CERTIFICATE A written document that is official verificatio n that a condition or requirement has, or has not, been met. A written assurance issued from a court that is notification to another officer, judge, or court of procedures practiced therein. A document (such as a birth certificate) prepared by an official during the course of his or her regular duties, and which may be used as evidence for certain purposes. A document certifying that one has fulfilled certain requirements and may practice in a field. A stock certificate is a paper representing a share of stock in a corporation that has been purchased by its holder. A certificate of acknowledgment is the written statement by a NOTARY PUBLIC, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, or other authorized officer that sets forth that a person or persons appeared before him or her on a particular date and declared an instrument to be their VOLUNTARY ACT and deed. A certificate of deposit is prepared by a bank as a receipt for money deposited by a customer that the bank promises to repay to the depositor after certa in conditions have been fulfilled. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT A written recognition by a bank of a deposit, coupled with a pledge to pay the deposited amount plus interest, if any, to the depositor or to his or her order, or to another individual or to his or her order. A sample certificate of deposit ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. XYZ SAVINGS BANK 1 YEAR CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT Rate information The interest rate for your account is 5.20 % with an annual percentage yield of 5.34 %. You will be paid this rate until the maturity date of the certificate. Your certificate will mature on September 30, 2012. The annual percentage yield assumes interest remains on deposit until maturity. A withdrawal will reduce earnings. Interest for your account will be compounded daily and credited to your account on the last day of each month. Interest begins to accrue on the business day you deposit any noncash item (for example, checks). Minimum balance requirements You must deposit $1,000 to open this account. You must maintain a minimum balance of $1,000 in your account every day to obtain the annual percentage yield listed above. Balance computation method We use the daily balance method to calculate the interest on your account. This method applies a daily periodic rate to the principal in the account each day. Transaction limitations After the account is opened, you may not make deposits into or withdrawals from the account until the maturity date. Early withdrawal penalty If you withdraw any principal before the maturity date, a penalty equal to three months interest will be charged to your account. Renewal policy This account will be automatically renewed at maturity. You have a grace period of ten (10) calendar days after the maturity date to withdraw the funds without being charged a penalty. Certificate of Deposit GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 318 CERTIFICATE A form of commercial paper that serves as documentary evidence that a savings account exists. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY A document issued by a local building or zoning authority to the owner of premises attesting that the premises have been built and maintained according to the provisions of building or zoning ordinances, such as those that govern the number of fire exits or the safety of electrical wiring. A certificate of occupancy is evidence that the building complies substantially with the plans and specifications that have been submit- ted to, and approved by, the local authority. It complements a building permit—a document that must be filed by the applicant with the local authority before construction to indicate that the proposed construction will adhere to zoning laws. In legal practice, the requirement that a certificate of occupancy be presented on the day of closing is usually attached as a RIDER to a contract for the sale of a house or building . If the seller is unable to present the certificate of occupancy the buyer may refuse to complete the sale. Some cities re quire that a landlord file a certificate of occupancy for apartments to be leased. This requirement is designed to prevent abuilding’s deterioration to such an extent that it could expose its tenants to risks to their health and lives. Each time an apartment is vacated, an inspector from an appropriate government agency—such as the housing authority—inspects the apartment to make sure that it meets minimum standards of habitability. If the apartment does not, the inspector may issue a warning to the landlord to correct the violation within a certain period of time or the landlord will be prevented from leasing the apartment. CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING An administrative hearing before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), pursuant to the federal Wagner Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. [1935]) to determine whether a group of employ- ees is an appropriate bargaining unit, and if so, to decide whether a particular union should be declared its bargaining agent. Employers and employees frequently nego- tiate and agree upon the terms and conditions of employment through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, in which a representative of a particular group of employees presents the employees’ demands to the employer so that a mutually advanta- geous accord can be reached. Before such bargaining can occur, it must be decided what group of employees will be served by the representative who will legally bind the group by his or her acceptance or rejection of the employer’s terms. Once the group—the bar- gaining unit—is