text:
VASQUEZ v. HILLERY
- 1980-1989
In 1962, an all-white grand jury indicted Booker T. Hillery—a black man—for the murder of a 15-year-old girl. After Hillery was tried and convicted, he appealed his conviction and claimed that black potential jurors were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted him, which violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hillery pursued remedy in state courts until the California Supreme Court finally denied him relief in 1978. Shortly after, Hillery filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court requested and received statistical evidence regarding the probability of having an all-white grand jury in Kings County, California, where Hillery was indicted and subsequently ruled in favor of Hillery. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
(1) Did Hillery exhaust all avenues for habeas corpus relief in state court even though the federal district court requested additional evidence?
(2) Did Hillery's eventual conviction render any discrimination in the indictment process "harmless error"?
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
Yes, and no. Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that Hillery was allowed to pursue his claim in federal court because the district court was within its power to request additional evidence that did not fundamentally alter the legal claim that the state courts already considered. The Court also held that Hillery's eventual conviction in a fair trial did not render any discrimination at the indictment phase "harmless error." The Court referenced the extensive precedent that rejected similar arguments and noted that discrimination in the indictment process can have an array of negative effects such as a false finding of probable cause, charging a greater or capital offense, or charging numerous counts.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which she argued that petitioners who have claimed discrimination during the indictment process and have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that claim in state court should not be able to file federal habeas corpus as an alternate avenue. However, in this case, Justice O'Connor agreed that Hillery was denied a fair state court review.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. filed a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the injustice in this case was slight because a grand jury that accurately reflected the population of Kings County when Hillery was indicted would have had only one black member. Additionally, Justice Powell argued that relief in the form of an automatic reversal of Hillery's conviction, which required the state to hold a new trial 23 years after the crime had been committed, imposed too great of a burden on the state to justify setting Hillery free. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent.
Chief Justice Burger: Mr. Prahl, I think you may proceed whenever you are ready.
Mr. Prahl: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
On June 27, 1962, the Kings County Grand Jury returned a true bill indicting Respondent Booker T. Hillery on a charge of first degree murder.
Respondent Hillery was charged with murdering a 15-year old girl on March 21, 1962.
Jury selection for the guilt phase of Respondent's trial began on October 23, 1962.
Respondent was found guilty of first degree murder and in another phase of the trial the same jury voted unanimously to impose the death penalty.
The guilt phase of Respondent's initial trial was affirmed while the penalty trial was reversed by the California Supreme Court.
Unidentified Justice: Did I understand you to say this crime occurred in 1962?
Mr. Prahl: Yes, Your Honor.
The crime occurred in March.
The indictment was returned in June.
Mr. Hillery received two subsequent penalty trials after his first penalty trial was reversed.
The third penalty trial was conducted in another county in California in 1970.
In both cases, the juries voted unanimously to again impose a death penalty.
In all, 36 jurors have decided that Mr. Hillery deserved nothing less than death for the brutal murder of Marlene Miller.
Twenty-one years after the initial jury verdict, Respondent's conviction was reversed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found that there had been purposeful discrimination against black persons in selecting the grand jury between 1956 and 1962.
Unidentified Justice: Mr. Prahl, did the state plead as a defense to the federal habeas action that it was prejudiced in presenting its defense of the action by the passage of time?
Mr. Prahl: No, Your Honor.
In the original return we did not plead delay as a defense.
It was raised by way of a motion when it became clear that we were going beyond the original trial court record.
Unidentified Justice: And, the District Court ruled on that defense?
Mr. Prahl: Yes, Your Honor.
The District Court denied our motion to dismiss in a published opinion.
Unidentified Justice: And, you have not presented that issue here?
Mr. Prahl: No.
Your Honor.
We feel that that is one of the issues that becomes involved in the question of harmless error.
In other words, as you... The issue before this Court is a question of whether purposeful discrimination in the selection of a grand jury can be considered harmless error.
And, one of the factors that we think the Court can look to in making that decision is the passage of time, the changes in circumstances that have occurred.
Here, again, there was 21 years from the time of the initial jury verdict until the time when the District Court finally issued its opinion.
Again, the Ninth Circuit--
Unidentified Justice: How many years does it take to become harmless?
Mr. Prahl: --Your Honor, I don't think the passage of time alone is the sole criterion.
Unidentified Justice: You were asked why did you drop the time point and you said you dropped it because of the harmless error.
Now, I want to know why does time become a harmless error and my particular question is how many years do you have to have before you get harmless error?
Mr. Prahl: Your Honor, in this particular case, the passage of time has indicated that there is no continuing history of discrimination in the county.
In fact, the year after Mr. Hillery was indicted, a black person appeared on the county grand jury.
Unidentified Justice: Would that have helped him?
Mr. Prahl: Well, Your Honor, we don't think that it is necessarily the case in this type of situation; that the remedy provides specific relief to the Defendant.
What these kinds of cases are looking for is an overall deterrence effect on the criminal justice administration system and we believe that where, for example, the record indicates that there is no continuing history of discrimination, and, in fact, in this particular record, Your Honor, I think it is important to note that when the trial judge made his remarks, he indicated that efforts had begun even before this particular challenge had been made to locate black persons who could serve on the county grand jury.
So, the District Court's finding that this particular motion precipitated a change may not be entirely supported by the record.
In fact here the trial judge, who was dead at the time of the evidentiary hearing in the federal court, the trial judge, Judge Wingrove, indicated on the record at the time of Mr. Hillery's motion to quash, that he was making efforts to try to find black people that could serve on the county grand jury before the motion was brought.
So, we think--
Unidentified Justice: You say that in the 60's... What was it,--
Mr. Prahl: --1962, that is correct, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: --They were looking for "black" jurors?
Mr. Prahl: The trial judge indicate, Your Honor, that he was looking for--
Unidentified Justice: Did he use the word "black"?
Mr. Prahl: --Pardon me, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: Did he use the word "black"?
Mr. Prahl: I don't believe he did, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: Because nobody else did back in the 60's.
Mr. Prahl: No, Your Honor.
What the trial judge indicated was that he was looking for a representative cross section of the community to serve on the Kings County Grand Jury.
He was especially concerned about the ability of the jurors to serve in California's grand jury system which plays a watch-dog role over county government.
They oversee the operations of the fiscal aspects of county government.
In other words, it is not something that would come easily to every citizen in the community.
But, if you look at the record as a whole, especially the transcript of the trial judge's remarks, it becomes very clear that the trial judge considered black people to be qualified and capable of serving.
So, I think those factors, the factor of the continued history or the history of the county is one thing the Court can look to in determining whether or not this form of constitutional error requires reversal.
Harmless error has been held--
Unidentified Justice: Mr. Attorney General, before you move away from the question of delay, is there any evidence in the record as to whether or not California can retry the Respondent at this time 23 years afterwards?
Mr. Prahl: --Your Honor, we tried to argue harmless error to the District Court.
The District Court--
Unidentified Justice: I am not talking about harmless error at this point.
I am talking about whether justification is given for the automatic reversal rule.
Cases previously before this Court have been that the Defendant may be retried.
Within a certain period.
So, the question I ask you is is there any evidence in the record as to whether or not the State of California, after quarter of a century, can retry this particular Respondent?
The witnesses are all dead, the trial judge is dead.
Mr. Prahl: --We did not introduce any of that evidence, Your Honor.
There is no evidence in the record.
The reason why is because we... that would have been one of the factors that we would have desired to present evidence to the District Court on in terms of the harmless error analysis.
In other words, harmless error in this particular kind of case... One of the rationales for deciding that harmless error should not be applied has been this notion that somehow you can retry a defendant.
I think the Court has been getting away from that in Morris v. Slappy, in--
Unidentified Justice: Mr. Prahl, let me put Justice Powell's question another way.
Suppose this case is affirmed.
What will or your prosecutor do?
Mr. Prahl: --Well, if the District Court opinion is affirmed, you mean, and the Ninth Circuit opinion is affirmed, Your Honor?
Pick up the pieces and do the best we can.
Unidentified Justice: Well, what does that mean?
Mr. Prahl: Pardon me, Your Honor?
Unidentified Justice: What does that mean?
Mr. Prahl: Well, this is going to be a devastating case to try to retry.
This is a first degree murder that is 25 years old.
The question of rounding up the witnesses, rounding up the evidence are not the only questions presented here.
The questions of what law applies to this particular case is truly mind-boggling.
Unidentified Justice: Well, your opposition, I think, repeatedly says that the transcript of the original trial is available to you for use in a retrial, is that correct?
Mr. Prahl: The transcripts are available, that is correct, Your Honor, but that is a hollow right to rely on.
Unidentified Justice: Would you proceed to try to prosecute again?
Mr. Prahl: Yes, Your Honor.
I mean, if we have to, the effort will be made.
Mr. Hillery is still confined.
No parole date has ever been set.
He is regarded as a danger by the State of California.
He has never been released.
The record on the bail proceedings indicates that state's views toward Mr. Hillery.
We would be forced in that situation to do the best we can.
One of the problems I would like the Court to take into account in terms of the harmless error rule is a passage from the case of Morris v. Slappy where the Court recognized for one of the first instances the right of the victims in these particular matters.
Now, this is a murder case, but the Court should be sensitive to the concerns of the parents here.
The parents of this particular young girl have had to endure three separate trials and they have been able to put this horrendous experience behind them.
To resurrect this tragedy 25 years later, to take this family through this agony once again, where time has had the opportunity to heal this wound, we feel that that is something the Court should take into account in its harmless error calculation.
The other thing we think the Court should look to in--
Unidentified Justice: How really does that bear on harmless error?
Mr. Prahl: --Well, Your Honor, we think--
Unidentified Justice: It seems to me your are sweeping everything under the rug of harmless error.
