Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(04/22/99 9:00am)
A quadriplegic man is alleging in a recently filed lawsuit that a University Police officer brutally assaulted him in March 1998 after a routine traffic stop. University officials deny the charges. Kareem Astillero, 23, of the 1400 block of East Bristol Street, was driving in the area of 39th and Market streets on March 11, 1998, when Penn Police Officer Charles Deshields allegedly pulled over his car without any reason, the lawsuit says. Astillero claims he was ordered to exit the car at gunpoint, and that after telling Deshields he could not get out because he is paralyzed, several officers -- including Deshields -- allegedly "attacked, beat and grabbed him, all the while verbally abusing him," according to the lawsuit. "I think this is an outrageous incident that clearly should not have been committed," said Lee Bender, Astillero's attorney. "A quadriplegic was yanked out of his car and abused for no reason." Astillero is suing Deshields and the University for an amount of no more than $50,000 for severe bodily injuries and emotional pain and suffering. Neither Deshields nor University Police Chief Maureen Rush would comment on the suit. University spokesperson Ken Wildes said that Penn attorneys had received a copy of the suit and would defend those named against it. "We do not believe [Astillero] was mistreated [but] rather that [University Police] officers handled the incident appropriately," Wildes said. "We will vigorously defend the charges." The lawsuit, filed on March 30, demands reparations for five counts of wrongdoing -- negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment. The suit also seeks punitive damages. "We're seeking fair and reasonable compensation for the wrongdoing that has been done to [Astillero]," Bender said. The case is set for arbitration in November. Arbitration -- required for all demands less than $250,000 -- is a mandatory hearing in front of three lawyers who try the case. Each side has 30 days to reject the lawyers' decision and request a jury trial. The University Police Department has been hit by other police brutality allegations over the past several years. In October 1997, a College freshman was arrested for disorderly conduct outside of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house by University Police officers. Several FIJI brothers later accused the officers of using excessive force in detaining the student. An internal review board cleared the officers of any wrongdoing, and no lawsuit was filed. And two years prior to that incident, two University Police officers were fired by then-Police Chief George Clisby following their involvement in the alleged beating of two homeless men behind the Civic Center while on duty.
(04/01/99 10:00am)
A Phila. judge sentenced Kyle McLemore to 18 to 36 years behind bars. The saga that began with a fatal shooting outside of the Palestra last March ended on Tuesday with the sentencing of the two men found guilty of third-degree murder. Kyle McLemore, 22, was sentenced to 18 to 36 years in prison, while his co-defendant, Nathaniel Ortiz, also 22, received 10 to 20 years. Both were convicted in February for the murder of Anthony Davis and the shooting of three others -- including a Penn student -- in addition to other related charges. Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John Poserina gave Ortiz a more lenient sentence because the evidence against him was not as strong. McLemore will not start serving time specifically for the Palestra shooting charges until 2002 because he is already serving time for prior unrelated convictions. While both defense lawyers were pleased with the sentencing, Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy -- who expected a maximum of 50 years of jail time for each man -- said he was disappointed. "I was hoping for stiffer sentences," Conroy said. "They will both be away for a significant amount of time [but Ortiz] was convicted of murder and he only got 10 to 20." Fortunato Perri, Ortiz's attorney, believed the sentencing was fair. "[The sentencing] showed compassion for the role the jury found [Ortiz] to have," he said. "[Ortiz had a] difficult upbringing? [and his] parents were heavy drug users," Perri added. "The judge considered everything." And McLemore's attorney, Charles Peruto, said he is confident that his client will be released within 15 years -- a statement with which Conroy said he disagreed. "[They should be in prison for] the better part of the next 20 years," Conroy said. "As of right now, under [Gov. Tom] Ridge and the Republicans, they are not getting out after the minimum." The charges stem from the March 1, 1998, gunfight at 33rd and Walnut streets following a Philadelphia high school basketball championship game at the Palestra. Davis was killed in the shootout, while a friend of Davis', a passerby and then-College senior John LaBombard -- who was working in the nearby Blauhaus when he was struck in the thigh by a stray bullet that pierced the wooden walls -- were all wounded. Davis was also armed during the melee. The sentencing hearing lasted approximately 40 minutes in front a packed courtroom of friends and relatives of the defendants and the deceased. Poserina made his decision following the testimony of McLemore's mother, Ortiz's girlfriend and Davis' sister. Joanne Miller, McLemore's mother, told the judge that she needed her son to help pay her bills and support his two children. "He has two children that I will have to take responsibility for," she said at the hearing, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. "I don't have 18 more years in me. I am asking -- I am begging -- for you to be lenient with my son so he can support me and the children." Upon being asked for statements on their own behalf, Ortiz remained silent while McLemore adamantly denied any involvement in the shootings. "I didn't even know this guy. I never had an argument with him," McLemore said, the Inquirer reported. "I truly feel sorry for his family because they've lost a son, just as my family will lose me."
