WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

IN THE MATIER OF

Professor Lawrence J. Connell

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF SAMUEL ELBARDISSII

State of Delaware
SS
County of New Castle

I, Samuel Elbardissi, having been duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows.

I. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge. I am competent to testify.

2. I am currently a fulltime student at the Widener University School of Law in

Wilmington, Delaware.

3. I have been at Widener University School of Law since August 0[2009, when I

started my law school education.

4. I have accumulated, over that time, fifty (50) credit hours towards my degree and

have secn multiple classroom dynamics from multiple Widener Law professors.

5. I have read the entire 39-page First Affidavit of Lawrence 1. Connell (hereinafter

"LC's Affidavit").

FALL 2010 BACKGROUND

6. On September 17th , 2010, I was injured on Widener' s property which required me to

undergo surgery for a broken ankle.

7. The surgery was conducted on October 5th , 2010. I had to miss two classes for the

surgery and others, based on the pain I was in.

I I previously submitted an affidavit dated March 14, 201 I in this maUer. Paragraphs 13-20 have been added to
corroborate the affidavit of Daniclle Oppenheim" Otherwise, the affidavit is the same as the previous affidavit that
I submitted, renumbered accordingly. ~

"'"
 CRIMINAL LAW SPRING 2010

8. In the spring of201O, I was enrolled in Professor Stephen E. Henderson' s Criminal

Law class.

9. Our class used as our text, Kaplan, Weisberg and Binder, Criminal Law: Cases and

Matenals (6th ed.).

10. Our class discussed the case of People v. Goetz. As a class, we were told about the

notoriety of the case and that the four youths were African-American. Whether the

conduct was "reasonable," as per the requirements of Goetz' justification defense,

was a question of fact based on the circumstances. The question that caused the most

controversy was whether reasonable entailed an "objective" reasonable person or

reasonable to Goetz, where the latter takes into account who Goetz was and what

Goetz had undergone to create, in his mind, the notion that the conduct was

reasonable. Although I was not in Professor Connell 's class, the classification as to

what happened in that respective class when Goetz was decided is similar to the class

I was in. The fact that the case did not state that the youths were black was integral in

detennining the mindset of Goetz when one has to apply the " reasonable to Goetz"

test.

II . The Goetz case lasted the full class. It sparked question that lasted a significant

duration of the total class time. I was not offended, and to the best of my knowledge,

the students did not take issue with the same facts regarding the same case about the

exact same material during the exact same school semester.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SECTION B FALL 2010

12. In the fall semester 2010, I was enrolled as a student in Professor Connell's Criminal

Procedure Section B dass.

2
 INVESTIGATIONS DURING TilE SEMESTER

13. Prior to the Thanksgiving break, I had a conversation with a fellow student, Danielle

Oppenheim.

14. During that conversation, Danielle told me that she had been called on her cell phone

by Vice Dean Kelly to set up a meeting for the f01l0wing Monday. She told me the

topic of the impending conversation was Professor Connell and that she was told not

to discuss the impending meeting with anyone.

15. Daniene told me not to tell anyone which, until now, I have not done.

16. On the Monday following the meeting, which was days before the Thanksgiving

break, Danielle had another conversation with me detailing the substance of the

meeting.

17. Danielle told me the conversation with Vice Dean Kelly centered around Professor

Connell's inappropriate behavior, namely, sexist and racist comments.

18. Danielle's responses, as Danielle told me on that day. were glowing regarding

Professor Conoe1l as a teacher and his teaching style. In regards to potentially sexist

and racist remarks, Danielle said that she did not see any of his remarks being capable

of being categorized as such. She mentioned a student - a female - whose

interactions in Danielle' s section A class would have totally discounted any sexist

assertions.

19. Danielle told me that Vice Dean Kelly. upon concluding the meeting, toM her that the

meeting was not to be disclosed to anyone. This point was reiterated a few times, as I

was told by Danielle.

20. Danielle proceeded to tell me not to disclose what she told me to anyone. Up until the

preparation of this document, I have abided by her wishes.

3
 THE USE OF THE PIiRASE uBLACK FOLKS"

21. Regarding paragraphs 59 and 62 of LC's Affidavit: Professor Connell is alleged to

have said "all criminals are poor and all poor are black folk." The complainants

further allege that "Referring to African-Americans as 'Black Folk' implies they are

uneducated, uncultured and undeserving of respect by the justice system."

22. If the statement "all criminals are poor and all poor are black folk." was ever uttered

in my Criminal Procedure class, I was probably not there or, if I was there, it was not

said. Due to the injury I sustained over the semester, certain days were missed due to

surgery and my recovery. If it was ever uttered, it could not have been on the day 1

was there.

23 . Professor Connell did use the lenn "Black Folks" in class. His "black folks"

comments happened the day we discussed Illinois \'. Wardlow (holding that presence

in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking plus unprovoked headlong flight were

enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion). Dressler pgs 406-11. The comment arose

after we had discussed the case and had moved to discussion of the notes.

24. Note two (2) of the casebook cited an extensive excerpt from a law review article by

Lenese C. Herbert. In relevant part, Herbert wrote that, "[T]he police were using a

code language to suggest their actions were justified because they were directed at

'high-crime people': poor. tmderedllcaled. black and brown males who live in or

Jrequenl depressed .. .inner-city neighborhoods. or who look as if Ihey do. In practice,

people have the implicit authorization to create and apply an inferior set of rights to

individuals in high-crime areas, presumably because those individuals are regarded as

being less worthy than other citizens." (emphasis added).