Mr. Prahl: --No, Your Honor.
The Court is the one... Again, in Morris v. Slappy that brought this... It is part of the question of a retrial.
It is part of the question of the public's confidence in a jury verdict and in the finality of that jury verdict.
Unidentified Justice: That is hardly harmless error.
It might be something else.
Mr. Prahl: I think that is part, Your Honor, of the rationale behind the extension of harmless error to even constitutional errors.
In other words, the public's confidence in the finality of a jury verdict and the finality in the integrity of the jury process--
Unidentified Justice: With the passage of time, at what point does error become harmless?
Mr. Prahl: --I don't think error depends necessarily on time.
Time is a factor.
It is not the crucial factor.
In this particular case, Your Honor, I think there are other factors that are much more telling on the necessity for imposing the harmless error standard.
First of all, in this case, black people were serving on trial juries on a regular basis.
The record is replete with that.
There is an acknowledgement in this case, Your Honor, by Mr. Hillery's trial counsel, the attorney that represented him at trial, the attorney who made the motion to quash, that had this case been brought to a preliminary hearing, there is absolutely no doubt in his mind that Mr. Hillery would have been bound over for trial.
That fact, the fact that there is nothing to remedy... The purpose of the grand jury as noted in the dissent in Rose and in Justice Jackson's dissent in Cassell, the purpose of the grand jury is to provide probable cause to determine whether a trial is to be conducted.
And, here, even Mr. Hillery's trial attorney has acknowledge that there is overwhelming evidence to support probable cause.
In fact, the California Supreme Court in commenting on the evidence in this particular case, the evidence of guilt, characterized this case as being overwhelming.
The fact that Mr. Hillery received a full and fair trial in front of a jury, the fact that he received three trials... I grant the Court that the second two trials were penalty trials, but a jury deciding whether to impose the death penalty must first obviously be convinced of the Defendant's guilt before they would consider imposing such a harsh penalty.
You have three separate trials.
All of those unanimous findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, the point we made before that jury discrimination was being looked to already by the superior court judge.
There really is no basis for imposing the kind of relief or deterrence that is addressed in many of the cases, because here the mechanism of change was already in place and there is nothing in the record before this Court which suggests that there is a continuing pattern or a continuing history of discrimination.
We think that in these kinds of cases application of the harmless error rule would continue to serve the significant deterrent interest which the Court has espoused on many occasions.
In other words, the process would remain the same.
Petitioner would be required to make a prima facie case of discrimination.
The state would have the opportunity if that case has been made to rebut it, then the trial court would make its finding.
There would still be a finding of whether or not there has been purposeful discrimination.
That finding in and of itself is a significant undertaking for the judiciary.
In other words, that finding provides the integrity that is needed in these kinds of cases and insures the operation of the criminal justice system.
Unidentified Justice: I have a little trouble following that argument.
As I understand, your main point is that the proof of the trial shows that there was plenty of probable cause, and, therefore, the indictment... the fact that there might have been discrimination in picking the grand jury is really harmless as to this Defendant.
Why... If you follow that reasoning, why would one ever want to litigate the issue?
Why would the Defendant ever raise the question, just for future people to have a declaration on the record of some kind?
I just don't know.
Mr. Prahl: Well, Your Honor, to clarify the point, our position is not that the proof of the trial shows there is probable cause.
Our point in this particular case is that Mr. Hillery's original trial attorney, Mr. Goodwin, Hugh Goodwin, testified at the federal evidentiary hearing... He was asked was there any doubt in your mind if the motion to quash had been successful and Mr. Hillery had been brought before a preliminary hearing whether he would have been bound over for trial and Mr. Goodwin acknowledged that there was no question that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to indict.
Unidentified Justice: Wouldn't that always be true if you later have a trial and find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Mr. Prahl: That is certainly true, Your Honor.
Well, it may or may not be true.
Witnesses may become unavailable witnesses that have testified at a... a crucial witness may become unavailable and the state's case may be less convincing, as it were, than at a preliminary hearing.
I grant you that that is a rare occurrence, but that is possible.
The important point in this case was that not only was the evidence at the indictment sufficient to show probable cause, but also the evidence at three separate trials established Respondent's guilt beyond any question.
And, as the California Supreme Court noted... The California Supreme Court characterized the evidence as overwhelming.
Unidentified Justice: But, all of these cases are cases in which a defendant has been convicted and there has been proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't know that the fact they proved it three times instead of once makes much difference.
Mr. Prahl: Well, the question, Your Honor, as to why would a defendant bother to do this?
We are not arguing that all cases be judged harmless error, but the Court established an across-the-board rule.
What we are arguing is that harmless error be an option, be something that the trial court has available to it to consider under certain well defined circumstances and, if harmless error is shown to be true, then there would be no basis for quashing the indictment.
However, if the Defendant can point to actual prejudice, for example, if there is a continuing history of discrimination, if you combine discrimination in the selection of a grand jury with the discrimination in the selection of trial juries, so that there is a fundamental unfairness in the trial process, it may be that it would be inappropriate to apply the harmless error rule.
Unidentified Justice: Wouldn't we have to overrule Rose against Mitchell to agree with you?
Mr. Prahl: I don't agree with that, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: Well, you certainly seem to claim that it has been eroded.
Mr. Prahl: Well, Rose... No one is quite sure exactly what Rose... what the holding of the Rose case is given the line-up, if you will, of the justices in that case.
But, if the Court--
Unidentified Justice: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Prahl: --Well, with the justices voting for different parts of the opinion, it is not... At least one circuit judge has analyzed the case as saying that there is no clear majority behind the rule that harmless error does not apply.
But, the point we wish to make, Your Honor--
Unidentified Justice: You don't think Rose against Mitchell really leads on the question of whether harmless error applies to discrimination in the grand juries?
Mr. Prahl: --I am not sure that there is a majority of the Court that supports.
We have briefed that question.
But, I don't think that is crucial to the outcome of this case, because I don't think Rose necessarily involves the same facts and if the Court is of the opinion that Rose is precedent in this situation, we are asking the Court to overturn that.
We are asking the Court here to carve out an exception for those situations where... that would allow the trial court to make a harmless error determination.
Again, in this particular case, we would like to point out that there is no claim of actual prejudice resulting from the grand jury indictment.
The sole claim in this case, and it is a significant one... I don't mean to diminish the claim... but the sole claim here is that there was purposeful exclusion of blacks from 1956 to 1962.
Our point here is that absent a showing of some prejudice in a grand jury process where black people regularly served on the trial juries, harmless error would be appropriate.
Harmless error, as I have tried to point out, serves several important functions.
It gives effect to the principle that the essential purpose of the criminal law is to decide factual questions regarding the Defendant's guilt and not technical questions regarding the composition of a pre-trial hearing body.
Again, in this particular case, where you have three separate juries voting unanimously regarding the Respondent's guilt, you are seriously eroding the public's respect for the criminal justice process.
The public does not and has difficulty understanding why what would amount to close to 23 years now, later we are reversing a criminal conviction that is supported by overwhelming evidence where the trial was fair, where black people participated in the trial juries, simply because blacks were excluded from the grand jury process.
In the absence of anything that would indicate that Mr. Hillery did not receive a full and fair trial, the law, as we see it, should permit the trial judge to engage in a harmless error analysis.
Finally, again, we would like to point to significant changes in the area of deterrence which we feel are now in place that were not necessarily in place when this Court considered such cases as Cassell v. Texas and Reece and some of the other grand jury cases.
In the current situation, there is a great deal more public attention focused on such types of claims.
The media, for example, would surely bring a claim like this in a judicial finding of discrimination to the public's attention.
There are civil and criminal sanctions for discrimination.
There are also public and private agencies that are concerned and are ready to perform a deterrent function.
All of these suggest that deterrence by the courts by way of reversing a criminal conviction are no longer necessary or essential; that the courts can rely on some of these other deterrent mechanisms that are now in place and are now willing to function in order to prevent a reoccurrence of any form of discrimination.
The second issue that is before the Court is the question of whether or not there was a significant change in the evidentiary basis of Mr. Hillery's claim when it finally reached the federal court.
We have included in the Joint Appendix the elaborate computer model that was set up to process information and spit out a result that told the District Court supposedly the level of discrimination that was occurring and the possibility that this could have occurred by chance.
Here, there was actual testimony offered from citizens of Kings County that was never offered in the trial court.
The trial court's remarks contained in the transcript are indicative that the trial court felt that Mr. Goodwin had simply not proven his case.
There had been no evidence offered on the size of the county's population of blacks that were eligible to serve or the grand jury.
And, this failing lead the trial court to deny the motion.
Twenty years later all of these failings, these shortcomings, were remedied and were placed before the Federal District Court.
The Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, did affirm the District Court's order, but the dissenting judge there did find that there had been a significant change in the character of that particular claim.
I have been touristing here in Washington a little bit and when I went to the Air and Space Museum I saw what this case represents to me, the Wright flyer on the one hand and the space capsule on the other, and that is what this particular case involved.
What Mr. Goodwin presented to the trial judge was a Wright flyer of discrimination and what was presented to that Federal District Court judge was a space capsule.
This thing had computers and it had bells and whistles and it did everything.
What we are suggesting to the Court here is--
Unidentified Justice: Do you want a non-exhaustion ruling so that there would be a chance to go back and exhaust in the state court?
Mr. Prahl: --Well, what we are suggesting is that if exhaustion--
Unidentified Justice: How much chance would you have of winning in a state court?
Mr. Prahl: --Well, if exhaustion is to have any meaning, what this Court should be telling the district courts is that when something comes in that is wholly different, that has wholly been transformed in the words of Daniels v. Nelson or presenting a case in a significantly different posture than it was presented to the state court, it has to be sent back.