(03/23/99 10:00am)
A Social Work student claims racial harassment and grade tampering in several classes. and Stephanie Oliva A graduate student in the School of Social Work announced a $10.6 million lawsuit against the University yesterday, alleging racial discrimination and grade tampering. In the suit -- filed in U.S. District Court in January -- Cleaven Johnson alleges that the University encourages the harassment and isolation of African Americans by condoning racial intolerance and animosity toward black students. The University denied all the allegations. "A culture of hostility and disrespect against African-American students and other minority students of African descent permeates the staff, student body and general campus of the University of Pennsylvania," the suit says. At a press conference yesterday afternoon in the Greenfield Intercultural Center at 3708 Chestnut Street, Johnson's lawyer, Rosalind Plummer, told an audience of about 50 students and reporters that their goal in this suit is to "help change the racial situation and climate at the University for all [students]" and to "keep students of African descent from being unfairly beat down and driven out of the university," Plummer said. University spokesperson Ken Wildes rejected the suit's claims, stating that "[the University] will defend the lawsuit vigorously." "Any suggestion that the University of Pennsylvania condones racial harassment and grade tampering with regard to Cleaven Johnson or any other student is absolutely outrageous," he said. The nine other defendants named in the suit -- including Social Work Dean Ira Schwartz -- were unable to be reached for comment last night. At the press conference, Johnson -- who is also a graduate associate in Ware College House -- encouraged others who may have had similar experiences to come forward to help show a pattern of discrimination at the University. Johnson, 40, a graduate of Yale University's Divinity School, came to Penn two years ago to pursue a master's degree in Social Work. Although he was scheduled to graduate this May, Johnson claims that racially motivated actions by two of his instructors have caused him to fall behind in his courseload. "[This treatment] was calculated to depress and discourage [Johnson] and to impede his ability to graduate with good academic standing," the lawsuit claims. In particular, Johnson accused the instructors of making unfair demands of him that were not required of white students. He claims that one instructor "routinely refused to accept [his] papers" and that she believed Johnson "thought he could just 'slide through' the Social Work School because he was black." In addition, the lawsuit states that another instructor "routinely berated [him] and embarrassed him in the presence of other students." Johnson also claimed that he was the victim of grade tampering. For instance, he says one of the instructors forced him to completely rewrite his final paper two weeks after submission at the end of the 1997 fall semester, giving him an incomplete until he resubmitted the assignment. Johnson said that the instructor eventually failed him because he continued to file complaints with officials of the school concerning her allegedly racist actions throughout the semester. Although Johnson's allegations were reviewed by Social Work administrators, they found them to have no merit and no further actions were undertaken by the school. But Plummer said that the investigation wasn't taken seriously. "[These individuals] just went through the motions" of addressing Johnson's complaints, Plummer said. Johnson said that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his alleged mistreatment. He stressed that he intends to finish his degree at Penn, claiming that "they're not going to drive me out." In support of the allegations, the lawsuit cites several Daily Pennsylvanian articles from 1993 and 1994 that reported on racial controversies. During those two years, Penn attracted a huge amount of national media attention for two major incidents. In one, then-College freshman Eden Jacobowitz was charged under the University's speech code with racial harassment for allegedly calling a group of African-American sorority sisters "water buffaloes." Several months later, a black student group confiscated an entire day's press run of the DP over what they felt were racist remarks by a DP columnist. United Minorities Council President Chaz Howard said that while he doesn't think Johnson would lie about the allegations, he hasn't personally encountered any similar situations. "I think the University has made great, great strides" but there is still room for improvement, the College junior said.
