William Penn Life, 1995 (30. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1995-11-01 / 11. szám

Page 2, William Penn Life, November 1995

William Penn

LIFE

Official Publication of the William Penn Association Published Monthly Office of Publication:

709 Brighton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Phone: 412/231-2979 Third Class U.S. Postage Paid Pittsburgh, PA Permit No. 2724

Frances A. Furedy Editor-in-chief

George S. Charles, Jr. Associate Editor

John E. Lovász Managing Editor

NATIONAL OFFICERS

Frances A. Furedy Acting National President National V.P./Treasurer

George S. Charles, Jr. National V.P./Secretary

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Michael J. Hrabar Chairman

Roger G. Nagy Vice Chairman

Elmer A. Furedy Vice Chairman Anthony C. Beke Louis A. Fodor Barbara A. House Michael R. Kara Andrew W. McNelis George F. Mirkovich Michael F. Tomcsak Elmer W. Toth Frank J. Wukovits, Jr.

Frank J. Radvany Secretary of the Board

AUDITING COMMITTEE Charles J. Furedy Robert A. Ivancso Co-Chairmen

Margaret H. Boso Secretary

Dennis A. Chobody Joseph Hamari Ernest J. Mozer, Sr.

CONSULTANTS

Bruce &. Bruce Company Actuary

Horovitz, Rudoy Si Roteman

C.P.A.

Rothman Gordon Foreman &. Groudine, P.C.

General Counsel

Dr. Julius Kesseru Medical Director

Unsolicited articles, letters, manuscripts, pictures and other material submitted to the WILLIAM PENN LIFE are forwarded at the owner's risk, and the WILLIAM PENN LIFE expressly denies any responsibility for their safekeeping or return The WILLIAM PENN LIFE reserves the right to edit, revise or reiect any article submitted for publication.

Postmaster: If undelivered, please send form 3579 to: William Penn Association 709 Brighton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15233

Room marks 56 years with dinner-dance

Letter to the editor

Continued from Page 1

tra for the dinner.

To learn more about the Hungarian Room Committee and how you can become a member, call the WPA Home Office, tollfree, at 1-800-848-PENN (7366). Serving with Mr. Nagy as officers of the Hungarian Room Committee are: Alexander J. Goydan, first vice chairman; Albert D. Furedy, second vice chairman;

Hungarian Room Committee scholarship recipient Andrea Tscholl.

John L. Lovász, secretary; Frances A. Furedy, treasurer; Maria Bistey, controller; Elmer W. Toth, controller; and John C. Miller, historian and scholarship coordinator.

Hungarian Room to host open house

PITTSBURGH — The Hungarian Room will join the other Nationality Rooms at the University of Pittsburgh in hosting a holiday open house Sunday, Dec. 3, from noon to 4:00 p.m. in the university’s Cathedral of Learning.

Guides in ethnic dress will takes guests through each of the two dozen rooms, which will display Christmas trees and other traditional decorations. There will also be performances of ethnic holiday customs and the sale of ethnic foods and ornaments. Admission is free.

My name is Margaret Francis, and I was the recipient of one of your $500 scholarships. I am from Rootstown, Ohio, but attend Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Currently, I am studying abroad (for an entire academic year) in the Universidad Nációnál de Heredia in Heredia, Costa Rica. I will return to the United States in December to finish up my degree in international studies and Spanish at Miami.

I wanted to write to express my sincere thanks for the scholarships I received. I come from a large family of 10 children and have had to self-finance my education at Miami. Your scholarships provided me with the necessary cushion for books and tuition and has been a constant "insurance” for any emergency I face here in Costa Rica.

My experience in Costa Rica has been so valuable not only academically but also personally. I have learned what it’s like to live in an ecologically diverse and developing country. I’ve had the opportunity to see millions of new things and experience many situations. I’ve learned what it’s like to speak and study in the

Spanish language, how to face and cherish cultural differences, how to share cross-cultural friendships and to appreciate a diverse environment. I’ve had the chance to travel to endless beaches, volcanoes, rivers, waterfalls and cloud forests which resemble paradise. I’ve had the experience to share in the economic difficulties and daily Costa Rican trials and tribulations.

I’ve learned to develop qualities of patience and understanding, appreciation and peace. I’ve learned that there are many situations in life which are out of my control and others which are so within my grasp. I’ve learned that I must fight for change and protection of the natural resources and people which I know. I’ve learned to appreciate the things I do have and to not lament the things I don’t. But, most importantly, I’ve learned that the world has so much to offer me as a student and as a person.