Unidentified Justice: In California is racial discrimination in the grand jury selection subject to harmless error analysis or not?
Mr. Prahl: No, I don't believe it is.
The issue has never been raised in California.
But, we do feel the issue, as it was presented to the District Court, should have first been brought to California so California would have had a chance.
California reviewed it under the same meager record that was presented to the trial court and there is nothing at all to indicate that the California court had all this bundle of new evidence--
Unidentified Justice: You had a chance to meet any submission that was made?
Mr. Prahl: --Pardon me, Your Honor?
Unidentified Justice: You had a chance to meet any of this new evidence?
Mr. Prahl: Yes, Your Honor, we did.
Unidentified Justice: Right.
Mr. Prahl: We chose to defend the matter based on the state record, because we felt that was what was proper.
Unidentified Justice: Mr. Prahl, if it were sent back as unexhausted to the state court, would the state court entertain a rehearing on that, do you know?
Mr. Prahl: On the new evidence, Your Honor?
Unidentified Justice: Yes, and in California law would that be open?
Mr. Prahl: Yes.
Under California's habeas corpus law, Petitioner would be allowed to make a case for presenting.
He would have a problem though, Your Honor, as to showing why he had not presented that evidence in the first instance; in other words, whether the computer model is such that it would have been unavailable.
But, the testimony, for example, of the citizens of the county, the black citizens who testified as to their recollection of the grand jury process, if they were available and they simply chose not to present them in the state forum the first time, there would be some doubt as to whether they could present them a second time.
And, that is one of the problems again with the federal judge's notion of the plenary power of a federal evidentiary hearing.
You can't hold back evidence out of a motion to quash and then wait until you get into federal court to come in and try to present that evidence.
But, that would have to be argued in the state court, but the power to hear it is there.
Unless the Court has any further questions, I wish to reserve some additional time for rebuttal.
Chief Justice Burger: Mr. Tedmon?
Mr. Tedmon: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
Hillery filed his first petition in Federal Court in 1978, filed in the Northern District of California, the wrong forum.
It was a per se petition and it was transferred to the Eastern District of California where Chief Judge Thomas J. MacBride was assigned the case.
Judge MacBride, in reviewing Hillery's petition, decided that Hillery had set forth a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury which had handed down the indictment against him in 1962.
He formed that opinion fundamentally based on Hillery's allegations that in the history of Kings County, California, which was formed in 1893, until 1962, there had never been a black person on a grand jury in that county.
Unidentified Justice: Would you be here if there had been, maybe not in this grand jury, but in a previous one?
Would that have solved the problem as far as your client is concerned if at some time in the history of the court there had been a black member of the grand jury?
Mr. Tedmon: I think if there had been some evidence that in the history of the county there had been a black or blacks on the grand jury, I think Hillery would not have a position here today.
I think that would be part of his problem.
There are many ways you can look at the problem, because if you got down to the individual grand jury that indicted him and he could show some clear discrimination there, he might have an argument.
But, the argument basically, as Judge MacBride saw it, was that in the history of the county there had never been a black on a grand jury and that, in his mind, lead him to say... As far as he was concerned, that was evidence which established a prima facie case of discrimination.
Now, when he took senior status, the case was assigned to Judge Karlton who had just been appointed chief judge of the district.
When Judge Karlton took the case he had a problem, because he had the California Supreme Court's decision that Hillery had not established a case of discrimination in the grand jury that indicted him.
He had Chief Judge MacBride's opinion that a prima facie case had been established.
Now, Judge Karlton was compelled to apply the presumption of correctness doctrine to the California factfinding, although he didn't have to do it to the legal conclusion, but at the same token, he had Judge MacBride's law of the case before him.
He had to decide what to do with these two conflicting opinions.
Unidentified Justice: In what year was the Supreme Court of California decision?
Mr. Tedmon: The first decision in the California Supreme Court was handed down in 1963, Your Honor.
The second decision was handed down in 1965.
Those are the only two decisions discussed in the problems we are discussing here today.
What Judge Karlton did was examine Judge MacBride's order, because the state had already responded.
The state had indicated Hillery had exhausted his state remedy.
They argued that the rich had not lied because a full and fair hearing had been held in the state court.
But, Judge Karlton believed that perhaps Judge MacBride's opinion was a little premature for the reason that the mere exclusion of blacks from a grand jury did not necessarily mean discrimination.
He believed there should be some other data in support of that which would tell him whether or not there had been some discrimination in the grand jury process in Kings County, California.
Furthermore, the state record had not been lodged with the District Court until after the court had issued its order.
So, in that regard, he determined to set aside that portion of the order which said it was a prima facie case.
He was concerned that perhaps Hillery had not had a full and fair hearing in state court, because when he examined the Supreme Court's decision, it basically relied on what Judge Wingrove had said in terms of the fact that he did not discriminate.
It really did not discuss very much of the evidence that was presented other than to relate it to a prior case the California Supreme Court had decided, People versus Burwell, in 1955 and in that case they held the judge's testimony would be indicative of the fact that there was no discrimination and they related the Hillery case to the Burwell case.
Judge Karlton wasn't convinced that that was a completely correct analysis.
So, what he determined to do was utilize the tools available to him.
Those tools came under the rules that applied at 2254 Proceedings.
He determined to expand the record.
And, in that determination, what he did is ask both sides to answer some interrogatories.
He indicated in his order that he would like to see some probability analysis to indicate to him whether or not this lack of blacks on a grand jury could have resulted by chance as opposed to discriminatory acts.
Hillery responded by providing information to the court.
There were twelve interrogatories propounded and four of them really related to whether or not there were eligible blacks in the community, what were the total percentage of blacks throughout the various years, and it was that question that lead Hillery to present to the court census data from 1900 through 1970 with a cut-off data at 1962.
The California court had only had census data from 1910 to 1960.
But, in answering the judge's questions as well as Hillery could, he felt compelled to provide all of the data available to him at that time and the earliest census date was 1900.
He provided for the court what has been referred to as a sophisticated computerized analysis which we don't really believe is a proper characterization.
It was a probability analysis.
It is pretty much an arithmetic calculation which has been done for many, many years.
The reason the computer was used is because it is faster and it gets you a little bit more complete answers.
You would get it, I suppose, if you did logarithms or some other manner, but the computer was just a device, a technique, for analyzing the data and that is exactly how Judge Karlton saw the problem.
He didn't see this as any fancy, new mathematical program.
Unidentified Justice: Do we know why the evidence from the additional witnesses and a probability analysis was not presented to the state courts by Mr. Hillery?
Mr. Tedmon: Your Honor, in the record of the hearing at the motion to quash... It is a difficult record.
There was a lot of what appeared to me frankly to be hostile dialogue between Judge Wingrove and Hugh Goodwin.
And, as a matter of fact, Mr. Cantleman, who was the District Attorney handling that hearing, during the course of that hearing suggested to Judge Wingrove, what has to happen here is we have to do an analysis to find out if, first of all, blacks constitute a significant portion of the population.
Second, within that portion of the population, are there blacks eligible to be on the grand jury and none of that was ever followed up on at the District Court level.
That is one of the holes in the record that Judge Karlton--
Unidentified Justice: Well, I suppose the burden there was on the Defendant to produce his evidence, is that right or not?
Mr. Tedmon: --Well, I don't think so, Your Honor.
According to... As I recall the record, according to the record, the responsibility rested with the state to produce the statistical data.
They would not do it.
Unidentified Justice: That is your understanding of state law in California in a case of alleged discrimination in grand juror selection, that the burden is on the state to disprove it?
Mr. Tedmon: I think what happens is the court directs the state to present the evidence and in that particular case the state did present evidence.
They presented the census data from 1910 through 1960.
They presented evidence from Alice Hanna, who was the county librarian, on the black--
Unidentified Justice: In California, is there no burden on the part of the Defendant like Mr. Hillery to support the allegation of--
Mr. Tedmon: --I don't know of any law that imposes a burden on him.
I just don't know of any.
Unidentified Justice: --Well, he has to allege at least there has never been a black on the grand jury or that the proportion of blacks is completely out of line.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, he would have to make that allegation.
Unidentified Justice: And, if there is an objection... If there is a denial of those facts, he has got the burden of proving that.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes.
Then he would have the burden of moving forward, I believe.
Unidentified Justice: So, presumably he did have the burden of proof in California?
Mr. Tedmon: I believe he would have the burden of moving forward, yes, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: And, if a defendant then does not present evidence at the state court level that is crucial and substantial, can the defendant then simply wait until going to federal court later and present that evidence in your view?
Is there never a proper application of inexcusable neglect, for instance, that would preclude the defendant from later presenting that for a second crack at it at the federal habeas level?
Mr. Tedmon: I don't know of any rule of inexcusable neglect, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: But, there is a rule of exhaustion certainly.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, that is correct.
Unidentified Justice: And, I think the rule does extend... Courts have said on occasion that even though the claim is the same, if the evidence adduced in support of it is totally different, then the claim may be unexhausted.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, that is the way the courts rule.
In this particular case, the claim remains the same.
I don't think anybody argues that point.
The claim remains the same.
The only thing that happened in the District Court which was different from the Superior Court was that there was an analysis done of the data that was really before both of the courts.
Now, that analysis was not done by the court in Kings County, it wasn't done by the prosecutor in Kings County, it wasn't done by Mr. Goodwin in Kings County.
It just appeared to Judge Karlton that what he should do is apply some sort of analytical tool to the data to give him a little more information in terms of analyzing the data.
Unidentified Justice: So, if he had been a computer expert himself and in the course of deciding the case had gone back to his office and run his own analysis of the facts that were before him in the record, that would really be no different than what happened here?