(03/17/99 10:00am)
A federal judge in Philadelphia yesterday denied an NCAA request to delay the court-ordered elimination of freshman eligibility standards, plunging the world of collegiate athletics into a state of uncertainty. U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter ruled earlier this month that the old regulations -- which required student-athletes to have a minimum score on the SAT or ACT standardized test score on a sliding scale linked to the student's grade point average -- unfairly penalized minority students. The NCAA asked to stay the ruling until it could be appealed to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Otherwise, officials would not have enough time to ensure a smooth transition to different standards, they said. "With the court's denial of our request for [a] stay, our membership is left with many unknowns about how to address eligibility standards," NCAA President Cedric Dempsey said in a statement released yesterday. Because of the ruling, a lost year of eligibility could be restored to athletes who were not allowed to compete as freshmen because of the standards, including Temple's Mark Karcher and Drexel's Petrick Sanders, both basketball players. The decision is unlikely to affect Penn's athletic program or any other in the Ivy League, since it has its own requirements, according to Ivy League Executive Director Jeff Orleans. Still, the eight Ivies "will participate in their discussions," Orleans said. The decision will have a huge impact, though, on most of the 302 Division I schools, especially with the recruiting season reaching its culmination over the next three weeks. "I don't know what this will mean to us," said Joanne Epps, Temple's NCAA representative. "[The lack of a guideline] means disarray." "[There will be] a whole lot of collaborating between institutions," Epps added. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors will determine its next step in a few weeks, according to a statement released by the NCAA yesterday. "[We will decide] whether to utilize current grade point average and core course standards minimum academic rules, adopt interim legislation or move forward with no current standardized rules in place while appealing the case," the statement said. The NCAA will seek a stay from the Circuit Court and will file an appeal of Buckwalter's decision in the next few days. Buckwalter declared the SAT and ACT minimum score requirement, also known as Proposition 16 and formerly called Proposition 48, illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Buckwalter cited an internal NCAA memo that showed that "African-American and low-income student-athletes have been disproportionately impacted" by the policy. The original form of the rules was adopted in 1986 to boost the graduation rates of student-athletes, but Buckwalter said there was not necessarily a link between standardized test scores and graduation rates. The previous standards required at least an 820 on the Scholastic Assessment Test and at least a 2.5 GPA in order for a student to compete in the freshman year. The suit was originally filed in 1997 and includes as plaintiffs two graduates of North Philadelphia's Simon Gratz High School. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
(02/23/99 10:00am)
Veterinary School Professor Jorge Ferrer claimed he was defamed by Penn in 1990. After a nine-year legal battle, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court jury found the University and three former top officials liable for defaming a School of Veterinary Medicine professor and awarded him $5 million in a December verdict. The lawsuit arose following a 1990 incident when Vet School Professor Jorge Ferrer -- who still works for the University -- was disciplined by then-Provost Michael Aiken, a defendant in the case, for alleged negligence in performing a research project that accidentally exposed 130 people to lambs that had been inoculated with a deadly virus. The punishment prevented Ferrer from conducting animal research and from conducting or supervising studies of the leukemia-causing virus for 17 months. Faculty committees twice recommended that the penalty be lifted, but Aiken -- who served as Penn's provost from 1987 until 1993 and is currently the chancellor of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -- rejected those proposals. Penn spokesperson Ken Wildes said the University is "very disappointed in the verdict," and plans to appeal. University attorney and Law Professor David Rudovsky confirmed that he is appealing the case, but declined to comment further. Ferrer's attorney did not return repeated calls for comment. Aiken also did not return phone calls. In addition to Aiken, the suit also named former Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews and Chemistry Professor Barry Cooperman, who was the vice provost for research at the time of the incident. Cooperman declined to comment, while Andrews could not be reached. In April 1990, Ferrer was conducting research on 14 lambs inoculated with the cancer-causing virus HTLV-1 in his experimentation to test the "blocking agents" present in sheep to prevent leukemia. Ferrer did not segregate the sheep he had inoculated with the lethal virus and left the flock in an area open to the public, potentially exposing 130 people -- including 100 preschoolers -- to the virus. Experts said at the time that the risk of anyone contracting the disease from such exposure was extremely minimal and none of them were found to be ill. The virus, similar to HIV, can only be transmitted through sexual contact, blood transfusions, breast milk and infected needles. In a February 1995 deposition, Ferrer said the steps taken by the University were "excessive and arbitrary." "Someone is charged with misconduct in research and the charges are distributed nationally," he said. "It's obvious that this has tarnished my reputation." Ferrer admitted he had made an "inexcusable mistake" and he expressed "deep regrets [for] not isolating the lambs." Despite the sanctions, Ferrer did not lose rank or salary, continuing to receive over $115,000 per year even though he did not teach, train fellows or do committee work. Though a committee of Vet School officials cleared Ferrer of misconduct charges, it faulted him for lapses of judgment and poor communication. He was required to attend a course on hazardous materials and to have his laboratory monitored by Vet School officials. "Because of their nature, these punitive sanctions will most likely destroy a research program which, as judged by leading scientists in the field, has made fundamental contributions to leukemia and retrovirus research for more than 25 years," Ferrer said in a statement released immediately after the sanctions were imposed.
(02/18/99 10:00am)
A group of Penn officials are working to bring the University into compliance with new federal crime-reporting rules. Just what does it mean to be on Penn's campus? That's the question University officials are trying to answer as they work to bring Penn in line with a new federal campus security law that mandates how colleges and universities must report campus crime to the government. The new guidelines -- passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton last year -- closed a loophole in the original 1990 law that critics say allowed schools to substantially underreport their crime by claiming that incidents occurred in areas that were not part of campus. According to the new law, colleges must now go beyond reporting crimes that technically occur on campus and additionally cite in separate categories those incidents that take place on public streets that run through campus and in non-University-owned buildings that are primarily frequented by students. For Penn and other mainly urban schools without well-defined campus boundaries, crime-reporting laws have often been a source of difficulty and controversy, as it is often unclear where "campus" ends and whether incidents that occur on major streets and walkways that go through campus should be reported. Penn's reporting procedures were the subject of a year-long investigation by the U.S. Department of Education for allegedly illegally underreporting its crime. According to one newspaper report, the University reported just 10 percent of crimes to the DOE in 1995. The investigation, however, found only a half-dozen minor violations -- overall affirming Penn's methods of reporting crime. With the new law, Penn Vice President and General Counsel Peter Erichsen is taking steps to ensure that the next yearly crime report will be in compliance with state and federal guidelines. Each building on and around campus must be considered individually, Erichsen said, so the process of deciding how to report all of Penn's criminal incidents has been arduous and "consumed hundreds of person-hours, if not thousands." The Department of Education has supplied general requirements, but officials at each school must make their own decisions of under which category each building goes. The DOE has been unable to give specific guidelines to each school. "We don't have much guidance at all from the Department of Education," Erichsen said. "Eventually they will supply [the guidance]." As a result of the new, relatively vague legislation, a committee of eight to 10 members has been formed by the Office of the General Counsel to interpret the requirements set forth by Congress. A working group comprised of four members from the larger committee meets on a regular basis. The group, spearheaded by Erichsen, consists of employees from the Offices of the General Counsel, the Vice Provost for University Life and the Vice President for Government, Public and Community Affairs, as well as the Division of Public Safety. The committee, which meets every few weeks, is also addressing other issues that have arisen from the new law, including how to report student disciplinary problems. The 1999 federal crime report, which covers incidents occurring in 1998, is due to the DOE by September 1.
