ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 TAG: 9701080053
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Chicago Tribune
The judge's conduct clearly shocked the conscience of the jury: charges of sexually assaulting five women in his chambers, including an act of coercive oral sex.
But the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sought to pin down exactly what constitutional rights might have been violated.
During arguments, the justices plied opposing lawyers with questions on whether Tennessee Judge David Lanier should have been tried and convicted under a Reconstruction-era law that makes it a crime for officials acting ``under color of law'' to deprive people of their ``rights, privileges or immunities'' protected by the Constitution.
``The issue is terribly important,'' said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who noted that ``virtually every arrest'' could result in a federal case.
Other justices expressed concern that any unwelcome touching might be vulnerable to federal prosecution. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia said, the law was not meant to cover a public official who punches someone.
Most of the Justice Department's prosecutions under the law have involved physical attacks and sexual assaults by prison guards and police officers on people under their custody. Federal prosecutors used the law successfully to try Los Angeles police officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell for beating motorist Rodney King.
The federal government prosecuted Lanier after some of the women, who were court employees or prospective employees, said they were afraid to contact local authorities because he was a member of a politically prominent family in west Tennessee. Lanier's brother was the local prosecutor, and he did not bring state charges.
Convicted in 1992, Lanier was sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined $25,000. Initially, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that Lanier's sexual attacks constituted willful deprivations under color of law of the victims' constitutional ``right to bodily integrity.''
However, the appeals court reversed itself last year and set Lanier free, concluding that ``the right not to be assaulted'' had not been declared ``a constitutional right.''
During Tuesday's arguments, Seth Waxman, the U.S. deputy solicitor general, asserted that only ``a serious and substantial intrusion'' of a person's bodily integrity would rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Would anything a judge does in his office during working hours meet the law's requirement of ``under color of state law?'' asked Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Waxman said this was a matter for a jury to decide.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked if the law could be applied to a courthouse janitor ``who jumped out of the closet and molested'' someone. Waxman responded in the negative.
Alfred Knight of Nashville, Lanier's appointed counsel, contended that the judge had ``no legitimate authority'' to impose ``spontaneous physical force'' on the women. For this reason, he said, Lanier was not acting under ``color of state law'' and could not be prosecuted under the federal law.
Among those who gathered outside the Supreme Court Tuesday was Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women. She said the Lanier case underscored the need for women ``to have our rights written into the U.S. Constitution.''
``Without it, a federal appeals court in the 1990s can still find a woman does not have a right to be free from rape by a public official,'' Ireland stated.
LENGTH: Medium: 69 linesby CNB