Mr. Tedmon: Yes.
As a matter of fact, Judge Karlton did something similar to that.
He sat down... and the record reflects that he did a card analysis with an eight of diamonds missing from the deck and he also sat down... and palming the card... and he also sat down on his own and did a standard deviation analysis and came up with what would have been a weak case for Mr. Hillery, a standard deviation of 3.03.
However, relating to the total lack of blacks on the grand jury and the computerized analysis, he determined that those things fit together.
Unidentified Justice: Well, Mr. Tedmon, I thought there was also some rather significant additional witness testimony over and above the probability analysis.
Isn't that so?
Mr. Tedmon: Yes.
There were three witnesses who testified at the hearing, Evvie Edwards, Joshua Richardson, and Reverend Folsom.
They were elderly black people and they had been in the county long before 1956 and they were still in the county when the hearing was held.
They merely testified to the following: That, yes, there were blacks in the community.
They testified that the major influx came after World War II, that there was a small percentage of blacks in the community until after the war and then it gradually increased.
They testified that there were blacks eligible, as they understood it, to be on the grand jury.
They had college graduates, people who had gone to colleges around the country and were now into the community.
They testified that if they had been asked, they would have served.
But, other than that, I don't think they contributed anything else.
Now, that testimony was essentially all before the Superior Court, because the Sheriff of Kings County testifying in Superior Court here, and the newspaper man both testified that they had never known a black to on a grand jury in the history of Kings County, which is what the elderly black people testified to.
They testified that there were blacks in the community.
Now, with respect to whether there were eligible blacks or not, none of the witnesses testified to that in the Superior Court hearing.
But, Judge Wingrove discussed it.
He indicated, yes, I had considered Lloyd Welcher.
That is Bessie Welcher's husband and Bessie gave a deposition in this case.
Yes, I did talk to Lloyd Welcher and I considered him, but then I decided it would interfere with his employment, so I chose not to place him on the grand jury, which must indicate that the court in Kings County was aware that there were eligible blacks, and if there is one eligible black, reason and common sense would suggest there is more than one.
So, I don't think the testimony of the elderly black people really altered anything that was before the California Superior Court.
In any event, Judge Karlton, in analyzing all of the data that was presented, arrived at the conclusion that Hillery had established a prima facie case of discrimination and that that prima facie case was unrefuted by the state.
Now, during the hearing itself the testimony from the actuary was taken and he explained his analysis and an interesting part of the problem that comes out of that hearing is that Judge Karlton asked the computer expert would you please do a probability calculation only for the years 1956 to 1962, the years during which Judge Wingrove was the only sitting judge in Kings County, California.
He selected the people who would be candidates for the grand jury.
After the review, he hand-picked the grand jurors themselves.
So, he was Kings County, California, as far as the grand jury was concerned.
He was the policy-making agent.
What he did with his pocket calculator was sat down and said, yes, I can do this calculation.
He worked it out and in that calculation he said there would only be a probability of two chances out of a thousand in that seven-year period you could have had all non-black grand juries.
Now, in Judge Karlton's opinion, he restricted his thinking to those seven years and I think that is very critical to the analysis of whether he really went that far out of the state court record.
At any hearing, you are going to hear evidence, you are going to hear testimony.
You can't stop a trial judge from taking evidence.
I don't know how you would do that.
As I view the state's position, what they are saying is that Judge Karlton would not sit there and listen to the testimony.
What he would do was sit there and say, am I going to hear a word which is going to take this outside of what the state court had.
I don't think you can do that through a trial judge.
He is bound to hear something that wasn't presented to the state court.
But, the question is what does he do with once he hears it?
What he did was restrict his thinking to that seven-year period and I think that is very appropriate and very compelling in terms of how he handled the case.
He further, in analyzing the rules that apply to 2254 motion, made some conclusions which are all in the record to the effect that if summary dismissal was not... If he couldn't do that at the outset, then the hearing would be mandated, but there was this intermediate stage when he could expand the record, which is what he did.
He then after that determined that even if something began to come out during the hearing which would significantly alter the posture of the case, he should still have the right to continue on, complete the hearing in judicial economy terms, finalize the case, finish the thing out.
So, what he did in any event was make his decision that a prima facie case had been established and it was rebutted in the record.
He issued his order that the writ should issue.
This went up on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, upheld Judge Karlton, with the exception of Justice J. Blaine Anderson, who dissented on the basis of... There were new facts and new methods.
And, Justice Anderson's opinion is a very interesting one, very short.
He really just talks about anything that wasn't presented to the state court.
He says this was a new method.
He said the census data from 1900 to 1910 were new facts.
The testimony of the elderly black people was not before the Superior Court of California.
But, he never addressed himself to what Judge Karlton did in his opinion and I think that is where we would not totally agree with Judge Anderson's assessment of this.
It may be some slight different piece of evidence or something, but the question as to what did it do in a judge's decision and he has the duty to make that decision.
We feel that Judge Karlton made the proper decision.
Now, the state is asking that this now established case of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury, this systematic exclusion of blacks from that grand jury process, which is now the case, that we should determine there was what he calls overwhelming evidence at the trial and that is so compelling and there is no complaint about the trial, that we should now determine the fact that this man's constitutional rights at the grand jury level were abused should be held to be harmless.
Obviously, Hillery can never agree with that.
Frankly, we tend to see these two events as somewhat unique and separated.
While it is true that the charging document ties them together, what applies in one phase may not apply in the other phase.
Hillery is not challenging his jury conviction.
He can't do that any more.
He is not challenging the make-up of the petit jury that tried him.
Unidentified Justice: When did Hillery first make his objection to the composition of the grand jury?
Mr. Tedmon: He made it before he was ever brought to trial.
He made it in 1962 in a motion to quash the indictment of his pre-trial hearing on the motion, Your Honor.
And, he raised the issue on appeal to the California courts in 1963.
They heard it in 1963.
And, I might add that there was really only one guilt phase trial in this case.
There were several penalty phase trials, but only one... It has been suggested there were two, but there really was only one.
He raised in '63.
He raised it again in '65.
The Supreme Court decision in '65, as well as I can analyze it, is a word-for-word copy of the Supreme Court decision in 1963.
It does not appear to me that they really re-evaluated.
They probably merely accepted the trial court's determination once again.
That never came up again until Hillery brought his writ or habeas corpus motion in Marin County, California, and that occurred in 1978.
But, between that period of time... and a long period of time has passed, about 16 years... he is now fighting the penalty phase trial.
Judge Karlton commented on that in one of his opinions and he said probably if Hillery had brought his writ over to the federal court while the contests were going on, the federal court would have issued a summary dismissal anyway on the theory that we don't know whether you are going to have other ones or not, you had better go back, do it all at one time.
It is sort of that approach which the district courts like to do, I think, in most cases.
He brought it before the Marin County court.
It went through the California courts in 1978, denied, denied, denied.
I think the last denial was by the California Supreme Court in April of '78.
Unidentified Justice: When are you going to tell us about why this shouldn't be held harmless error?
Mr. Tedmon: Oh, I am sorry.
I feel--
Unidentified Justice: That is the issue.
Mr. Tedmon: --That is the issue.
Your Honor, an error of this magnitude, wherein an entire grand jury proceeding is tainted in Respondent's view can never be held to be harmless.
This Court has had a number of holdings which have discussed grand jury foremen.
For example, in Rose versus Mitchell and in the Hobby case they discuss a grand jury foreman in a different context.
But, when they find--
Unidentified Justice: What case or cases in this Court squarely hold that this kind of discrimination can never be harmless error?
Do you think Rose against Mitchell stands for that?
Mr. Tedmon: --I don't think it says that.
I think it suggests it very strongly, because Rose versus Mitchell talks about the impact of the discriminatory act on the grand jury.
In this case, we have an entire grand jury selected in a discriminatory manner.
I don't see how, if the Rose versus Mitchell... Had they been able to establish their prima facie case, I believe this Court would have overturned that conviction.
That is my view of it.
That wasn't done in Rose versus Mitchell, so the case was not overturned.
But, the holding of the case certainly seems to suggest it would have been overturned.
Unidentified Justice: Mr. Tedmon?
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: Along the line of questions Justice White has been asking you, what is the reasonable rationale for the per se rule you argue for?
In other words, why should there never be harmless error in this type of case which is your second argument?
Mr. Tedmon: Yes.
Because in our view it is a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, Your Honor, and--
Unidentified Justice: Yes, but you are not suggesting that constitutional rights can never be found to be harmless error, are you?
What you said in your brief was or the reason for your present position is that the integrity of the judicial process requires a per se rule.
Mr. Tedmon: --That is correct.
Unidentified Justice: Do you think this is the only constitutional question with respect to the integrity of the judicial process?
Mr. Tedmon: I am not sure I understand the question, Justice--
Unidentified Justice: Well, your position is there can never be harmless error rule because otherwise the integrity of the judicial process would be put at issue.
Mr. Tedmon: --Yes, in this type of a case, in a grand jury discrimination case.
Unidentified Justice: My question was is the grand jury discrimination the only situation where you would make that same argument?
What about--
Mr. Tedmon: I don't think so.
I have been--
Unidentified Justice: --You would make it any constitutional error?
Mr. Tedmon: --When the Constitution gets violated, it is very... To me--
Unidentified Justice: So, the integrity of the judicial process is at stake?
Mr. Tedmon: --The integrity of the whole Constitution is at stake.
Unidentified Justice: Have you read Chapman?
Mr. Tedmon: Chapman versus?
Unidentified Justice: Chapman against California.
Decided in 1967.
Mr. Tedmon: Oh, yes, I have, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: Long after Cassel.
What did it hold?