(02/16/99 10:00am)
The changes will include the consolidation of legal services for Penn and the Health System. Just over a year after former White House counsel Peter Erichsen took charge of the University's legal operations, the offices he oversees are being restructured to increase their efficiency. Since the University formed its Health System in 1993, the Health System has had a legal office separate from the main University Office of the General Counsel. By this summer, those two offices will be merged into one. "The two offices would work better together," Erichsen said. "Health System lawyers bring expertise to bear on University legal problems, and vice versa." The integration of the Health System's Office of Legal Affairs and University's Office of the General Counsel will require the assorted attorneys to relocate into one office. As of now, offices are located at 3624 Market Street, the Penn Tower Hotel building and College Hall, but the imminent restructuring will most likely center all legal resources in the Mellon Bank building, according to Erichsen. Merging the legal teams calls for three deputy general counsels who will report to Erichsen. Health System General Counsel Thomas Tammany will stay on as the chief overseer of the Health System, while Lee Dobkin, the former senior counsel of the Health System, will assume the position of deputy general counsel for compliance. In that role, Dobkin will serve as an administrative officer for the General Counsel's office. The changes come just weeks after longtime University General Counsel Shelley Green left Penn to pursue other personal and professional interests. She and Tammany operated autonomously from each other until Erichsen was brought in last year to oversee them as vice president and general counsel of the University. Upon announcing her resignation, Green stressed that Erichsen's hiring had nothing to do with her departure. Erichsen said last week that Green's position is not being eliminated, and his office is conducting a search for a replacement. "[The Office of the General Counsel] expects to find a successor for Shelley, [but we] haven't interviewed anybody," Erichsen said, adding that they are looking at both internal and external candidates to fill the position. The informal search is still in its preliminary stages, Erichsen said. The restructuring process is gradually taking place to minimize inconvenience, so the two teams will continue to be "clearly discernable for the foreseeable future." Responses to the restructuring have been largely positive, according to Erichsen, who has been emphasizing stability and continuity throughout the reorganization process. "[Lawyers] are excited to be working on a variety of legal problems," he said. The reorganization is not expected to result in any layoffs, Erichsen added.
(02/08/99 10:00am)
The jury in the Palestra shooting trial failed to reach a verdict Friday and will continue its deliberations today. The three men and nine women deliberated all day Friday, as they tried to decide whether Kyle McLemore and Nathaniel Ortiz, both 21, are guilty of killing North Philadelphia resident Anthony Davis outside the Palestra following a high school basketball game there last March. Three other people, including a Penn student, were injured in the shooting. Before being dismissed for lunch, the jury submitted several questions to Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John Poserina. In addition to requesting that several legal terms be redefined, they asked if Jeffrey Noble -- one of the three wounded -- and Oscar Tucker, both witnesses for the prosecution, actually identified the two defendants as having guns at the time of the shooting. Poserina told them that "it is their responsibility" to make that determination. In their testimony, Noble and Tucker indicated that the defendants did have guns at the time of the shooting on 33rd Street between Walnut and Chestnut streets. Toward the end of the day, there was an altercation outside the courtroom between friends of the defendants and of Davis. No one was arrested and the fight was much less severe than the brawl that erupted after the trial's first day. To head off another melee, police told onlookers that only immediate family members could return today to hear a possible verdict. McLemore and Ortiz could receive the death penalty if found guilty of murder and three counts of aggravated assault, according to Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy. Fortunato Perri, Ortiz' attorney, and Charles Peruto, McLemore's attorney, maintain the innocence of their clients. The jury will continue deliberations today in room 1002 of the Criminal Justice Center on 13th and Filbert streets and may reach a verdict as early as this morning.
