s great supreme court justice." the book claims that some of the justices who served during the 1940's and 1950's thoroughly disliked each other and sometimes showed it. it's an interesting book. obviously, i don't know for sure how accurate all of the inside stuff is but it has some interesting anecdotes. here's an example. according to the book, during a conference one day, justice frankfurter, former law professor, made an acerbic remark about chief justice vincent had said. chief justice got to upset he walked towards justice frankfurter and threatened to punch him in the nose. i can a-- assure you nothing like that goes on today. after a morning conference in which heavy disagreed sharply about matters. we all have lunch together and we have one rule at lunch and that is you may not talk about any case. so we talk about items in the news. we talk about music, sports. our families. books. anything but the cases, including the ones where we may have disagreed sharply just a short period before. shifting gears, i'

i want to begin -- to the 2010 justice summit. there must be justice. i want to begin by welcoming you. i am a public defender here in san francisco, and i will be overseeing the first part of the program today. we are going to be talking about something is called ordinary in justice. if you look if the word, it says, an unjust act, and within the criminal justice system, there are a lot of fun just as if that occur. we just do not hear about them. -- a lot of unjust acts that occur. we have probably all heard there have been 150 human beings who have been exonerated after being sent to death row. that means 150 people in this country were tried and convicted and sentenced to death and then exonerated face on mostly scientific evidence. some served years. some serve a eighth. we hear about those stories. what we do not often hear about is how the justice system was wrong in other ways that affect everyday people throughout this country, and that is what we are going to be talking about today. we are talking about failures, like of when when a person is

and it goes, "the only justice in the hall of justice is in the hall." so the perception is that justice is not rendered via the path of law or via the path of court. justice, as the native american says, is just us, to it the native establishment. for the native american, the white power system. for us in contemporary time, there is no justice. there is no justice in the courts. and that's sad commentary. and it's mainly predicated, from my perspective, on the swollen power and control that the executive class has now administered on the judicial class. the judicial power, discretion, separateness now has been vastly, vastly inroaded. the kind of final comment, and i'll put it into contemporary setting, is when it is said the law is fair, it applies to everyone equally. no one is above or below the law. the rule of frame is the street people cannot sleep under the bridge, but the chief of police and the district attorne

the justice department's commitment to transparency. under your leadership, the department has processed a record number of freedom of information act requests and you've testified before this committee numerous times and your dedication to state and local law enforcement by supporting the cops program certainly does not go unnoticed especially in this tight economy. now, general holder, i sent you a letter on march 28th this year requesting information pertaining to three federal intelligence contractors, who collectively refer to themselves. are you familiar with my letter? >> i can't say that i am. >> in that letter, i express concern that the three firms might have broken the law by conspiring to harm american citizens using illegal techniques such as hacking, planting malware, blackmail and fraud. nineteen of my colleagues in the house of representatives echoed those serious concerns in a letter sent to house committee chairs earlier in march, and i also requested copies of all department of justice contracts with those firms withi

this is the problem with the ordinary in justice. there are collateral consequences, and we end up paying for them as taxpayers. we pay for them because people cannot get a federal grants for loans for school. they go on welfare. they do not get to go to their jobs. these are the hidden cost we rarely see. why do they love him so much if he was doing these things that are against the law? the bottom line is when hank saw of lawyer cared about the client, he would make an effort to help that lawyer, said there is one woman who is a prostitute, and she had a lawyer who keeps doing her case pro bono. she keeps getting arrested for prostitution, and each time he tried to get her help, but when no one was looking, that is when the worst thing happened. there is a guy who is the town drunk, and his name is john casey. i met him, and he was drinking an enormous 10 of the year. it was of vero -- enormous can of beer. it was unfaia barrel. he was thrown into jail. casey walked back into the court and says, what happened to my case? the judge

to head against a national justice for something to work out an offer to us from the justice minister stuff like next year out. for the full story we've got it for. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. hello again you're welcome to stop like the answer michel on our take i'm albert name my guest in the studio is alex sound that come up all. the international just as far as kicking off in st petersburg it's held for the first time but it's managed to sign big names through its list of purchase of the forum is blessed by the russian president a lawyer himself and is managed by the justice minister the conference comes just in time which in the dead of press is far modernization of the country's judicial system so what ideas is the gathering going to generate here's the russian justice minister alexander come along that. doesn't think that it has set a goal to reform a largely outdated russian justice system the young and energetic alexander kind of all it was sent to spearhead the justice ministry and has already introduced a range of softer penalties

to the 2011 justice summit by the book. i'm so excited to be here. you know, we've been doing these summits now for seven years, but this by far is the most exciting summit. i cannot wait to hear the panelists that we have today. we're going to be delving in to some of the most critical issues affecting the criminal justice system at this time. and we're going to talk about, what is justice and what it means. you know, plateo said, "i do not know what justice is, but i know what it is not." and that is very true when you think about it because it's something that we take for granted, that we believe in, that we hope for, but the reality is is that we don't understand and appreciate justice unless we are deprived of it. and in many cases the definition of justice is the correction of an injustice, and that's really the spisht that we're approaching today. we have three action-packed panels. our first panel celebrates the 50th anniversary of a novel that really defined american justice in the 1960's and that's "to kill a mockingbird." and many a lawyer