Mr. Tedmon: Well, it held that in certain situations there could be harmless error.
Unidentified Justice: Even constitutional error.
Mr. Tedmon: Even a constitutional error.
Unidentified Justice: Even constitutional error and the error in that case was a comment by a trial judge on the failure of the defendant to take the stand.
Do you think that is less of a constitutional error than... That went to the integrity of the trial itself, not to the grand jury.
Mr. Tedmon: Exactly, Your Honor, and I understand.
Unidentified Justice: Do you disagree with Chapman?
Mr. Tedmon: I tend to disagree on a constitutional right has been violated.
Unidentified Justice: When any constitutional right has been violated, it ought to be a per se rule.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, I think so, but the courts don't hold that way necessarily.
Unidentified Justice: The courts don't agree with you.
Mr. Tedmon: The problem comes out this way, as I view it, Your Honor.
There are trial phase problems which seemly can be corrected at the trial stage.
This violation in Hillery can only be corrected by overturning the conviction.
There is no other remedy available to him.
For example, as the Court has done in some of the Fourth Amendment cases... the courts have taken the position that you shouldn't keep the evidence out because the right has been violated.
They are talking about evidence at a trial.
They are really not saying that you shouldn't have a remedy for the violation of the--
Unidentified Justice: But, the fairness of the trial in this case was not affected in any way by--
Mr. Tedmon: --No.
There is nothing in the record that indicates what happened to Hillery at the indictment phase had anything to do with his conviction.
Unidentified Justice: --Are you familiar with our fairly recent decision in Strickland that involved whether or not counsel had been ineffective?
Mr. Tedmon: Yes.
That is Strickland versus Washington.
Unidentified Justice: Yes.
Mr. Tedmon: Yes, Your Honor.
Unidentified Justice: And, there, as I recall, the Court expressly said that even if counsel had been extremely ineffective in substance of denial with the right to counsel, that still the defendant would have to show prejudice.
In other words, we declined to adopt the per se rule there.
Mr. Tedmon: That is correct.
Unidentified Justice: Can you think of any more important constitutional right than the right to counsel?
Mr. Tedmon: I would think not.
Unidentified Justice: You would think not.
Mr. Tedmon: I would think that is a very fundamental right, Your Honor, yes.
Unidentified Justice: So, the rationale that you rely on is the integrity of the judicial process has never been uniformly applied by this Court.
Mr. Tedmon: I missed that again.
Unidentified Justice: Your rationale, integrity of the judicial process, has never been uniformly adopted as a reason for not applying the harmless rule by this Court.
It wasn't any case that I suggested to you and there are several others, but I won't take your time.
Mr. Tedmon: I think--
Unidentified Justice: I will ask you one other question while you are thinking.
Who is concerned with the integrity of the judicial process?
Lawyers, of course, are, and judges, of course, are.
Do you the think the public is?
Mr. Tedmon: --I think so.
Unidentified Justice: What do you think the public will think of the courts in this case after 23 years, in view of the fact this man has been unquestionably found guilty of a brutal murder, and you are here arguing today that because of integrity of the judicial process we should let him off?
Mr. Tedmon: I don't know that he would be let off.
Unidentified Justice: That is your argument.
But, you would take him back to trial, which, of course, is impossible 23 years later.
You are a trial lawyer and I was in court some myself and even if you read the transcript that is no way to try the case, like some of the writs have said if he did.
Anyway, the public, I think, would not be very interested in your rationale.
Mr. Tedmon: I think they would, Your Honor.
I apologize, I am not disagreeing, but I think the public is interested.
Unidentified Justice: The public, of course, is interested in discrimination against blacks or anybody else in the composition of the grand jury.
But, after you have a petit jury in a fair trial find that an individual is convicted, and you are not questioning that.
Mr. Tedmon: No.
Unidentified Justice: Why should the harmless error not apply?
Mr. Tedmon: Because you would have a right for which there would be no remedy if the harmless error rule applied.
It would not be, as I view it... There wouldn't be much of a constitutional right if no remedy could attach for the violation of that right.
Unidentified Justice: Do I recall correctly that his own counsel at the time said, in effect, it wouldn't have made any difference because a new grand jury would have returned the same indictment, a grand jury that was properly composed?
Mr. Tedmon: Mr. Chief Justice, I think Mr. Goodwin said that if he had been put through a preliminary hearing he would have been bound over.
I don't think there is anything in the record where Mr. Goodwin talked about another grand jury proceeding.
Chief Justice Burger: Do you have anything further, Mr. Prahl?
You have two minutes remaining.
Mr. Prahl: Just briefly, Your Honor.
I would like to cite to the Court Coleman versus Alabama at 399 U.S. 1 which is a case involving a denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing.
I believe it was the State of Alabama.
In that case, counsel was not afforded at a preliminary hearing and this Court found there that that was a constitutional right subject to the harmless error rule and applied harmless error to the depravation... a Sixth Amendment depravation at a preliminary hearing.
I think that is additional authority.
I would like to address one remark made by Justice O'Connor and that is on the burden of proof.
Burden of proof was clearly on the Petitioner or Mr. Hillery to go forward and it was a deficiency in that burden of proof which lead to the--
Unidentified Justice: Well, that isn't the burden of proof, the burden of going forward.
Didn't he have the burden of sustaining a prima facie case?
Mr. Prahl: --Yes, Your Honor.
He also had a burden of proof on the issues he raised.
The District Attorney... On Joint Appendix 45, page 45, is a statistical compilation introduced by the District Attorney to show that blacks did not comprise a significant... That was the primary defense raised here.
Unidentified Justice: Yes.
Mr. Prahl: That blacks did not comprise a significant portion of the population.
Unidentified Justice: And, the Defendant had the burden of carrying... of proving, didn't he?
Mr. Prahl: Yes, Your Honor.
He also had the burden of proving that there was the eligible population.
Now, that was what significantly changed the character of this when it got to the federal court.
With that I will conclude.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Chief Justice Burger: Thank you, gentlemen.
The case is submitted.
Unidentified Justice: The honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.


text:
By DAVID BORAKS
The biggest church construction project in area history comes to fruition this weekend when hundreds of members gather for services at the Elevation Church Lake Norman, in the renovated Palace Theater at Kenton Place in Cornelius.
The $10 million project transformed the 41,600-square-foot former cineplex, adding a 1,200-seat auditorium to accommodate the growing church's membership in the Lake Norman area. It also will be available for community rentals.
It's the 10th location for the Matthews-based congregation, one of the fastest-growing churches in the U.S. Elevation was founded in 2006 by lead Pastor Steven Furtick, his wife Holly, and other families, and it now draws about 14,000 to weekly services. The church says it is creating a place "so that people far from God will be raised to life in Christ."
Besides Lake Norman, the church also has locations in Charlotte, Matthews, Concord and Rock Hill. Last year, Elevation started its first church outside the area – and outside the U.S. – in Toronto. It also is reaching out to Raleigh this year.
[Furtick attracted a bit of unwanted regional and national attention last fall over a large house he bought in Weddington. He said he financed the purchase with money from book sales. And officials have noted that the church has given millions of dollars to charity over the past several years.]
In Cornelius, Elevation plans three worship services this and future weekends: Saturday at 5pm and Sunday at 9:30 and 11:30am. As at the church's other sites, services will include local pastors and music, along with a sermon by Furtick, beamed to satellite locations from Charlotte.
"We're really excited to get up there," Elevation's CFO, Chunks Corbett, said in an interview Thursday. "We feel called to reach the Charlotte area. The north part of town and Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Mooresville – that whole area is a key piece."
The Palace Theater project has been a leap of faith for the church – its largest commitment financially and the first permanent location to launch without a temporary site first. The $10 million investment included about $3 million to buy the former theater from a California investment group, about $5 million in renovations, and $2 million in audio-visual and other technology. The church also bought an extra parcel nearby for parking, Corbett said.
But the church is confident there's an audience here. Lake Norman residents for several years have been attending services at Elevation's other sites, including Spirit Square in downtown Charlotte and the University City YMCA. The church estimates 1,300 households in the Lake Norman area have visited an Elevation campus, and more than 250 households are "currently connected at Elevation. They're volunteering, they're in a group, they're giving," Corbett said.
He's not sure how many will turn up for the opening weekend's services. About 250 volunteers will help out with the launch, most from the church's University and Uptown Charlotte locations.
Elevation held a rally and run-through at the new campus on Thursday, with volunteers and church leaders. (See the announcement below.)
Elevation opening at Kenton Place also means the addition of a new meeting venue for the Lake Norman area. The 1,200-seat technology-equipped auditorium may be the largest of its kind in the area north of Charlotte, Corbett said, and the church plans to offer it for rental to community groups and businesses.
Elevation's services will occupy the campus a couple of days a week, making it available at other times for rental. The church uses the same strategy with its site in the Blakeney area of south Charlotte.
"Our strategy with that (new) building is that it not sit empty during the week, and that it can be a community center," Corbett said.
The Kenton Place facility will be able to accommodate community performance or meetings, including concerts, recitals, and "anything that will require a big auditorium," Corbett said.
As a nonprofit religious institution, the church will pay no property taxes in Cornelius. That was a concern last year when the Cornelius Town Board approved a rezoning last year. Corbett said it also will be limited in the amount of revenue it generates from rentals, so it doesn't run afoul of Internal Revenue Service rules governing nonprofits.
Elevation Lake Norman
8325 Copley Dr.
Cornelius, NC 28031
Worship: Saturdays 5pm; Sundays 9:30 and 11:30am
Web: http://elevationchurch.org/locations/lake-norman
Elevation Church Launches Lake Norman Location
Charlotte, NC– This weekend Elevation Church will launch its 10th location in just eight years. Expectations are high among volunteers and staff as the team prepares to hold its first worship experience at its new Lake Norman location Saturday evening at 5pm.
At a rally this morning [Thursday, Jan. 9, 2014] at the new location, Pastor Steven encouraged staff to think about and pray for the hundreds of people who attend and volunteer at Elevation locations farther from home who will now be able to bring their friends to church right down the street.
16-year-old Shelby Purvis is one of these volunteers. Shelby's battling Leukemia, and in the midst of her own difficult circumstances she is driven to invite people to the church that has changed her life and brought her hope. Shelby's father, Jim says of her daughter, "Shelby has a new fire for inviting her teachers and neighbors because she knows there's no more 'it's too far' excuse."
You can bet Shelby and others will fill the seats at Lake Norman this weekend and beyond.
Elevation Lake Norman is a 41,600 square foot building with meeting rooms and auditorium seating for 1,200 people. It will be available for lease for community events like dance recitals, concerts, and meetings – as is the church's Blakeney location.
Elevation Church was founded in 2006 by lead Pastor Steven Furtick, his wife Holly and seven core families that still serve at and attend the church. Its offices are in Matthews, NC. Worship experiences are held in nine locations across the Charlotte area and one in Toronto, Canada.
For more information, please visit ElevationChurch.org
April 22, 2013, "Board OKs Elevation Church plans for Palace Theater."
See all previous coverage of Elevation on CorneliusNews.net

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Repeated: Thursday (RTÉ Radio 1, 10pm-11pm), Friday (RTÉ Radio 1, 4am-5am), Saturday (RTÉ Radio 1 Extra, 10am-11am)
Facebook: www.facebook.com/rtenature
Twitter: @naturerte
Repeated: Thursday (RTÉ Radio 1, 10pm-11pm), Friday (RTÉ Radio 1, 4am-5am), Saturday (RTÉ Radio 1 Extra, 10am-11am)
Facebook: www.facebook.com/rtenature
Twitter: @naturerte
Bláthnaid ní Chofaigh tells us why she'd like to play the role of Maureen Haughey in an upcoming film, vet Andrew Byrne talks about feral cats and whether they can be tamed, and we're in the shower again with some of Ireland's best singers!
Last week, to celebrate RTÉ's Big Music Week, we launched our competition to find Ireland's Best Singer in the Shower! To enter, all you have to do is make an audio recording of yourself singing in the shower.
Send your audio recording, not to exceed one minute in duration, along with your name and contact number to email@example.com. Please do not send recordings of original compositions. The closing date is Wednesday, September 25th 2013. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR RTÉ.IE. AND THE COMPETITIONS TERMS APPLY TO THIS COMPETITION. Entry to the competition confirms your acceptance of these competition terms and conditions, and rte.ie terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions for RTÉ.ie, and click here to read competition terms and conditions.
The prize for Ireland's Best Singer in the Shower, as decided by our panel of judges, will be announced on Mooney, on Thursday, October 3rd 2013. The judges' decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
Please note that if you submit a recording, RTÉ reserve the right to use this material as it sees fit in accordance with the terms and conditions for rté.ie and the recordings shall be deemed "content" for the purposes of application of the terms of clause 9 of such terms and conditions.
And for one lucky winner, we have one, very special prize: a Yamaha Clavinova CLP4440 Electric Piano!
Niall Walton, from Walton's Music, with the Yamaha Clavinova Electric Piano that will be won by Ireland's Best Singer in the Shower!
Over its 51-year history, The Late Late Show has given us some iconic moments, and one of the most memorable was when then Sunday Independent columnist Terry Keane talked about her infamous affair with former Taoiseach Charlie Haughey. One woman who was at the heart of the fallout from these hugely scandalous revelations was Maureen Haughey, Charlie's long-suffering wife.
It's been announced that a forthcoming drama will explore the Haughey dynasty, and TV presenter and actress Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh has an interest in playing the part of Maureen Haughey, as she explains when she joins Derek in studio today...
A new trendy café has opened in a chic Paris district, called Cafe des Chats. It's home to a dozen rescue cats, who live there 24/7, curled up on the armchairs and weaving in between the tables brushing under the feet of diners.
The cats are there for purr therapy! The aim is to give Parisians who are unable to keep pets in cramped city-centre apartments some cat time, which café manager Margaux Gandelon says has real health benefits.
Now this might not be your cup of tea - but the café has queues snaking along the pavement and hundreds of potential customers had to be turned away.
Mooney vet Andrew Byrne, from BrayVet, joins Derek studio today to chat about the Cafe des Chats, feral cats, itchy ears and Lyme disease!
For more information about the Cafe des Chats, visit www.lecafedeschats.fr/nos-chats.
Hedgerows: It is an offence to 'cut, grub, burn or otherwise destroy hedgerows on uncultivated land during the nesting season from 1 March to 31 August, subject to certain exceptions'. For more information, click here.
To contact your local wildlife ranger, click here for contact details. To read the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, click here.
Please DO NOT send any live, dead or skeletal remains of any creature whatsoever to Mooney Goes Wild.
If you find an injured animal or bird, please contact the National Parks & Wildlife Service on 1890 20 20 21, or BirdWatch Ireland, on 01 281-9878, or visit www.irishwildlifematters.ie
If you require a CD copy of this programme please e-mail email@example.com or click here for RTÉ Archives sales form. Transfer fees and terms and conditions apply.
Presenter: Derek Mooney
Tip: You can drag and scroll the programme grid with your mouse


text:
University of Redlands > About Redlands >
Board of Trustees
Our 36-member, 2014-15 Board of Trustees has a fiduciary responsibility to the University as a whole. The Trustees are responsible for electing the President and approving an annual plan of financial operation. Through the University bylaws, the day-to-day responsibility for administration of the University is delegated by the Trustees to the President.
Mr. Bradley N. Adams '93
Senior Managing Director
Kennedy Wilson
Mr. Jamison J. Ashby '82
President & CEO
Mr. Wendell L. Barner '84 '86
Realtor, Prudential Realty Company
Ms. Carole L. Beswick
Chair of the Board
CEO, Inland Action, Inc.
Mr. David R. Danielson '75
Dean for Language Arts, Mathematics & Sciences
Butte Community College
Mrs. Becky Campbell Garnett '69
Independent Sales Consultant
Worth New York
Mr. Richard C. Hunsaker '52
Hunsaker Management Inc.
Mr. Lawrence E. King '77 '01
Sales & Marketing Consultant
Mr. Terry W. Kupfer '57
Accounting & Auditing Consultant
Retired Partner, Arthur Andersen LLP
Ms. Sherri L. Medina '82, '84
Healthcare Entrepreneur & Investor
Ms. Alice J. Mozley '70
Retired, Vice President Planning & Dev't
Times Mirror Company
Mr. Brian D. Murphy '04
Managing Director
Meridian Capital
Mr. Robert C. Oda '69
Senior Project Manager,
Commercial Real Estate Division
Kamehameha Schools
Mr. James C. Ramos '09
Supervisor, 3rd District
San Bernardino County
Mr. Roger V. Salazar '91
President, ALZA Strategies
Mr. William E. Siwek '84
TPI Composites, Inc.
More than 47 percent of Redlands undergraduates participate in study abroad programs.
© 2015 University of Redlands. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Check-In Charity Mobile Apps Grow In Popularity
Posted 05.25.2011 | Impact
Location-based mobile apps allow users to share their excursions with their friends and earn rewards for checking in at certain places. Part of a gro...
Location technologies are transforming how we experience, navigate, and ultimately better our world. From the global to the local, here are 10 ways geolocation is a positive force for good.


text:
CASPER - The fall months mean school for Wyoming youth but those months also offer some of the best fishing of the year.
Families who wish to take advantage of good fall fishing may participate in the Wyoming Youth Fish Challenge, a new fishing recognition program for youth younger than age 18. The program is a collaboration of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, North Platte Walleyes, Trout Unlimited, 4-H Sportfishing and the Wyoming Fly Casters. Its goal is to provide youth with angling challenges to expand their fishing skills.
Children can complete as many as 10 challenges, including the Trout Trio. To complete the Trout Trio, participants must catch any three separate species of trout found in Wyoming, including brook, brown, rainbow, cutthroats, kokanee, tiger, splake, lake or golden.
In addition to the Trout Trio, there is the Cool Catch, Wyoming's Wild One, Pan Pair, Habitat Counts, Percid Prize, Bass Battle, and the Hatchery Hop. If children complete five or more challenges, Game and Fish will recognize them as a Master Angler. The program is based on the Cutt Slam, a popular Game and Fish program started in the 1990s.
Young anglers who complete any category will receive a certificate featuring the fish they caught. Program rules are as follows:
• Open to any youth (resident or nonresident, 18 or younger)
• All fish must be caught in Wyoming
• Photos must be taken with the youth and the fish at the body of water of capture
• Fish can be caught over multiple years, prior to the participant's 19th birthday
• Native fish do not have to be taken from their native range, unless it is for Cutt Slam certification
• Verification sheet must be submitted to the Casper Game and Fish office for authorization
Game and Fish encourages parents to remember this program during fall fishing and even the ice-fishing season. "Several kids have already completed challenges and have been calling to see if their certificates are done yet. It is exciting to see so many youth out there fishing," said Janet Milek, the public information specialist for the Game and Fish's Casper region. "I can't wait to help my own kids get their certificates this winter and next summer!"
Read more about the program or request forms for catch verification at the Casper Game and Fish office, at wgfd.wyo.gov or by calling 307-233-6404. Send completed verification sheets with photos to: Janet Milek, Casper Regional Office, 3030 Energy Lane, Suite 100, Casper, WY 82604).