established the identity of its representative must be determined. Employers often willingly recognize a cohesive, homoge- neous group of employees as a bargaining unit, thus acknowledging a particular union that claims to be its representative or BARGAINING AGENT . Disputes occasionally arise, however, over (1) the control of the union by the employer, thereby conflicting with the union’s position as a representative of the em ployees; (2) the failure of a majority of the unit to select the union; (3) the wrongful action of a union that has usurped the rightful status of another union as the bargaining agent of the unit; and (4) situations in which the employer refuses to recognize the unit or its union. A certification proceeding is the statutorily prescribed method of resolving such difficul- ties. The NLRB investigates a petition filed by the employees concernin g a union acting in behalf of the employees, which the employer refuses to recognize or a petition by an employer who has received a claim of repre- sentation by the union. The NLRB holds a nonadversarial fact-finding hearing to deter- mine whether a valid question concerning representation exists. The hearing officer forwards the transcript containing evidence to the regional director of the NLRB. The regional director can dismiss the petition or decide to hold a secret ballot election for the bargaining agent and certify the result. Prior to the election, the director determines which employees are within the unit for purposes of voter eligibility. The NLRB will review a regional director’s decision only if a statutorily determined, compelling reason exists, for instance, if his or her decision on a substantial issue of fact is clearly erroneous and adversely affects the rights of one party. An NLRB certification proceeding decision is subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW only if there is evidence of ABUSE OF DISCRETION . The court of appeals, as a rule, defers to the NLRB because of i ts presumed expertise in the labor area. An aggrieved employer dissatisfied with a certification GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING 319 proceeding can obtain review by refusing to bargain with the agent, thereby committing an UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.Suchapracticewould probably result in an unfair labor practice proceeding and the final order that is made by theNLRBinsuchanactionisreviewableby the court of appeals. CROSS REFERENCES Labor Law; Labor Union. CERTIFIED CHECK A written order made by a depositor to a bank to pay a certain sum to the person designated— the payee—which is marked by the bank as “accepted” or “certified,” thereby unconditionally promising that the bank will pay the order upon its presentation by the payee. A certified check is considered the equiva- lent of cash since the bank, by its certification, guarantees it to be cashable. No bank is under a duty to its depositors or anyone else to certify checks since it involves the assumption of a new obligation for which it is primarily responsible. It is a commonplace practice, however, and there is usually a small fee for this service. A certified check is often required by a payee who does not want to rely only upon the credit of the drawer, the person who wrote the check. A sample of a check certification is shown below. A payee who requires a drawer’s check to be certified ensures his or her right to payment. Not only can the payee seek payment from the certified bank, but if for some reason the bank refuses to pay, the payee retains the right to enforce payment from the drawer. In this situation the bank is primarily liable w hile the drawer is secondarily liable. Occasionally the payee or subsequent holder of the check—a person who has been legally given possession and the right to payment— will present the check to the drawer’s bank for certification. Although the bank is obligated to cash the check, it need not certify the check because only it, not the drawer or any subsequent endorsers, would be liable for its payment. Some banks will certify a check in such instances only with the approval of the drawer. If a bank refuses to pay a check that it has certified, its drawer or holder may sue the bank for its wrongful conduct, called dishonor. A certified check, a type of COMMERCIAL PAPER or NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, is governed by Article 3 of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. CERTIFIED COPY A photocopy of a document, judgment, or record that is signed and attested to as an accurate and a complete reproduction of the original document by a public official in whose custody the original has been placed for safekeeping. A certified copy is admi ssible as evidence in a lawsuit when the original document cannot be produced because it has been lost or destroyed. This rule, which considers a certified copy to be SECONDARY EVIDENCE unless circumstances of loss or destruction WARRANT its treatment as PRIMARY EVIDENCE , is known as the BEST EVIDENCE rule. State and FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE govern the use of a certified copy in their respective judicial proceedings. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT See ACCOUNTANT. CERTIORARI [Latin, To be informed of.] At COMMON LAW,an original writ or order issued by the Chancery or King’s Bench, commanding officers of inferior courts to submit the record of a cause pending before them to give the party more certain and speedy justice. A writ that a superior appellate court issues in its discretion to an inferior court, ordering it to produce a certified record of a particular case it has tried, in order to determine whether any irregular- ities or errors occurred that justify review of the case. A device by which the Supreme Court of the United States exercises its discretion in selecting the cases it will review. Certiorari is an extraordinary PREROGATIVE WRIT granted in cases that otherwise would not be entitled to review. A petition for certiorari is made to a superior appellate court, which may exercise its discretion in accepting a case for review, while an appeal of a case from a lower court to an intermediate appellate court, or from an intermediate appellate court to a superior appellate court, is regulated by statute. Appellate review of a case that is granted by the issuance of certiorari is sometimes called an appeal, although such review is at the discretion of the appellate court. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 320 CERTIFIED CHECK Writ of Certiorari QUESTIONS PRESENTED PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING CONCLUSION Whether the court of appeals erred in striking down the Federal Communications Commission’s determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language,” 18 U.S.C. 1464; see 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, when the expletives are not repeated. Petitioners are the Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America. Respondents who were petitioners in the court of appeals below are Fox Television Stations, Inc.; CBS Broadcasting Inc.; WLS Television, Inc.; KTRK Television, Inc.; KMBC Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc.; and ABC Inc. Respondents who were intervenors in the court of appeals below are NBC Universal, Inc.; NBC Telemundo License Co.; NBC Television Affiliates; FBC Television Affiliates Association; CBS Television Network Affiliates; Center for the Creative Community, Inc., doing business as Center for Creative Voices in Media, Inc.; and ABC Television Affiliates Association. The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded for further proceedings. Respectfully submitted. Matthew B. Berry General Counsel Joseph R. Palmore Deputy General Counsel Jacob M. Lewis Associate General Counsel Nandan M. Joshi Counsel Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Paul D. Clement Solicitor General Counsel of Record Gregory G. Katsas Acting Assistant Attorney General Gregory G. Garre Deputy Solicitor General Eric D. Miller Assistant to the Solicitor General Thomas M. Bondy Anne Murphy Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 No. 07-582 In the Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al. ____________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ____________________ BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS ____________________ A sample writ of certiorari ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION CERTIORARI 321 A party, the pe titioner, files a petition for certiorari with the appellate court after a judgment has been rendered against him in the INFERIOR COURT. The petition must specifical- ly state why the relief sought is unavailable in any other court or through any other appellate process, along with information clearly identi- fying the case and the questions to be reviewed, the relevant provisions of law to be applied, a concise statement of facts relating to the issues, and any other materials required by statute. The rules of practice of the appellate court to which the petitioner has applied for relief govern the procedure to be observed. For example, a petition for statutory certiorari made to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES must be prefaced by a motion for leave, or permission, to file such a petition. If a common-law WRIT is sought, however, the petitioner need only file a petition for certiorari. After evaluating the petition, the appellate court will de cide whether to grant or deny certiorari. Certio rari is issued, designated as “cert. granted,” when the case presents an issue that is appropriate for resolution by the court and it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST to do so, such as when the issue has been decided d ifferently by a variety of lower courts, thereby creating confusion and necessitating a uniform inter- pretation o f the law. Certiorari is denied when the appellate c ourt decides that the case does not present an appropriate matter for its consideration. In the practice of the Supreme Court, if a petition has been granted certiorari as a result of a mistake, such as where the petitioner misrepresents the case or the case has become moot, the Cou rt will d ismiss the petition as “having been improvidently granted,” which has the same effect as an initial denial of the petition. Practically speak- ing, this rarely occurs. Some states have abolished writs of certio- rari under their rules of appellate practice. FURTHER READINGS Brenner, Saul. 2000. “Granting Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court: An Overview of the Social Science Studies.” Law Library Journal 92, no. 2 (spring). Available online at http://www.aallnet.org/products/ pub_llj_v92n02/2000-17.pdf; website home page: http://www.aallnet.org (accessed July 11, 2009). Garmisa, Steven P. 2003. “Supreme Court Reviews Com- mon Law on Certiorari, Old Appellate Cases.” Trial Notebook: The Courts, Attorneys and the Law. Available online at http://www.felahfd.com/HFDLaw/notebook/ 173.htm; website home page: http://www.felahfd.com (accessed July 11, 2009). Hartnett, Edward A. 2000. “Questioning Certiorari: Some Reflections Seventy-Five Years after the Judges’ Bill.” Columbia Law Review 100 (November). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 250925; website home page: http://papers.ssrn.com (accessed July 11, 2009). CESSION The act of relinquishing one’s right. A surrender, relinquishment, or assignment of territory by one state or government to another. The territory of a foreign government gained by the transfer of sovereignty. CESTUI QUE [French, He or she who.] The person for whom a benefit exists. A cestui que trust is a person for whose benefit a trust is created; a BENEFICIARY. Although LEGAL TITLE of the trust is vested in the trustee, A sample certified check ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Certification Note Certified Check This certified check, on behalf of Developer/Owner Name, assures the approval and faithful payment of Amount Determined by County Staff to the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Georgia in the event that Developer/Owner defaults on fulfilling their agreement to complete all site work on approved plan of Lot #, Street address, City, State. The work shall be completed by Date Agreed Upon. This certified check will be refunded upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Date: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Owner GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 322 CESSION the cestui qu e trust is the beneficiary who is entitled to all benefits from a trust. A cestui que use is an arch aic term of PROPERTY LAW that describes one who has a BENEFICIAL INTEREST in land held by someone else. Title and possession as well as the duty to defend the land is held by another, but the cestui que use has the right to rents, profits, and other benefits from the land. A cestui que vie is the person whose life is used to measure various things, suc h as the duration of a trust, a gift, or an insurance contract. It can also be used to mean the person upon whose life a policy of life insurance is drawn. CF. An abbreviation for the Latin word confer, meaning “compare.” The use of this abbreviation indicates that another section of a particular work or another case or volume contains contrasting, compara- ble, or explanatory opinions and text. C.F.&I. An abbreviation for cost, freight, and insurance that is used in a sales contract to indicate that the purchase price quoted for the goods by the seller includes the expens e incurred by the seller for shipment of such goods and for insurance of the goods against loss or destruction until their arrival at the destination named by the buyer. The abbreviation C.F.&I. is synonymous with the abbreviation C.I.F. commonly found in contracts for foreign shipments. A seller who has entered a sales contract with a C.F.&I. provision agrees to accept the expense of placing the goods into the custody of a carrier for shipment from their port of origin to their designated location and to obtain a negotiable BILL OF LADING, which will be endorsed by the buyer upon receipt of payment for the goods. The seller has the respon sibility of loading the cargo and obtaining a receipt from the carrier, which might be inco rporated into the bill of lading to show that freight has been paid by him or her. The seller must al so purchase insurance against the loss, damage, or destruction of such goods and have the buyer designated as the BENEFICIARY. The seller prepares an invoice of the goods to be shipped and sends the necessary documents to both the shipper and the buyer so that the buyer can take delivery of the goods upon arrival at their destination. CROSS REFERENCE Shipping Law. v CHAFEE, ZECHARIAH , JR. As a leading U.S. legal scholar and educator, ZECHARIAH CHAFEE Jr. did more than anyone else in the early twentieth century to shape the debate surrounding FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the Constitution’s FIRST AMENDMENT. In his most influential book, Freedom of Speech (1920), Chafee argued for the importance of protecting free speech even in wartime. His ideas later guided the Supreme Court in liberalizing its approach to free speech. Chafee was born on December 7, 1885, in Providence, Rhode Island, to a wealthy family. He attended Brown University, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in 1907. He helped manage his family’s iron foundry for three years and then left to attend Harvard Law School in 1910. Zechariah Chafee Jr. 1885–1957 ❖ ❖ 1885 Born, Providence, R.I. ◆ ◆ 1907 Joined his father's iron business 1913 Graduated from Harvard Law School 1936 Drafted the Federal Interpleader Act 1938–47 Served on the ABA's Bill of Rights Committee 1914–18 World War I ◆ ◆ ◆ 1941–45 World War II 1950 Taught course on fundamental human rights at Harvard 1950-53 Korean War 1956 Retired from teaching at Harvard 1957 Died, Cambridge, Mass. 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ 1916 Began teaching at Harvard Law School 1920 Freedom of Speech published 1921 Charged with radicalism and impropriety, successfully defended himself before Harvard's Board of Overseers ▼▼ ▼▼ 1875 1925 1950 1975 1900 ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHAFEE, ZECHARIAH, JR. 323 He remained on the family firm’s board of directors for the rest of his life. He married Bess Frank Searle in 1912 and they had four children. While at Harvard he was influenced by the theories of sociological jurisprudence presented by ROSCOE POUND and others. At Harvard, he also met Harold J. Laski, a political scientist and later a leader of England’s Labour party, who became a lifelong friend. Chafee graduated from law school with a bachelor of laws degree in 1913 and practiced law for three years in Providence. In 1916 he began teaching at Harvard Law School as an assistant professor of law. He accepted a full professorship three years later and remained at Harvard for the rest of his life. Chafee was a professor at Harvard Law School for nearly forty years. His writings and public service influenced many different areas of civil liberties, from conditions for mine workers to international HUMAN RIGHTS to the system for apportioning U.S. House seats among the states. His