theology, graduating summa cum laude, with a 3.98 GPA.  Dommer also passed the LSAT with
a score in the top three percent nationally, tutored other prisoners, worked as an inmate legal
assistant, became a "born again" christian, started a prison ministry and taught a bible study class
for inmates.  Ultimately the prison guards urged for Gommer's early release.
     Gommer applied for admission to Pacific Western University six months after the sentence
was commuted.  Because gommer is a convicted felon on parole for life, gommer may not vote,
    own a firearm, or work as a stockbroker or barber in California.
     While in prison, Gommer had a nervous breakdown because of the guilt for the crime that was
comitted.  Gommer's remorse led him in an attempt to contact the victims parents and apologize
for the murder.  Gommer claims to have plead guilty because in acknowledgement of the crime,
Gommer could begin the process of redeption.  Gommer wants to become a criminal prosecuter
"so that I can do something productive with my life, and atone for the death I have caused."
     Gommer's friends and neighbor's describe gommer as soft spoken, meticulous, friendly man
who never loses control and watches his every move.  Gommer currently works for Inmate Legal
Services, a pro bono organization providing advice, and counceling for inmates and their familie's.
The organization was founded by Gommer's wife of two years, a former California District
        Attorney, who professes Gommer's complete rehabilitation.
                         Discussion
     To determine whether it is proper to admit Gommer, a convicted felon to law school, it is
neccesary to look at Moral Turpitude, Dishonesty or corruption irrespective of criminal
conviction.  California Business and Professions Code section 6106 (West 1993).  The statute
states that "The comission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether
the act is comitted in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and wheter the act is
a felony or misdemeanor or not, condtitutes a cause for disbarment or suspention.  If the act
constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof  in a criminal proceeding is not a
condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice thereof."  Case law must be
examined in deciding if the statute is applicable to the admmittance of an applicant to law school.
                             Moral Turpitude
     Moral turpitude has been broadly defined as "everything done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals", and as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and
social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to the society in general, contrary, to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man."  Hallinan v. Committee of
Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California, 65 Cal. 2d 447, 421 p. 2d 76, 55 Cal. Rptr. 228.
The act of murder is a crime of moral turpitude according to this definition, murder is definately
   contrary to justice, honesty and good morals by it's very nature.
     The question that must be asked in regards to moral turpitude is whether the person has
committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.  In Gommer's situation, he
has been convicted of first degree murder, thus showing that gommer has committed an act of
moral turpitude.  Conviction of some crimes establishes moral turpitude per se.  Crimes that have
been characterized as universally morally reprehensible, such as first degree muder, fall into this
definition of moral turpitude per se, In re Paul I. Mostman , 47 Cal. 3d 725, 765 p. 2d 448, 254
                             Cal. Rptr. 286.
It is therefore established that Gommer's conviction of first degree murder shows the element of
moral turpitude, but the question of whether he is likely to continue to commit acts of moral
turpitude must be addressed.  According to the facts, there seems to be no indication that
Gommer would be likely to commit another act of moral turpitude; Gommer's sentence was
commuted for good behavior during his prison sentence, gommer has expressed remorse for his
crime, and has shown the desire to make amends and try to give something back to society.
     In re Paul I. Mostman , 47 Cal. 3d 725, 765 p. 2d 448, 254 Cal. Rptr. 286, states that where an
attorney's misconduct is egregious and is not substintially mitigated by other circumstances, once
is one time to many."  A person that shows an extremely  low moral standard, lacking judgement
will not have the public trust neccesary an attorney of law.  Gommer's conviction of murder is one
time to many according to this theory .  The statute states that the commission of any act
involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, constitutes a cause for disbarment of
suspension of practice .  All three of these elements need not be met, for the statute to be
       applicable.  The element of moral turpitude is sufficient.
Whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise
     Gommer's crime of first degree murder was not comitted in the course of his relations as an
attorney, due to the fact that Gommer was not an attorney when the crime was committed.
Gommer is an aplicant to a law school, with the desire to one day be accepted to the bar and
practice law.  The  word otherwise as stated in the statute, shows that it is not neccesary that the
act be commiited in the course of relations as an attorney.  Gommer's conviction occurred
substantially earlier to the application to the law school, but the serious nature of the crime ,
shows a moral character renderring a person unfit to practice law, In re Paul I. Mostman , 47 Cal.
               3d 725, 765 p. 2d 448, 254 Cal. Rptr. 286.
               Whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor
     It is not prerequisite that the act in question be a felony or misdemeanor if the the act is found
to involve moral turpitude.  If the act itself is found to be misconduct not amounting to moral
turpitude, other misconduct allows the discipline of attorneys as an exercise of the inherent power
to control the practice of law and to protect the profession and the public, In re Anna Lou Kelley
,52 Cal. 3d 487, 801 p. 2d 1126, 276 Cal. Rptr. 375.  Gommer's crime does involve moral
turpitude therefore the fact that it is a felony merely shows the severety of his crime, thus further
establishing  the probability of not being admitted to the state bar.  " If the act constitutes a felony
or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to
             disbarment or suspention of practice therefor."
                             Moral Character
     In admission proceedings to the bar," the burden is upon the applicant to show that he is morally
fit."  In Hallinan v. Committe of Bar Examiners of the State bar of California , 65 Cal. 2d
447, 421 p. 2d 76, 55 Cal. Rptr. 228.  it is stated that the inquiry into moral fitness in the
admission process may be broader in scope than that in a disbarment proceeding.  In the inquiry
into the moral fitness in the admission process, the court may receive any evidence which tends to
show the applicants character.  Good moral character has been traditionally defined in this state
"in terms of  an absence of proven conduct or acts which have historically been conciderred as
manifestations of moral turpitude."  Gommer was convicted of murder in the first degree which
involves moral terpitude.  The present moral character of the applicant should be focussed on
rather than the applicants character sometine in the past, In re Steven Gary Polin , 596 . 2d 50
(D.C. 1991).  The facts show the present moral character of the applicant to meet that
requirement for admission.  The applicant has shown remorse for his crime and his current
attitude is that of remorse and the want to make amends and give something back to society.
Although this requirement is met, the nature and character of the offenses comitted are morally
reprehensable, applicants chances of ever being admitted to the state bar is doubtful.
     It has been stated that "no moral character qualification for bar membership is more important
than truthfulness and candor." In re Application of G. L. S. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
, 292 Md. 378, 439 a. 2d 1107 (Md. 1982).  While the facts may show truthfulness and candor,
the nature of the applicants offenses are so immoral as to bar any possibility of meeting the
                 requirement of a good moral character.