(02/04/99 10:00am)
Jeffrey Noble, 20, said he saw one of the defendants weilding a gun just before the fatal shoot-out. and Laura McClure One of the three people injured in last March's Palestra shooting testified yesterday that he saw defendant Kyle McLemore running with a gun just before the bloody shootout that left one man dead. "There was a male running across the street with a gun pointed," said Jeffrey Noble, 20, who was shot in the back while running from the chaotic scene near 33rd and Walnut streets last March 1. His friend, 22-year-old Anthony Davis of North Philadelphia, was killed in the incident. McLemore and Nathaniel Ortiz, both 21, are on trial for murdering Davis and shooting Noble, passerby Latisha Ferebee and then-Penn senior John La Bombard after the Philadelphia Public League's championship game at the Palestra. "I seen a lot of people's faces but only Kyle's with a gun," Noble testified. During opening statements on Monday, Charles Peruto, McLemore's attorney, maintained that his client did not have a gun and challenged Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy to prove otherwise. Conroy said yesterday that he remained confident that both defendants would be convicted. "I don't have to prove or disprove Peruto," he said. "I'm confident in [McLemore and Ortiz's] guilt on these charges. [Peruto] can prove the moon is made of cheese -- his points are not the focus of the trial." During cross-examination, Peruto asked Noble about several minor inconsistencies between his testimony and his original statement to police in order to undermine his credibility. Ortiz's attorney did not question Noble because Noble did not refer to Ortiz in his testimony. An earlier prosecution witness testified that he saw Ortiz holding a "black object" by his side at the time of the shooting. Conroy confirmed yesterday that he still plans to seek the death penalty if he wins convictions. The prosecution is scheduled to rest their case today. The defense may or may not present its own case, according to Conroy. The jury is expected to begin deliberations Friday morning after being instructed on the law by Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John Poserina. The trial will continue today in room 1002 of the Criminal Justice Center at 13th and Filbert streets.
(02/02/99 10:00am)
The first day of testimony got off to a rocky start yesterday in the trial of two men charged in connection with last March's shootings outside of the Palestra that left one person dead, as friends of the victim got into a brawl outside the courtroom with friends of the defendants. Proceedings halted abruptly in the midst of the questioning of a Philadelphia detective at about 4 p.m., when the bailiff noticed the melee outside the trial of Kyle McLemore and Nathaniel Ortiz, both 21, who are charged with killing 22-year-old Anthony Davis and injuring three others -- including a Penn student -- near 33rd and Walnut streets following a high school basketball game at the Palestra. Several people were detained by police outside the courtroom. It was not immediately clear whether they were arrested, and Philadelphia Police and the District Attorney's office declined to comment. Earlier in the day, the prosecution and both defense attorneys presented the jury with their opening statements. Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy told the three men and nine women on the jury that there was "an ongoing dispute" and "a violent history" between Davis -- who police say had a history of drug dealing -- and the two defendants. In a subdued speech, Conroy calmly laid out the facts of the case and the history that existed between the three men, who were rivals from opposite sides of the city. But the defense attorneys -- each of whom gave a separate statement -- said that their respective clients were totally uninvolved in the shootings and that "there was no beef" between them and Davis. Charles Peruto, McLemore's attorney, took the tactic of attacking the victim, saying that Davis "is a gun-slinging violent drug dealer" who "brought it upon himself." Peruto made several points -- which he wrote down on a dry-erase board inside the courtroom -- for the jury to remember. For one, he claimed that McLemore was unarmed on March 1 during the Philadelphia Public League's high school basketball championship game. Also, Peruto accused the police of forcing Davis' friend Jeffrey Noble -- who was shot in the back -- to identify the man who shot him before he was allowed to have surgery. Ortiz's lawyer, Fred Perri, also tried to discredit Noble's positive identification of Ortiz and McLemore as the shooters. Perri admitted that Ortiz got into a fistfight with Davis and his friends during the game --Ewhich prompted security officers to kick Ortiz, McLemore and their friends out of the Palestra -- but that he did not shoot anyone. Following lunch, the prosecution opened its case with testimony from several Philadelphia Police officers and detectives. They described the scene of the crime and the condition of the victims, as well as the actions they took upon arriving at the shooting site. More police officers are scheduled to testify tomorrow, and the trial could end as early as Friday. Other scheduled witnesses include the three people wounded in the shooting, including 1998 College graduate John La Bombard, who was working in the nearby Blauhaus and was struck in the leg by a bullet which went through the shed's thin wooden walls. The defense yesterday remained confident that they would gain an acquittal. During a mid-afternoon recess, Peruto turned to McLemore's mother and said "Friday, 4 o'clock -- not guilty." The trial will continue today at 9:30 a.m. in room 1002 of the Criminal Justice Center at 13th and Filbert streets.