other books include America Now (1938), Freedom of Speech in the United States (1941), Government and Mass Communications (1947), Documents on Funda- mental Human Rights (1951) , Freedom of Speech and Press (1955), and Bl essings of Liberty (1956). Justice FELIX FRANKFURTER wrote of Chafee, “The extent to which … he influenced the thought and temper of public opinion and action in that pervasive aspect of national life known as CIVIL RIGHTS has no match in the legal professoriate.” Chafee’s goal in his legal writings was to “master the law and reduce it to reason.” In the area of free speech, this meant replacing intuition with reason and producing a rational interpretation of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The notion of balance was a crucial element in his legal philosophy. According to Chafee, most legal problems could be solved by balancing competing interests. In the case of free speech, that meant balancing society’s competing interests in the benefits of security and in the benefits of unlimited discussion. Chafee’s interest in free speech and civil liberties began while he was teaching a course on equity at Harvard Law School during WORLD WAR I . He became interested in the history of libel law and free speech, particularly as judges across the United States began making arbitrary and often conflicting decisions regard- ing SEDITION (the act of urging others to rebel against authority) and free speech during wartime. In many cases, people who spoke out or demonstrated against the wartime policies of the U.S. government were imprisoned for their views. Such cases often involved two laws passed by Congress, the ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917 (ch. 30, 40 Stat. 217) and the Sedition Act of 1918 (ch. 75, 40 Stat. 553). Looking closely at the judicial decisions regarding such cases, Chafee began to see that laws regarding freedom of speech were in great need of modernization. Between 1918 and 1920 Chafee published two articles—“Freedom of Speech” in the New Republic (Nov. 16, 1918) and “Freedom of Speech in Wartime” in the Harvard LAW REVIEW (747 [June 1919])—and the book Freedom of Speech (1920), which caused great controversy and also made his reputation, associating him for the rest of his career with free speech issues. In these writings Chafee took aim against contemporary interpretatio ns of the First Amendment. “Nearly every free speech deci- sion,” Chafee wrote in his law review article, “appears to have been decided largely by intuition.” Chafee sought to replace that intui- tion with more informed legal reasoning. In his articles and book, Chafee set forth his views regarding the need to balance the competing interests involved in speech issues. In the following passage from Freedom of Speech, which he described as the key passage of the book, he defined the meaning of freedom of speech: The true meaning of freedom of speech seems to be this. One of the most important purposes of society and government is the discovery and spread of truth on subjects of general concern. This is possible only through absolutely unlimited discussion, for … once force is thrown into the argument, it becomes a matter of chance whether it is thrown on the false side or the true, and truth loses all its natural advantage in the contest. Nevertheless, there are other purposes of government, such as order, the training of the young, protection against external aggression. Unlimited discussion sometimes interferes with these purposes, which must then be balanced against free- dom of speech, but freedom of speech ought to weigh very heavily in the scale. The First Amendment gives binding force to this principle of political wisdom. Chafee gave an indication of just how “heavily” freedom of speech weighed in the scale by arguing in his law review article that NOTHING ADDS MORE TO MEN ’S HATRED FOR GOVERNMENT THAN ITS REFUSAL TO LET THEM TALK , ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON ANARCHISTS ARE , TO WHOM TALKING A LITTLE WILDLY IS THE GREATEST JOY OF LIFE . —ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 324 CHAFEE, ZECHARIAH, JR. free speech should be tightly protected even in wartime: Even after war has been declared there is bound to be a confused mixture of good and bad arguments in its support, and a wide difference of opinion as to its objects. Truth can be sifted out from falsehood only if the government is vigorously and constantly cross-examined…. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS prove that an opponent makes the best cross- examiner. Consequently it is a disastrous mistake to limit criticism to those who favor the war. Chafee put his case more succinctly when he wrote, “In wartime, speech should be free, unless it is clearly liable to cause direct and dangerous interference with the conduct of the war.” Chafee’s views influenced the Supreme Court in significant ways. In particular, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and LOUIS D. BRANDEIS closely studied Chafee’s ideas and gradually liberalized their views on free speech. For example, Chafee found fault with Holmes’s opinion in SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919), upholding the conviction of Charles T. Schenck, a secretary of the SOCIALIST PARTY who had distributed leaflets urging men to disobey the draft. Schenck had been convicted under the ESPIONAGE Act. In his famous opinion Holmes wrote that Congress may restrict freedom of speech when there is a “clear and present danger” that such speech will bring about “substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Chafee argued that Schenck’ s actions had not presented a direct danger and that Holmes had not adequately defined what exactly were the “substantive evils” society had to be protected