Thank you for making this experience possible and for your kind generosity. God bless.

Margaret Francis Branch 44 Akron, OH

It’s not double jeopardy

By Emil W. Herman, Esq., General Counsel

By now you are probably sick of hearing about O. J. Simpson and Rodney King. Without discussing the evidence in either the Simpson/Goldman murder case, or the Rodney King beating case, I do want to discuss with you something that occurred in both situations which was confusing to many people.

In both the Simpson/Goldman murder case and the Rodney King beating case, there were two different types of trials involving the same parties and circumstances, one criminal in nature and one civil in nature.

In a criminal trial, the charge is violation of some state or federal criminal law. The plaintiff (or charging party) in the King and Simpson cases was the state of California, and not the victims or the victims’ families (e.g., California versus O. J. Simpson). Punishment for violation of a criminal statute generally involved jail time or the death penalty, a significant fine, restitution to the victim and other penalties.

In a civil trial, on the other hand, the case is between the victim (or someone representing the victim) and the party the victim claims caused him harm. The Rodney King beating civil trial was Rodney King versus various named police officers and the Los Angeles Police Department. The Simpson/Goldman civil trials will be, for example, The Estate of Ronald Goldman versus O. J. Simpson.

The fact that the defendants are found "not guilty” in the first, or criminal trial, does not prohibit them from having to defend themselves in the civil trial. This is not double jeopardy, and the same result does not have to occur, for several reasons.

First, if the defendant is found liable in the civil trial, the punishment is a money judgment; that is, the defendant will have to pay the victim, or his representative, money in an amount determined to be equivalent to the harm caused. In a criminal trial, if the defendant is found guilty, while he may be required to make restitution to the victim, the essence of the punishment is usually imprisonment.

Second, the charges are completely different. In the criminal case, the defendant is charged with intentional and knowing violation of a criminal statute of the state bringing the charges. In a civil case, the plaintiff claims the defendant caused him harm in some way, perhaps intentionally, perhaps negligently, perhaps by a combination of intentional and negligent actions or by failure to act.

Third, the burden of proof is different. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt.” If the jury has a doubt which is reasonable that the defendant did not commit the crime, it must find the defendant "not guilty.” A finding of "not guilty” is not a finding that the defendant is innocent. It only means that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to convict in a criminal case.

In a civil trial, the plaintiff must establish by a "preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant caused the harm the plaintiff suffered. Legal scholars seeking to define "preponderance of the evidence” compare it to a legal scale in which the evidence supporting the plaintiff is stacked on one side, and the evidence supporting the defendant is stacked on the other side. When the scale holding the plaintiff’s evidence tilts ever so slightly lower than the scale holding the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant caused the harm claimed.

Fourth, the standards for admission ot evidence may be different. Evidence which is inadmissable in a criminal case may be admissable in a civil case. The jury, then, can hear different evidence and reach a different result.

Finally, those charged with violation of a crime are entitled under the Constitution to a "speedy trial” and thus, the criminal trial is generally held and the results known before the civil trial even begins. The timing of civil trials is generally determined by the court calendar, the number of cases filed, and the number of judges and court rooms available to hear those trials.

Many people do not understand how, if O. J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murder of his former wife and Ronald Goldman, their families can bring suit against him for money damages. To many this appears to be double jeopardy. Double jeopardy, however, means being exposed to the threat of imprisonment or loss of life twice for the same crime and, as we have noted, there is no such threat in a civil trial.

Also confusing is that different results can occur in the civil and criminal trials. The criminal jury in the Rodney King beating case found that a reasonable doubt existed that the police and police department conspired to deprive Rodney King of his civil rights (i.e., it was reasonable to believe that the beating he suffered was justified by the circumstances). The civil jury, however, found that these same policemen and the police department of the City of Los Angeles had improperly and without justification caused Rodney King to be harmed, and awarded him money damages in the millions of dollars to compensate him for the harm he suffered.

As for O. J. Simpson, the criminal jury found that a reasonable doubt existed that he had murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Whether a civil jury will reach the same result, given the different burden of proof, remains to be seen. In any case, being subjected to a civil suit is not double jeopardy, and a different result might occur in that civil suit.

Emil W. Herman, Esq., is general counsel to William Penn Association and senior member of the Pittsburgh law firm of Rothman Gordon Foreman & Groudine, P.C.