(01/27/99 10:00am)
Eleven months and four days after a series of shootings that left one man dead and three others -- including a Penn student -- injured outside the Palestra, the trial of the two men accused of the crime is set to begin today. Kyle McLemore, 21, of the 1300 block of S. 29th Street, and Nathaniel Ortiz, 21, of the 1800 block of S. 6th Street, are being tried for murder, three counts of aggravated assault and other related charges in connection with the shooting following the Philadelphia Public League's high school boy's basketball championship held at the Palestra. Both McLemore and Ortiz have extensive criminal records, including arrests for robbery and drug possession. The incident was not thought to be directly related to the basketball game. Anthony Davis, 22, was shot in the back at least 15 times by a semi-automatic weapon as he was leaving the game at around 4:10 p.m. He was pronounced dead at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania soon after. The three wounded include then-College senior John La Bombard, who was working in the nearby Blauhaus -- a small Fine Arts shed located on 33rd Street between Walnut and Chestnut streets -- when a stray bullet came through the wooden walls and hit him in the leg. La Bombard is scheduled to testify during the trial. He could not be reached for comment yesterday. McLemore and Ortiz are being tried together with different attorneys. Jury selection and pretrial motions are set for today and opening statements are expected to begin early next week in front of Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John Poserina. Prosecutors expressed confidence that the two defendants will be convicted. "[We will] meet our burden of proof," said Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy. "Ortiz and McLemore conspired to shoot and kill Anthony Davis because of an ongoing dispute." McLemore surrendered himself to police shortly after the shooting, two days after a warrant was issued for his arrest. Ortiz was arrested in May after a lengthy search by the Philadelphia Police and the U.S. Marshals Service. Conroy said he expected to call La Bombard and fellow victim Latisha Feribee as "fact witnesses." Although both Ortiz and McLemore are on trial together, they are represented by different attorneys to prevent a conflict of interest, according to Conroy. Despite several eyewitnesses, the two defense attorneys say their clients will receive acquittals. "They can't win and I can't be beat," said Charles Peruto, who is representing McLemore. Peruto's confidence may stem from a previous acquittal when McLemore killed a man in October 1994. Peruto succeeded in persuading the jury that McLemore was acting in self-defense. According to Conroy, the case will last about two weeks. It will take place in Room 1002 of the Criminal Justice Center at 13th and Filbert streets. Penn has still not announced whether it will again host this year's championship game, now less than six weeks away.
(01/26/99 10:00am)
In light of two recent Supreme Court decisions that make it easier for workers to hold their employers accountable for instances of sexual harassment, Penn is seeking to make sure that employees are familiar with all aspects of the University's harassment policies. Officials want to re-emphasize their "100 percent zero tolerance" of sexual harassment, according to Associate General Counsel Eric Tilles. Though Penn has not changed its sexual harassment policies since November 1995, these recent rulings prompted the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Affirmative Action and other Penn resource centers to educate and inform supervisors of existing policies. Penn has already taken several steps to ensure that employees and supervisors throughout the University are well-informed. In addition to republishing brochures listing resource centers, sexual harassment policies will be published in the Almanac -- the University's journal of record -- within the next 1 1/2 months. The Office of Affirmative Action held two two-day training sessions for its employees so they could pass the knowledge on to other University workers, according to Valerie Hayes, the office's executive director. Covering sexual harassment is "only a part of a program in employment discrimination law," she said. Penn's sexual harassment policy covers students, as well. Last June, the Supreme Court presided over two cases concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. Boca Raton and Ellerth v. Burlington Industries. Although the Supreme Court ruled to remand both cases to lower courts, the justices ruled that "a company may be liable for the acts of a supervisor whether or not the company knew what the supervisor was doing," said attorney Anita Weinstein of the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen & O'Connor. "Education at all levels is the key." For the most part, sexual harassment complaints "go to deans, the Office of Affirmative Action, the provost [and] the ombudsman" Tilles said. For this reason it was a high priority issue to ensure that deans and department chairpersons were made aware of these policies early on. "The resource centers have been out there," Tilles said. "[One can] choose whatever avenue is most comfortable if someone believes they have an issue."
(01/21/99 10:00am)
Peter Allinson is a board-certified physician practicing at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore. Yet all his years of medical training could not save Tess. He thought he knew how to save her, but he says University doctors didn't listen to him when he suggested his course of action. Why? Because Tess is a horse and "horses are different than people," said Peggy Marsh, a veterinarian in the Penn Health System, according to a recent lawsuit. "[Allinson] is a people doctor, not a horse doctor," she allegedly said, according to the text of the lawsuit. The horse died the day after Allinson brought her to the University-affiliated New Bolton Center. And two years later, Allinson filed suit against Marsh, another veterinarian and the University alleging negligence in the treatment that his Arabian mare received. Allinson, a resident of Kingsville, Md., is demanding judgement in the amount of $100,000 plus punitive damages to cover the loss of Tesoro Especial, or Tess. Allinson's lawyer, Timothy Rayne, declined to comment. University officials only recently became aware of the suit and have not yet formulated a response, said Penn spokesperson Ken Wildes. According to the suit, Allinson and Marsh disagreed about how to treat Tess' "depression and decreased bowel sounds." Allinson thought she had a condition which needed immediate surgery, while Marsh thought it could be treated medically. When Allinson noticed the problem, he spoke with his regular vet; both agreed that Tess needed immediate surgery. Upon admittance on January 26, 1997, to the New Bolton Center -- the Penn Veterinary School's 24-hour emergency facility in Kennett Square, Pa. -- Tess was seen by Marsh, the resident on call. According to the suit, Marsh did not perform standard tests like X-rays or ultrasounds, even after being asked to do so. Allinson disagreed with Marsh's analysis, citing his own medical expertise, but both Marsh and Sports Medicine Professor Eric Parente, the other vet specifically named in the suit, concluded that Tess did not require surgery. Tess' condition worsened, and the veterinary staff still declined to operate. The next day, Tess collapsed and died. A post-mortem examination revealed that Tess died as a result of a mechanical bowel obstruction, just as Allinson claims he told the Penn doctors the horse would do without surgery. The University has to officially respond to the lawsuit before it can proceed. The case could go to trial by this summer.