from. Chafee maintained that only sedition that came dangerously close to succeeding might be punished and that a better test of free speech was whether it could gain acceptance in the marketplace of free ideas. Holmes later used Chafee’sideasinhis dissent to ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 40 S. Ct. 17, 63 L. Ed. 1173 (1919), in which the Court upheld the conviction of Jacob Abrams, who had been sentenced to twenty years in prison for distributing leaflets opposing U.S. involvement in Russia. Chafee’s ideas also influenced other Holmes and Brandeis dissents, including those in GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925). The majority in Gitlow determined that the Constitution did not bar the conviction under New York’s criminal anarchy statute (Laws 1909, c. 88; Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40) of a socialist who distributed a paper advocating that the government be overthrown, even though no effect whatsoever resulted from circulation of the manifesto. And in another influential case, NEAR V . MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes used Chafee’s ideas in an opinion that voided a Minnesota law (Minn. St. 1927, § 10123–1) calling for the suppression of “malicious, scan- dalous, and defamatory” publications. Chafee’s views were not popular ones at the time and he nearly lost his job because of them. In 1921 he was brought before the Board of Overseers of Harvard University on a charge of radicalism for his questioning of the sentence handed down in Abrams. Chafee defended himself eloquently in a speech before a special committee in the Boston Harvard Club and he was allowed to remain at Harvard. Chafee viewed himself as a reformer rather than an activist. Although he often embraced causes considered radical, he also was skeptical of big government and described himself as a “conservative … Rhode Islander steeped in the Roger Williams tradition.” Speaking in the early 1920s of his interest in civil liberties, Chafee commented; I see no reason why I should be out mountain climbing and enjoying life while some other chap who started life with less money and gets a little angrier and a little more extreme should be shut up in a prison for five or ten years…. When I am loafing around on my boat, or taking an inordinately large number of strokes on the golf course, I occasionally think of these poor devils who won’t be out for five or ten years and want to do a bit to make the weight of society less heavy on them. Chafee never became an active member of the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION or that organization’s National Advisory Committee. Nor did he appear often in court. He did harbor ambitions to become a Supreme Court justice but was never nominated for the position. Chafee wrote on many aspects of the law besides free speech. In 1936 he drafted what he considered to be his foremost professional accomplishment, the Federal INTERPLEADER Act (May 8, 1926, ch. 273, 44 Stat. 416). This was a highly specialized law designed to resolve GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHAFEE, ZECHARIAH, JR. 325 multiple claims for the same debt against insurance companies, banks, and other busi- nesses. Chafee also became an authority on the mathematical methods for reapportioning among the states the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. His advocacy of the equal proportions method for allotting House seats eventually led to changes in federal law regard- ing APPORTIONMENT after the 1940 census. During his career Chafee served on a number of committees that made important reforms in U.S. law and society. Beginning in 1923 he was chairman of the Committee of Inquiry on Coal and Civil Liberties. This group produced a report criticizing mine operators, their private police, and their company towns, taking a position that, like Chafee’s views on free speech, outraged some influential Harvard law alumni. From 1928 to 1932 Chafee was president of the Massachu- setts Council for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Between 1929 and 1931 he worked for the National Commission on Law Enforcement and Observance, also called the WICKERSHAM COMMISSION , which looked into police misconduct during the era of PROHIBITION. Some of Chafee’smoreimportantwork occurred through his membership on the American Bar Association’s BILL OF RIGHTS Com- mittee from 1938 to 1947. In this capacity he submitted advisory briefs in several Supreme Court cases. In a case involving the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to have their children salute the flag in school (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 [ 1943]), Chafee wrote a brief hoping to persuade the Court to reverse an earlier decision upholding a state law requiring a flag salute. In his brief he made an eloquent case for freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Chafee became an advocate for international human rights later in his career through his work as a representative on the UNITED NATIONS Subcommission on Freedom of Information and the Press in 1947. In 1950, when Chafee’s prestige and seniority at Harvard enabled him to teach whatever course he wished, he chose to offer a course called “Fundamental Human Rights.” He hoped to have students realize “how dearly these rights were bought and … what they meant to the men who put them forever into our fundamental law.” Chafee received honorary doctor of law degrees from St. John’s University, New York, in 1936, Brown University in 1937, and the University of Chicago in 1953. He also received an honorary doctor of CIVIL LAW degree from Boston University in 1941 and a doctor of letters de gree from Colby College in 1944. He died February 8, 1957, in Cambridge, Massa- chusetts. FURTHER