Cases
Stephen Saltonstall's track-record as a lawyer includes the following victories that are contained in the official reports of our federal and state courts:
Business Litigation:
Successor Corporate Liability: Unscrupulous business-owners will sometimes try to avoid their legitimate debts by dissolving their corporation and then re-opening the business under a new corporate banner. In a case argued by Mr. Saltonstall involving a movie theater operator who had defaulted on his lease, formed a new corporation, and built a new theater down the road., the Vermont Supreme Court condemned such practices, and set forth the circumstances under which the new corporation may be liable for the old corporation's debt. Gladstone v. Stuart Cinemas, 2005 VT 44.
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction: In Schwartz v. Frankenhoff, 169 Vt. 287 (1999), a Vermont food wholesaler sued a former business partner, his new employer, and its Chicago law firm, claiming that they had conspired to destroy his company using unfair methods of competition. Mr. Saltonstall persuaded the Windham County Superior Court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the defendants' few Vermont connections. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision.
Capital Punishment:
Death Penalty Unconstitutional in Massachusetts: Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment under federal law, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected the death penalty using provisions of its state constitution. In one such case, District Attorney v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648 (1980), Mr. Saltonstall represented a prison inmate who was charged with capital murder under a newly passed criminal statute. Steve successfully argued that capital punishment discriminates against members of racial minorities, particularly when they are charged with killing white victims. The Court also agreed with Steve's argument the death penalty is arbitrary because, as with the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, it is often the product of a trial that appears patently unfair when judged in the light of contemporary legal standards.
Criminal Law:
Numerous Reversals of Convictions: Steve Saltonstall has won appeals in a number of criminal cases. In State v. Jackowski, 181 Vt. 73 (2006), the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a war protester who blocked a busy Bennington intersection during the "shock and awe" Iraq bombing campaign. The Court held that the trial judge's jury instructions on the issue of criminal intent were incorrect. After the decision was issued, the prosecutor threw in the towel and dismissed the case. In State v. Lizee, 173 Vt. 473 (2001), the Vermont Supreme Court suppressed from evidence a large quantity of marijuana found by police in the defendant's car. The Court reasoned that it is illegal under the state constitution to impound and search a vehicle simply because the driver can't produce a valid insurance card. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2nd Cir. 1989), held that the defendant did not have enough violent criminal convictions to qualify him as an armed career criminal, and accordingly it struck a no-parole provision from his sentence. And in the first-degree murder case of Walker v. Butterworth, 599 F.2d 1074 (1st Cir. 1979), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made clear that confining defendants in a "prisoner's dock" during trial is generally an unconstitutional practice because it erodes the presumption of innocence. The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, and the defendant later pled guilty to manslaughter and was released.
Freedom of Speech:
Middle-School Student May Criticize the President: The Vermont Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union asked Steve to represent a sixth-grader who wore a T-shirt to class that criticized President George W. Bush for alleged alcohol and cocaine abuse. The student's public middle school had suspended the student, and when he returned to class it censored the T-shirt by placing duct tape over words and illustrations that the administration considered offensive. In a milestone ruling, Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320 (2nd Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the right of the student to express his political views over the school's objection. Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was a member of the three-judge panel that made this important ruling in favor of freedom of speech.
Medical:
No Quack Medicine for Kids: In an earlier stage of his legal career, Steve Saltonstall represented Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital in cases where young patients appeared to be the victims of abuse or neglect. In one such case, the parents of three year-old leukemia victim Chad Green stopped the medical treatments that had resulted in remission of his cancer, and substituted the quack remedy laetrile, along with a vegetarian diet and prayer. Steve was able to get a court order reinstating a scientifically based treatment regimen, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the trial Court's directive, in Custody of Minor, 375 Mass. 733 (1978). The parents also sued the child's physician, John T. Truman, M.D. in federal court for allegedly violating their civil rights as parents. Steve obtained a dismissal of that litigation in Green v. Truman, 459 F.Supp. 342 (D. Mass. 1978).
Wildlife and the Environment:
Stopping the Clear-Cuts: For reasons known only to it, the United States Forest Service decided to clear-cut an area of the Green Mountain National Forest in Bennington County that serves as critical habitat for black bears and migratory songbirds. In a hard-fought federal court battle that lasted for more than four years, Steve was able to obtain an injunction against the clear-cutting. The Courts determined that the Forest Service had failed to disclose to the public fully and honestly the environmental harm that its logging project would cause. National Audubon Society v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2nd Cir. 1997).