(12/04/98 10:00am)
and Andrew Ribner James McCormack, the 1998 College graduate who was shot during a failed carjacking near campus in November 1997, maintained during trial testimony yesterday that it was Keith Schofield who shot him on the 4200 block of Pine Street -- despite the defense's claims that medication may have impaired the victim's ability to positively identify his assailant. Public defender Joseph Levin, who is representing Schofield, contends that a man matching Schofield's description, detained and released by police on the night of the incident, may be the real shooter. Yesterday, Levin presented medical records showing that McCormack was treated with painkillers, including morphine, immediately after the shooting. McCormack, who was shot in the abdomen, strongly denied Levin's allegations. "I was more alert in the ambulance than any other time in my life. I was 100 percent coherent," he testified. Schofield, 34, of West Philadelphia, is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, attempted robbery of a motor vehicle and other related charges. It is not clear why the carjacking charge was changed to attempted robbery of a motor vehicle. The prosecution is expected to conclude its case today and the trial could go to the jury on Monday. In the first day of actual testimony, Assistant District Attorney Dino Privitera used McCormack's identification of Schofield as the main piece of evidence against him. Scott Nowetner of the University Police testified that police brought another man in the vicinity of the crime scene to McCormack before the victim was taken to the hospital. "We surveyed the area. We found a person 2 1/2 blocks away from the incident who completely matched the general description" given by the victim, Nowetner testified. McCormack said he studied the man for a few seconds but realized that "it wasn't him." Police officers released the man immediately without checking him for blood or gunpowder burns. They failed to obtain his name or address. In addition, Philadelphia Police Detective Thomas Zielinski testified that McCormack was "90 percent sure" Schofield was the assailant when the victim was presented in his hospital room with a photo spread of eight men -- one of whom was Schofield -- fitting his description of the suspect. "I chose the person who shot me. I explained to [the detectives] that I wouldn't positively identify until a line-up." McCormack testified. "I didn't want them to go out and arrest someone unless I was positive." Philadelphia Police Det. Michael Sharkey was the last to take the witness stand yesterday. Sharkey noted Schofield's green army jacket and yellow eyes, matching McCormack's description of the assailant, when Sharkey spoke to Schofield regarding information for an unrelated case. "I decided to suggest to [another Philadelphia Police detective] that [Schofield] might be a good suspect based on his description and other evidence," Sharkey testified. Levin and Privitera have declined to comment until the case is finished.
(10/23/98 9:00am)
About 20 musicians, poets, speakers and dancers marked the second anniversary of the suicide of a local peace activist with a "Festival of Transformation" yesterday on College Green. The event in memory of Kathy Change was held in front of the peace sign sculpture by the Van Pelt Library, the site where she poured gasoline over her body and lit herself on fire on October 22, 1996. Change killed herself at the age of 46 in an attempt to draw attention to her political beliefs. She had been well-known on campus for dancing in creative -- and often scant -- costumes with colorful banners. The festival began with a moment of silence at 11:48 a.m., the time she died. Several members of the "Friends of Change" group -- which was formed to ensure her beliefs and memory live on -- paid tribute to Change's life and her "Transformation" movement in front of a small audience of students and passersby. Notable performers included a woman waving two flags simultaneously, as Change had often done, and another who danced with burning sticks and swallowed fire. "[Change] wanted positive change -- that alone was enough to make me come out and pay homage to her," said College junior Mike Epstein, who attended the event. "It's really sad" that so many people gather daily to listen to campus evangelist "Brother" Stephen White, Epstein added, particularly since Change herself often attracted very small crowds. "When Kathy Change was here she forced people to question their beliefs, but there was never a crowd around and she had a hell of a lot more to say," he said. Before Change died, she delivered a stack of papers discussing the reasons for her suicide to two Philadelphia residents, six students and several newspapers, including The Daily Pennsylvanian. In her final statement, she wrote, "I want to protest the present government and the cynicism and passivity of the people in general? Call me a flaming radical burning for attention, but my real intention is to spark a discussion of how we can peacefully transform our world." Change chose the University to publicize her movement because "at a university [students] are here to learn new things and new ideas," said "Friends of Change" member Charles Sherrause, 39, of Philadelphia. "There is a good cross-section of the well-to-do and intelligent students who did not have exposure to alternatives," added Sherrause, who gave a speech on environmentalism and organic farming. College senior Josh Marcus, another attendee, said the event was meant to ensure that the memory of Kathy Change does not die. "A very significant event happened here. The University seems to just want to forget about it," Marcus said.