25. After directing the class' attention to Herbert's observation, Professor Connell came

4
 from behind the podium and said so "Who docs this case (Illinois 1'. Wardlow) affect

the most? Who is it directed at?" After receiving no response from anyone in the

class, Connell said, ""Black folk." He followed that up by saying "I think the law

review is right." The "black folk" comment arose from the note of the text. Ifa

student had not read either the case, the note, or both, he or she easily could have

attributed those remarks to Professor Connell. Had these students been paying any

attention at all to the class, they would know that Connell was discussing the content

of the literature in the notes rnther than injecting his own beliefs, precisely the

opposite of what the complainants say he meant.

USE OF DEAN AMMONS IN HVPOTHETICALS

26. I reiterate that I have been a member of Widener University' s School of Law student

body since I started my law school education in August of2009.

27. I have seen different professors for different classes.

28. The use of colleagues to the Professor or Dean Ammons herself has been common

place. John Culhane has been in transactions with Professor Reed. Professor Reed has

also been charged with the tort of negligence. Susan Goldberg has been a party to a

service of process hypothetical. Dean Ammons has also been charged with multiple

crimes over that time. These scenarios have occurred in other classes, as it did in

Criminal Procedure.

29. In Professor Connell's Criminal Procedure class for Section B, Dean Ammons, and

this is the only time I recall her being a party to my learning in this course, was a drug

dealer. At the time, the class was discussing what was needed for probable cause to

obtain a warrant.

30. The class started by discussing the predecessor cases of Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli

5
 v. u.s. which required a conjunctive two prong test to be met for probable cause to be
established. The two prongs were the reliability of the witness and the witness' basis

of knowledge. In the case of confidential informants to police officers, the first

element, reliability of the witness, was always subject to failure when the infonnant

had no "track record" to speak of. Any oath or affinnation by the police officer would

lack any basis for how reliable the infonnant is.

31. The class then turned to the reading for the day which was lI1inois v. Gates. The

Supreme Court, in that case, overturned twenty years of precedent by eliminating the

requirement that both elements be met on their own basis. By allowing for the use of

the "totality of the circumstances" test, the weakness of one prong could be overcome

through the strength of another. Hence, if the basis of knowledge of an informant was

so particular and strong, the fact that he previously had no track record for which the

officer could vouch for would not be as detrimental to the attainment of probable

cause.

32. To illustrate the significance of the Supreme Court' s marked change in direction,

Professor Connell said " What if an infonnant comes to me and says ' I saw Dean

Ammons selling drugs out of her office.' Would that pass Aguilar-SpineHi?" There

were a few responses from the class. Professor Connell continued by saying, "What

about under Gates?" After determining that the case would fail under both tests,

Professor Connell said, "Now, what if the infonnant says that 'Dean Ammons is

sell1ng cocaine oul of her office. I bought some from her. She keeps it in a paper bag

in the left bottom drawer of the desk: Would this pass Aguilar-SpineHi? Would this

pass Gates?" This sparked discussion about the difference between both standards.

Under Aguilar-Spinelli, the infonnant who had no track record could still not

6
 establish probable cause to search, but under the Gates standard, the particularity with

which the infonnant described the drugs, their placement, and that he had seen the

transaction would be enough to reach probable cause based on the strength of the

infonnant's basis of knowledge.

INCIDENTS WITHIN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SECTION B

33. Two incidents occurred in the class that required the other students to take notice.

34. The first student, who sat middle of the class in the second row, raised her hand as we

had just finished a case. The issue was, as I recall, referencing another note in the

casebook that dealt with racial profiling and the latitude that officers have in making

their detenninations whether to stop or not.

35. Professor Conne1l had gone over the note and discussed the statistics that pointed to

blacks being heavily targeted by police. The student raised her hand . When called

upon, the student started her response, in an aggressive tone, with the words " I don ' t

know what you agenda is ... " Her comments lasted about 45 second to a minute, to

which Professor Connell replied, "If you can tell me what I have said that makes you

think I have an agenda, I will gladly respond to your question." The student continued

with her tone and Professor Connell said that we were going to move on.

36. I have been with this student in other classes and her approach, at times, is to take

personal the topics at hand. When such a situation arises, her tone and aggressiveness

to attack the situation that is very personal to her is similar to what occurred on that

day.

37. On a separate day, Professor Connell had opened the floor for a question he had

posed. A student, sitting two to three rows behind me, was called on to answer the

question. The student asked a question and Professor Connell asked her to answer his.

7
 Her rcspon se to thi s request was "You never answer minc. Why should I answer

yours?"' The situation was awkward fo r the class who had seen tensio n from these two

st ud ent s bui ld over the se mcster. Professor Connell did not co nti nllc the tiradc, but

simpl y stat ed "That when you answer my questi on first, I will answer yours." and

then moved on to anot her student on the opposite side o rth e roo l11.

38 . I am cun-entl y in class with thi s student. Unloltunatel y. her comments in respo nse to

the professor's question or th e general topi c at hand, tends to start with " 1 believe" or

" I think." and never addresses the question posed or Ihe topi c al hand . I have 110 iss lle

with thi s perso ll, but the consistency that a the train o f substan ti ve leaming gets

derailed when she parti cipates is too consisten t to not notice.

Sa muel Elb anhss i =-

SWORN TO AN D SUBSC RIBED before me on the _ _ _~""="" _____ day of
Apri l, 201 1.

lHOMAS S. NEUBERGER, ESQ.

NOTARIAL OffiCER
STA1EOfOE!.AWARE
29 OEl. C. SEC. 4323(All31
L - -- ----

8
- , . w' 73' P- ' " " . §' '0 '5

, ......
., .,
.,

!· ~ " '; -!,':':,)i:

I ;: ::~,
:;';.
, :. ::
::: .-::-:.",~)il:
-~ :- ---'--.

!". ~".<.::!..;
,
,.I .:.- .. ... ..,.
;

--.- •... ·_ ..1