(Contact: Janet Milek (307) 233-6404)


text:
24th February 2013
Tory local chairwoman from PM's constituency resigns over his support for equal marriage 41
7:40 PM — The chairwoman of a local Conservative Party association which falls inside David Cameron's constituency, has resigned from her post, citing his support for equal marriage as her reason.
Parliamentary computers used to access gay cruising and porn sites thousands of times 50
7:13 PM — Computers in the British Parliament have been used to access gay cruising, and hardcore pornography websites thousands of times over a fourteen month period.
US: New Jersey Democrats seek to override Governor's veto of equal marriage bill 4
6:32 PM — Democrats in the New Jersey legislature have said they will attempt to override Governor Chris Christie's equal marriage veto from last year, and have now agreed to put the question of marriage equality to voters in November, if they cannot override it.


text:
These two inexperienced guys are about to feel for the first time, how great can sex with another man be. Join us and watch them, as they take first step into a whole new world!
Pleasing your friend can be more rewarding then getting laid yourself. This young twink will find out, that having mouth full of cum is nothing to be afraid off.
When you're horny and there is no lubrication gel around, you simply have to make do with what you have. Moistening your guys' asshole using your tongue should do the job too. Or not?
Hello and welcome to our lesson. Please sit tight and be sure to make notes, as our skilled model teaches you the best possible self-pleasing method. You'll love this!
Horny and hungry apparently, since he's not opposed to swallow whatever his boyfriend shoots down his throat!
©2012 Exposed Teen Boys free video and picture galleries


text:
The borough is the most north western in Greater Manchester. Within Greater Manchester, it borders the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton to the north-east and east, and the City of Salford to the east. Outwith Greater Manchester, in the south it borders Warrington (a unitary authority in Cheshire); to the south-west it borders the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens in Merseyside. To the west it borders the West Lancashire district, and to the north it borders the Chorley borough, both in Lancashire.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough's new coat of arms is based on various elements from the arms of the predecessor districts.
Prior to its creation, the name Wigan-Leigh was used in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. It was then suggested that the new metropolitan borough be named Makerfield (with reference to Makerfield). However borh names were rejected for Wigan, by a vote of 12 to 2.
From 1974, local government was under a two-tier system, with Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council covering most functions, and the Greater Manchester County Council. The county council was abolished in 1986 by the Local Government Act 1985.
The population of the borough has stayed roughly static since the 1970s at around 300,000.
Four parliamentary constituencies cover the borough: Wigan, Makerfield, Leigh, and Worsley. Worsley also covers parts of Salford. New constituencies boundaries recommended by the Boundary Commission will see the link to Salford broken, and part of the borough (the Atherton ward) included in the Bolton West constituency. All four seats are considered safe seats for the Labour Party, and they or predecessors have returned Labour members consistently since the Second World War. Makerfield is the only constituency to have returned Labour MPs continuously since 1906.
The first elections to the borough council were held on 10 May 1973. Each ward has three councillors, and elections are by third, with one councillor from each ward up for re-election in each election year. The 2004 election was for all seats, as ward boundaries had changed. The next elections are planned for 2007.
The borough council has a leader and cabinet system. The current leader is Peter Smith, who also sits in the House of Lords as a Labour Party life peer, under the title Lord Smith of Leigh. He first became leader in 1991.. The council rejected the idea of a directly-elected mayor following a consultation in 2001.
Wigan is traditionally a Labour stronghold - the council has been Labour Party-controlled since its creation. The local elections in 1998 resulted in a council with only 2 non-Labour members.
Labour have a majority with 43 seats as of the 2006 election. The second largest party on the council is the local Community Action Party, also active in St Helens and Warrington, which had 15 seats. Community Action first contested Wigan elections in 2002, and won 18 seats in the 2004 election following the re-warding - their councilors are for wards in the middle of the borough, between Wigan and Leigh. The Conservative Party has nine seats, and the Liberal Democrats eight.
The council uses Wigan Town Hall as its main headquarters. Leigh Town Hall is used as a secondary base.
The previous wards were
The ONS identify a Wigan Urban Area in the west of the district with a population of 166,840. It considers towns in the east of the borough to be part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area. Ashton-in-Makerfield, Aspull, Golborne and Shevington are identified as standalone urban areas.
|Ashton-in-Makerfield / Bryn
|Ashton; Bryn
|Hindley / Abram
|Abram; Hindley; Hindley Green
|Atherleigh; Leigh North; Leigh South; Leigh West
|Lowton / Golborne
|Golborne and Lowton West; Lowton East
|Orrell / Higher End / Winstanley
|Orrell; Winstanley; Billinge Higher End
|Standish / Aspull / Shevington
|Aspull-New Springs-Whelley; Shevington with Lower Ground; Standish with Langtree
|Tyldesley / Astley
|Astley-Mosley Common; Tyldesley
|Wigan North
|Ince; Wigan Central; Wigan West
|Wigan South
|Douglas; Pemberton; Worsley Mesnes
With a population of around 300,000, Wigan is the second most populous borough of Greater Manchester, after Manchester itself. It also has one of the lowest non-white populations, with the 2001 census reporting 98.7% of the population as white. Unemployment is around average for England and Wales. 9.5% of the population is "permanently sick or disabled" compared to an average of 5.5%.
Crime in the borough has continued to fall in recent years, and is now statistically the safest borough in Greater Manchester.
According to an opinion poll, 26% of 299 residents surveyed felt they belonged "very strongly" or "fairly strongly" (4% very strongly) to Greater Manchester, 64% (28% very strongly) to the borough of Wigan, and 63% (31% very strongly) to Lancashire.
Other stations are Atherton, Bryn, Gathurst, Hindley, Ince, Orrell, and Pemberton.There is also a long running campaign for Golborne to have a train station.
Leigh is the largest town in the UK whitout a railway station. One station, on the Bolton and Leigh Railway, closed in 1954. The second, on a loop of the Manchester to Wigan Line was closed in 1969.
The Leeds and Liverpool Canal passes through the borough, as does the M6 motorway, which runs through the west of the borough, and serves Ashton-in-Makerfield (junction 24 north only), Bryn (25 south only), Wigan/Orrell (26) and Standish (27). The M58 motorway, to northern Liverpool, terminates at junction 26 of the M6.
Wigan was twinned with Angers in France in 1988.


text:
Selling to Western
To do business with Western and other Federal agencies, contractors must register with System for Award Management, or SAM. Use the SAM user guide to collect the information needed to register.
Vendors must also certify their socioeconomic status with Online Representations and Certifications Application. ORCA replaces the paper-based Representations and Certifications process. It is only necessary to register once for all your Government business. A vendor's ORCA record can then be accessed by any government agency receiving a bid from the vendor.
Finally, review the important notice at the bottom of this page to learn about upcoming changes to the way the Department of Energy and Western will be doing business in the near future.
Information on Western solicitations greater than $25,000 is available at FedBizOpps. Also, solicitation summaries can be found at FedBizOpps. Contractors registered with FEDBizOpps can receive automated e-mail notices of solicitations of interest.
Since businesses can access solicitation information posted at on FBO , Western no longer maintains a "bidders list." Contracting officers may provide hard copies of drawings or specifications upon request. Check the solicitation or FEDBizOpps summary to find out how to obtain copies.
FBO also posts information on recent contract awards over $25,000. Award summaries can also be found on the Federal Procurement Data System which provides a searchable database of active contract awards.
Follow the instruction in the solicitation for submitting your bids or proposals.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: DOE, including the Western Area Power Administration, began implementing the Strategic Integrated Procurement Enterprise System, or STRIPES, at various DOE field offices in 2008. Western will begin using the STRIPES system sometime in Fiscal Year 2012. DOE offices using the STRIPES system post their requirements on the FedConnect Internet portal in lieu of the DOE e-center. Therefore, in order to do business with DOE (and Western) after this transition is completed, all DOE vendors should be registered with Compusearch's FedConnect portal.
Notices and solicitations, required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, will continue to be sent to FedBizOpps, with additional information available to interested entities on FedConnect. Similarly, financial opportunity announcements that must be published on Grants.gov will continue to be transmitted to FBO also, with additional information provided at the FedConnect portal. The FedConnect portal will be used throughout the lifecycle of DOE's acquisition and financial assistance instruments from the presolicitation/planning phase to instrument close-out. DOE's STRIPES system will communicate with external entities via FedConnect on matters related to acquisition or financial solicitation or award actions.We are advising current and potential contractors and financial assistance recipients to register with FedConnect at: https://www.fedconnect.net/FedConnect/. Although FedConnect is used by multiple federal agencies, it is hosted by Compusearch, Inc., not DOE. Assistance with the FedConnect portal is provided by Compusearch. Contact information is provided on the FedConnect Web site.In addition, we recommend that all organizations that want to do business with DOE register with SAM. In general, the system functionality of FedConnect requires that all organization be registered with SAM, before registering with FedConnect. DOE is promoting this approach, to make communications with organizations they are doing business with more integrated, faster and auditable. However, if your organization is not required by acquisition and/or financial assistance regulations to be registered SAM and SAM registration is not practicable, contact the DOE's Help Desk at 800-683-0751 for assistance with FedConnect registration. Additional information or comments regarding this matter may be submitted via email to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
By Andrew Rudansky
Marya Martin, Artistic director of the Bridgehampton Chamber Music Festival wants to dispel a few myths about chamber music. Primary amongst these myths, that you need to wear a tuxedo to enjoy chamber music. The Bridgehampton Chamber Music Festival, a concert series Martin started 26 years ago, has been on a mission to dispel this and other myths about the music that has been a part of her life for decades.