and the role that prosecutors play in justice. prosecutors as we know have a tremendous amount of power. they have the ability to decide who to charge or when not to charge. what were some of the things that you noticed or found about prosecutor offices in your book and then i'm going ask john to talk about what his study shows in terms of what prosecutors are doing right and what they are doing wrong. >> well, prosecutors pretty much have unfair discretion to decide what to prosecute and whatnot to prosecute. and i had gone to a county in mississippi and i got there because there had been a front page story staying county was suing the state saying it didn't have enough money to defend the poor. so i get to court and i'm expecting to see lines of people coming out the door like i did in georgia but when i get there there were only eight people. and was sort of perplexed. where was everybody? was thereto not a lot of crime in this place? i start giving out my cards trying to learn about this place. my cell phone starts ringing off

justice is facing a jury in st petersburg it's what's being discussed in spotlights next. hello again and welcome to spotlight the answer michelle in our take i'll get all bent very my guest in the studio is alex out of that come out of. the international just as far as kicking off at st petersburg itself for the first time but it's managed to sign big names to its list after this of the forum is blessed by the russian president a lawyer himself and is managed by the justice minister the conference comes just in time as making the bed of press is modernization of the country's judicial system so what ideas is the gathering going to generate here's the russian justice minister alexander come along that. doesn't think that it has set a goal to recruit the largely outdated russian justice system the young and energetic alexander kind of all it was sent to spearhead the justice ministry which has already introduced a range of softer penalties and a contemporary approach to crimes but some experts say further liberalizations of the justice system could cause an undesirable kick

speaker, the role of the justice secretary is to speak for the nation on matters of justice and ime. this morning, the -- this morning the justice secretary was on the radio suggesting that there were serious raids and other serious category of raids. would the prime minister now like to take the opportunity to distance himself from the district secretary's comments? >> well, first of all let me say rapes should be met with proper punishment. nip who's ever met a rape victim an talked to them abt what that experience means to them and how it stays with them for the rest of their lives could only want to have the most serious punishment possible. the real dgrace in our country is that only 6% of rapes that are reported to a police station end in a conviction. th is what we have to sort out. now, i have not heard the justice secretary's interview but the position of the government is very clear. that there is an offense called rape and anyone who commits it shoulde prosecuted, convicted and punished very clearly. >> well, let me tell him what the justice secretary said this morning. be

and it goes, "the only justice in the hall of justice is in the hall." so the perception is that justice is not rendered via the path of law or via the path of court. justice, as the native american says, is just us, to it the native establishment. for the native american, the white power system. for us in contemporary time, there is no justice. there is no justice in the courts. and that's sad commentary. and it's mainly predicated, from my perspective, on the swollen power and control that the executive class has now

it is crucially important for administration of justice. and so is san francisco conflicts panels where administration, which the bar association has provided in partnership with public defenders. so in san francisco when a public defender has a conflict of interest, criminal defendants and minors are represented by private attorneys from a panel administered by the bar association of san francisco. maintaining this independent body of attorneys is critically important as a well-run public defenders office. we are each other's complement. we are the sum of the parts that makes whole the criminal departments working so well in san francisco. in 2003 the superior court contracted with the bar association of san francisco indigent to have cost-saving oversight to the administration and billing associated with conflicts. so tron is the director of the courts administration and has been working with jeff since 2003 to make sure that indigent panels are effective and that they do all -- that we do all we can to prevent recidivism. so thank you, j

the idea of the justice system only belonging to the prosecution is what has to change. when i got to stand up and say jonathan shapiro on behalf of the united states of america -- and the defense lawyer had to say joe smith for this shmuck -- you get a sense that the system has bought into it. if you convict an innocent man, you have committed a far worse crime than any other crime because you have let the guilty party off scot-free. that is incorrect incredibly -- an incredibly important message. if anybody is waving the flag, it ought to be the public defender's office. their reluctance to do so, somehow, the sense that if they do so in will make them seem pro-government or some kind, i have never been able to fully grasp. >> let me ask a question. should we remake the image of the public defender in to the public crusader? is that what we want to do, do we need to, should we? >> i certainly think so. i bought into the public crusader thing when i was a child. ironically, here i am, not serving as a criminal defense attorney or public defender. i wanted to be a crimin

the justices asked no questions.hey sat there and they listened to the attorneys in the days of john marshall. the entire presentation was oral. there is no limits on a length of the argument and was no prohibition on tag team arguments. a party could have two or three attorneys arguing on his or her behalf. that was john marshall's practice. that was the practice of the other great justices during the founding era. maybe it would have provided historical perspective if at least one of the articles have pointed out that fact. let me point to something that is just plain wrong but unintentionally so. for several years now, a widespread popular criticism of our court is that we are very pro-business. we always decide cases in favor of business as opposed to employees and people who are and consumers. this has been mentioned in a lot of articles. this has been mentioned in a lot of -- by a lot of public officials. a few months ago, was running on my treadmill and when i do that, i almost always watch television to overc

the justice department to investigate. we have heard nothing on that. we've heard announcements from seattle and miami, florida, nothing for houston, texas. i also need to have a status report -- i'd like your answer on this -- on the question of the harris county jail. you issued a report that there were constitutional violationsment the question is, what has been the oversight of the department of justice and have they completed? i also want to ask the question -- i'd ask an additional 30 seconds so you can answer this -- the issue of the continental united merger that finished. i would like to thank your assistant attorney general for antitrust for a very open discussion. i would like to know whether there's a follow-up, whether we need to strengthen the clayton act for the justice department because we frankly feel there's no oversight. could you answer the question about the brutality case, excessive force and why there's not been a response including that in the police brutality case and then the status of the harris