PRISONERS - PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS - INMATES HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY CONCERNING UNIONIZATION WITHIN PRISON. GOODWIN V OSWALD.

• NCJ Number: 17709
• Journal: Harvard Law Review Volume: 86 Issue: 8 Dated: (JUNE 1973) Pages: 1607-1624
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1973
• Length: 18 pages
• Corporate Author: Harvard University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

REVIEW OF THE PARTICULARS AND RAMIFICATIONS OF A NEW YORK SECOND CIRCUIT APPELLATE DECISION UPHOLDING INMATES' RIGHTS TO RECEIVE ATTORNEY MAIL CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF A PRISONERS' LABOR UNION AS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

Abstract

THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH FIRST DECIDED THIS CASE RULED THAT OFFICIALS OF GREEN HAVEN PRISON SHOULD DELIVER ALL MAIL FROM THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY CONCERNING UNIONIZATION WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN WITHHELD FROM INMATES, AND THAT OFFICIALS SHOULD REFRAIN FROM READING ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY TO INMATES. THE APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY LETTERS, BUT ELIMINATED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OFFICIALS READING FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE. THE COURT'S MAJORITY RELIED PRIMARILY ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE APPLICATION OF THE EARLIER 'SOSTRE' DECISION TO THIS CASE, AS WELL AS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO ACCESS, THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, THE EFFECTS OF MASS MAILINGS AND MAIL CENSORSHIP FOR STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN STATE INTERESTS AND PRISONER RIGHTS.