(10/22/98 9:00am)
The co-author of the book that served as the basis for the acclaimed 1995 film Apollo 13 discussed the art of writing about science before a Kelly Writers House audience of 20 on Tuesday. Jeffrey Kluger, best known for writing Lost Moon with astronaut Jim Lovell, is also a senior science writer at Time magazine. "Science is extraordinarily complicated? you're afraid of fogging it with artfulness," Kluger said. "But [I try to] hide the medicine in the food. If it becomes accessible, seductive, [then readers think] 'I just learned something I shouldn't or couldn't have had access to.' " Despite his law degree and non-technical background, "the rush of science magazines created in the early '80s" led Kluger to pursue science writing because "that was where the money was." One might think that a science writer would have to be well-versed in technical and highly specific fields, but Kluger said the truth is quite the opposite. "My ignorance was a virtue," he said. "I didn't come from the perspective of a scientist. If they could explain it to me, I could make science comprehensible to the layman." Kluger advised the audience to find a human element in their writing and to "find poetry" in any kind of writing to make it touch the reader. He went on to praise such daily newspapers as The Washington Post, which "achieves an artfulness and imagery to writing," whereas The New York Times is "surprisingly unreadable, becoming an inverse litmus test on how to write news you ultimately report." Kluger explained that writing is essentially a job that is profoundly satisfying and gratifying. "A soldier wouldn't go to battle for stock options but would for a tiny piece of metal and cloth, the pride of product. The rewards are intangible," he added. Kluger is best known for his work in writing the book that served as the basis for Apollo 13, which starred Tom Hanks. He praised the film's adaptation of his novel, even though "nobody thinks a whole lot about the writer. We are like vestigial organs easily removed." According to Kluger, the story had an honesty and an urgency to it, lending itself to a close and literal adaptation. "You can leave feathers and decor off of something that doesn't need it. Our job was to let the story tell itself," Kluger said. Kluger's lecture was followed by a short question-and-answer period. Mike Yon, a Philadelphia resident in attendance, said he thought Kluger's talk "was interesting." "I am a writer but a non-science person," Yon said. "It was useful hearing another writer talk." Heather Starr, resident coordinator of Kelly Writers House, said getting Kluger to speak "seemed appropriate [because] we are hoping to have a wide range of programs and many types of writing, since writing plays a part in so many parts of life and careers."
(10/15/98 9:00am)
Aspiring diplomats got a healthy dose of reality yesterday as they heard of the challenges of a foreign service career firsthand from a seasoned U.S. State Department foreign service officer. Harry Jones, who has been with the State Department for several decades, discussed the experience of working abroad as a diplomat to an audience of more than 50 students -- mostly senior International Relations majors -- at the McNeil Building. Students were in for a shock if they thought diplomacy was all wining, dining and policy-making, as Jones presented all sides of the multi-faceted career. "Every eight years, you must go to hard posts with no electricity, mosquitoes, sickness, no air-conditioning," he said. His speech was laced with personal anecdotes, including the occasionally tragedy. "I had a friend killed in [one of this summer's African embassy bombings], but he wasn't my first friend who died in foreign service," he said. Jones discussed the foreign service exam, which consists of a competitive written examination and an all-day oral exam. Those who pass the test must select one of four specialties: economics, politics, administration or the consulate. "You [must] want what's good for America," Jones said. "Show that you are a team player, which is important, especially overseas." Diplomats stationed abroad who believe that their field decisions would change the world were in for a nasty surprise, he said. "The decision-making comes from Washington, D.C. at the [State Department's] European Bureau or [its] Office of Economic and Business Affairs," Jones said. Several students asked about promotion possibilities, only to hear that it is an "up-or-out system," meaning that after a certain point, unless you are promoted, you will lose your job. The system leaves some officers without a job late in their lives. There is, however, a significant upside that makes it all worthwhile, he said. "I learned a lot and I keep learning," Jones said, adding that the experience of living as an American representative abroad breeds an unparalleled closeness with one's peers. Jones' most recent post was in Madrid. The speech was followed by a half-hour question-and-answer session. In response to a question regarding summer internships abroad, he said that they are very competitive, unpaid positions, yet are a "memorable and valuable experience." The deadline for summer State Department internships in Washington and abroad is in early November. College senior Giadha Aguirre said Jones was "a very good, sincere and approachable speaker," but said the presentation "was and was not what I expected." Since Aguirre's father is a diplomat, she knows the harsh life such a career entails all too well, but felt the speech was too negative. "I am more excited about policy-making," she said. "This discouraged me." It was the second time in as many years that a representative of the State Department came to Penn for an information session.