READINGS Re, Edward D., ed. 1981. Freedom’s Prophet: Selected Writings of Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Univ. Professor, Harvard Law School. New York: Oceana. Smith, Donald L. 1986. Zechariah Chafee, Jr.: Defender of Liberty and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Wertheimer, John. 1994 “Freedom of Speech: Zecharia Chafee and Free–Speech History.” Reviews in American History 22. CROSS REFERENCE Interpleader. CHAIN OF CUSTODY The movement and location of physical evidence from the time it is obtained until the time it is presented in court. Judges in bench trials and jurors in jury trials are obligated to decide cases on the evidence that is presented to them in court. Neither judges nor jurors may conduct their own investigations into the underlying facts of a given case. In fact, state and federal court rules prohibit judges and jurors from being swayed by, or even taki ng into consideration, EXTRAJUDI- CIAL evidence—that is, evidence that is not properly admitted into the record pursuant to the rules of evidence—in rendering their decisions. Similarly, parties to civil and criminal LITIGATION depend on judges and juries to impartially weigh the evidence, and only the evidence, that is properly admitted into the record. Every day, across the United States, litigants stake their reputations, livelihoods, bank accounts, homes, PERSONAL PROPERTY, and freedom on the premise that the outcome to their judicial proce edings will be one that is reached fairly and justly, according to the evidence. Court-rendered judgments and jury verdicts that are based on tainted, unreliable, or compromised evidence would undermine the integrity of the entire legal system if such outcomes became commonplace. One way in which the law tries to ensure the integrity of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 326 CHAIN OF CUSTODY evidence is by requiring proof of the chain of custody by the party who is seeking to introduce a particular piece of evidence. Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after SEIZURE.A proper chain of custody requires three types of TESTIMONY: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant’s blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it). Proving chain of custody is necessary to “lay a foundation” for the evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution, or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbro- ken chain of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of illegal narcotics, poli ce sergeant A recovers drugs from the DEFENDANT; A gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B, C, and D constitute a “chain of custody” for the drugs, and the prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save time. Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court’s record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence. Similarly, items that are inherently distinctive or memorable (for exam- ple, a holdup note written in purple crayon) might be sufficiently unique and identifiable that they establish the integrity of the evidence. Whether the requisite foundation has been laid to establish chain of custody for an exhibit is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Possibilities of misidentifica- tion and ADULTERATION must be eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability. Where there is sufficient testimony that the evidence is what it purports to be, and that testimony is offered by each responsible person in the chain of custody, discrepancies as to accuracy or reliability of testimony regarding the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility, meaning that the evidence would be admitted into the record for the judge or jury to evaluate in light of any conflicting testimony that the chain of custody somehow had been compromised. While the party who offers the evidence has the burden of demonstrating the chain of custody, the party against whom the evidence is offered must timely object to the evidence when it is first introduced at trial, or the party will waive any objections as to its integrity based on a compromised chain of custody. FURTHER READINGS Giannelli, Paul. 1983. “Chain of Custody and the Handling of Real Evidence.” American Criminal Law Review 20. ———. 1996. “Forensic Science: Chain of Custody.” Criminal Law Bulletin 32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Chain-of-Custody Procedures for Samples and Data.” Available online at http://www.epa.gov/apti/coc/; website home page: http://www.epa.gov (accessed August 29, 2009). CHAIN OF TITLE A list of successive owners of a parcel of land, beginning from the government, or original owner, to the person who currently owns the land. To show that a title to a piece of land is a MARKETABLE TITLE and is free to transfer, a person must know who had ownership of the land at any point in time. In addition, the seller should be able to trace the way in which each person came into the chain of title. An ABSTRACT OF TITLE contains a condensed history of the title to a piece of land in addi tion to a summary of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHAIN OF TITLE 327 . the integrity of the entire legal system if such outcomes became commonplace. One way in which the law tries to ensure the integrity of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 326 CHAIN OF CUSTODY evidence. TITLE contains a condensed history of the title to a piece of land in addi tion to a summary of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHAIN OF TITLE 327 . issuance of certiorari is sometimes called an appeal, although such review is at the discretion of the appellate court. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 320 CERTIFIED CHECK Writ of Certiorari QUESTIONS