This year the BCMF will hold 12 chamber music concerts performed at various locations. Most of the concerts will be held in the BCMF's traditional venue, the Bridgehampton Presbyterian Church, 2429 Montauk Highway, Bridgehampton. "The Church is small," says Martin, adding that it was the intimate setting that attracted her to the venue. "In my opinion it is the best way to listen to chamber music." The church houses from 330 to 340 people per concert, Martin explains that this small setting allows the spectators to really be invested in the music and "almost touch the musicians."
"People who have come to this festival in the past know that this is a really fun experience, its not a formal concert…and nobody has to wear a tie," says Martin. As Artistic Director of the festival she has made it a point to place contemporary groundbreaking acts amongst the "old guard" who prefer the classical masterpieces of Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms.
When Martin puts the program together every year she invites different musicians she knows personally or professionally and places them together to form small bands for each concert. Martin describes how she has to strike a delicate balance of performers, taking into account experience and ingenuity, "We do a little of both, the ages of our musicians range from the twenties to the sixties. Martin explains that the older people while more technically proficient and experienced can sometimes lack the energy and creativity of a younger musician. "We believe in mixing things up here," says Martin, who consistently aims for a balanced dichotomy when pairing older musicians with younger counterparts.
The BCMF: Offbeat series is an example of Martin's commitment to bringing new and fresh faces in chamber music to the East End. Each year Martin invites bands in the chamber music community that are known for innovation and genre-bending performances. This year Brooklyn Rider, a wildly imaginative string quartet, and Real Quiet, a classical trio that isn't afraid to delve into the world of electronic or contemporary music will both be playing at the festival, Tuesday, August 11 and Thursday, August 6 respectively. "Its like going to an art gallery in SoHo instead of going to the Metropolitan Museum," says Martin using the analogy to describe the atypical and unique nature of these performances.
Brooklyn Rider started when brothers Eric (cello) and Colin (violin) Jacobsen teamed up with Johnny Gandelsman (Violin) and Nicholas Cords (Viola) during their studies at Juilliard. Colin Jacobsen is a veteran of the Bridgehampton Chamber Music Festival stage, having come to the festival seven times. However this is the first time he has brought Brooklyn Rider with him. Musicians who come back year after year isn't uncommon to the BCMF says Martin, "some people have been back for 14 years strait.
Real Quiet is comprised of Felix Fan (cello), David Cossin (percussion) and Andrew Russo (piano), each accomplished soloist in their own right. The trio specializes in world music or what Martin describes as "offbeat contemporary." This mix of classical arraignments and contemporary sound might sound strange but Martin does not believe the two need to be mutually exclusive. "Any music where people play together is chamber music," says Martin, and most definitions of the term describe chamber music as any group of musicians (under 13 total) that play without the aid of a conductor.
Bringing burgeoning and new acts to the festival seems natural to Martin, "we were the younger crowd when we started this festival," she says.
Of course there is something for the tie-wearing crowd as well, scheduled next to these untraditional acts are some of the biggest names in classical chamber music. "I like mixing the old and new pieces together," says Martin, "You have to keep things interesting, if I served up Beethoven and Brahms every week I would be bored," to say nothing of the people in the audience.
Famed Clarinetist Anthony McGill will make two appearance at the BCMF this year, first on Wednesday, August 19 and then again on Thursday, August 20. McGill, who has already come to the festival twice before, is highly lauded throughout the world of music, he is the principal clarinetist of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra and played along side Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, a performance in which he had a solo.
This blend of innovative newcomers and established masters has spelled success for the BCMF. The BCMF has made three albums if chamber music and the festival adds concerts to the schedule every few years. But despite the sold out concerts and growth of the festival Martin isn't terribly interested in expansion, "I'm not craving more concerts under my belt." Martin has been more interested in quality over quantity, "the most important thing I believe is to focus on the best possible performance in any one piece…bigger doesn't always mean better, usually bigger just means more headaches."
Martin says that after everyone is in their seat, the musicians are on stage and the music starts, "its just wonderful to have that energy and sense of awe around."
The Bridgehampton Chamber Music Festival's 26th season starts at July 29 and runs to August 23. For more information about any of the concert dates or tickets please call 537-6368 or visit their website at www.bcmf.org.


text:
May trip to Chocolate Bayou, June trips to South Llano and Skimmer saltwater trip
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm pumped for this skirmish. Is everyone just making a day-trip outta' this experience?
OK,Taking a look at the sign-up we have 8 of us, as of today. One says he is on the trip, but not signed up yet.Garland S. (cancelled out)John P. (VP)Kevin M.Mike M.Tom A.Will A.Puck [Kayak]Raymond L. [Kayak]Let me know if we need some more coordination?Puck


text:
- Monday June 18th, 2012 :: 05:43 p.m. PDT
Found (Possible) Explosives like a Grenade: Don't touch it, call us, let the Bomb Squad take the risk. LASD
Unrelated incidents involving found suspicious devices that are possible explosives are a reminder that unusual things like finding a grenade can happen.
Please, if you find something that looks like it could possibly be an explosive, do what the wise people in the below recent incidents did:
Don't touch it; call local law enforcement; let the Bomb Squad take the risk, they're good at it.
LASD Bomb Squad Removes WWII Grenade From Monrovia Tool Shed (June 15, 2012):
Found Inert Grenade Investigation on trail in park in Palos Verdes Estates (May 12, 2012). Removed by LASD Bomb Squad:
Inert Grenade Recovered by LASD Bomb Squad at Recyling Plant in Pico Rivera (Feb. 16, 2012):
Partner to prevent or report crime by contacting your local Sheriff's station. Or if you wish to remain Anonymous, call "LA Crime Stoppers" by dialing 800-222-TIPS (8477), texting the letters TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637), or using the website http://lacrimestoppers.org
Captain Mike Parker
Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau – Newsroom
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
(323) 267-4800
www.Nixle.com : LASD Text and Emails
Twitter @LASD_News http://twitter.com/#!/LASD_News
Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
To receive detailed, up-to-date information directly from the LASD via e-mail, register for "Nixle" alerts at www.Nixle.com and register for "LASD - Temple Station, Los Angeles County Sheriff" and also register for your local LASD station area. Or, text your zip code to 888777 to receive text alerts only. Standard text messaging rates may apply, depending on your calling plan.
LASD - Los Angeles County Sheriffs Dept Information Bureau (SIB)
4700 West Ramona Boulevard
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Emergency: 9-1-1


text:
Email Us
(541) 488-8765
Mac & PC Support
Serving Southern Oregon since 2002
Our Services
About Us
Contact Us
We simplify technology for your home or business and bring peace of mind to you and your workplace.
Find out more about how we
can help you.
Meet The Team
View Our Services
Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.
We Resell
Dell Business Computers
AVG Anti-Virus
Malware Bytes Anti-Malware
Acronis True Image
Our Services
About Us
Contact Us
Contact Us
(541) 488-8765
E-mail Us


text:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2012/09 ... etter.html
Kickers Are Getting Better and Better
This past Sunday we saw the all time FG distance record tied for the second time in a year. And it wasn't indoors or even in Denver. I've previously written about how FG accuracy has improved even as attempt distances have increased., but even in the last few years kicking accuracy at long distances has improved significantly. This trend shows no sign of slowing, and it has significant implications for the sport.
In an analysis of the previous overtime format, I noted the following:
In 1974, the league FG% was 60.6%. This year, it was 84.5%. And that even masks how much kickers have truly improved. In 1974, 36% of all FG attempts were from 40 yards or beyond. In 2008, the figure was 41%. These days, teams aren't looking to get inside the 25 for a field goal attempt, they're just hoping to get inside the 40. Getting a quick score in overtime has become a far easier proposition. Field goals have gradually warped NFL football. In 1974, there were 3.0 FG attempts each game compared to 3.9 in 2008, a 30% increase.
This isn't just a phenomenon of the '70s and '80s and it's not just due to the transition to the soccer-style kick. Since 2000, FG kickers have become more accurate, particularly at very long distances. The chart below shows FG success rates in three four-year mini-eras since 2000.
The green line is for the most recent era, 2008-11. The red line is the middle era 2004-07, and the blue line is the early era 2000-03. The higher the line, the more often an attempt of each distance is successful.
It appears that by the middle of the recent decade, FG attempts become more accurate in the middle distances, from about the 15-yard line out to the 30-yard line (32 yard attempt distances to 47 attempt distances). Then in the last four seasons, kickers became significantly more accurate at very long distances.
This affects the game in at least two ways. First, it makes FG attempts more worthwhile at longer distances than they were before, meaning that punts and conversion attempts on fourth down become relatively less lucrative.
Second, it becomes easier for offenses to score last second FGs to tie or win. They need less time and yards on their final drive to steal a win. Plus, this phenomenon creates a secondary effect. It means that teams with the ball and a small lead late in games should be less willing to give up the ball and trust their defense. As kickers improve, it becomes smarter to try to pass to covert first downs and keep the ball out of the hands of the opponents. The tactic of burning some clock with three runs into a brick wall followed by a punt is becoming less wise every day.
NFR: Kickers are Getting Better and Better
Discuss your favorite team: the Atlanta Falcons. As well as all NFL and pro football-related topics, including fantasy football.
Moderators: Capologist, dirtybirdnw, thescout
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Pudge
- Purveyor of Truth & Justice
- Posts: 26397
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
NFR: Kickers are Getting Better and Better
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Kendred Jones, Silver Spring teen reported missing, found safe
April 11, 2012 - 05:17 am
Updated: April 11, 2012 - 10:00 am
Updated: April 11, 2012 - 10:00 am
Decrease Increase Text size
A 17-year-old Silver Spring teen reported missing Wednesday has been located safe in Howard County, Montgomery County Police say.
Officials say Kendred Jones is safe.
Would you like to contribute to this story? Join the discussion.