Digital Commons Network^™

Querying Lawrence, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

In 2003, the Supreme Court in the landmark decision Lawrence v. Texas found a Texas law, banning homosexual, but not heterosexual, sodomy to be unconstitutional. Thus, Lawrence ended the Bowers era in which morality was deemed to be a justification for discrimination against gays and lesbians. While the decision did bring to United States Constitutional analysis the radical idea that gays and lesbians are people too, it stopped short of addressing the real problem the case presents--the existence of a second-class citizenry. This Article examines the Lawrence decision in light of both the international, regional, and foreign jurisprudence and the …

Why Appellate Courts Have Rejected The Argument That The Defense Of Marriage Act Trumps The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, Barbara Cox

Barbara Cox

The author seeks to explain why courts should not be permitted to interpret the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to displace judgment recognition based on a forum state's public policy against legal relationships for same-sex couples. If courts interpret DOMA in this manner, nothing would prevent Congress from exempting other types of judgments from the protection of the Full Faith and Credit clause, thereby permitting relitigation of judgments that are now considered final and binding in every state.

“A Painful Process Of Waiting”: The New York, Washington, New Jersey, And Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That “Same-Sex Marriage” Is Not What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking, Barbara Cox

Barbara Cox

This essay focuses on the recent decisions by the highest courts of four states rejecting the claims of individuals in same-sex relationships that they must be permitted to marry the partner of their choice. In the cases of Hernandez v. Robles, Andersen v. King County, Lewis v. Harris, and Conaway v. Deane, a majority or plurality of each court determined that the bans preventing individuals in same-sex couples from marrying were constitutional. Understanding these cases is particularly important as additional state supreme courts address the cases of similar plaintiffs pending before them.

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …