Digital Commons Network^™

Exceptions: The Criminal Law's Illogical Approach To Hiv-Related Aggravated Assaults, Ari E. Waldman

Ari E Waldman

This article identifies logical and due process errors in cases involving HIV-related aggravated assaults, which usually involve an HIV-positive individual having unprotected sex without disclosing his or her HIV status. While this behavior should not be encouraged, this paper suggests that punishing this conduct through a charge of aggravated assault – which requires a showing that the defendant’s actions were a means likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death – is fraught with fallacies in reasoning and runs afoul of due process. Specifically, some courts use the rule of thumb that HIV can possibly be transmitted through bodily fluids …

Iran’S “New Constitutionalism”: Constitutional Politics In Post-Revolutionary Iran, Kambiz Behi

Kambiz Behi

This Article argues that the Iranian constitutional system, although distinctive in application and in jurisprudence, is structurally and functionally similar to a set of rapidly globalizing forms of constitutional arrangement. These similarities include, in the main, legal institutions, legal thought, and methods of jurisprudence. In particular, I argue that the post-1989 constitutional reforms in Iran incorporate a globalizing constitutional mode of legal arrangement marked by proportionality analysis and judicial interventionism at the expense of representative politics. The Article also aims to make a contribution to the methodology of legal analysis by applying a Critical approach to the study of a …

Déjà Vu: From Comic Books To Video Games: Legislative Reliance On “Soft Science” To Protect Against Uncertain Societal Harm Linked To Violence V. The First Amendment, Terri R. Day, Ryan C.W. Hall M.D.

Terri R. Day

This article discusses the weaknesses and limitations of social science evidence to prove that the virtual world of violent video games causes any real world harm. The Supreme Court, in its next term, will consider the constitutionality of California’s ban on the sale and rental of violent video games to minors. The controversy on violent video games is the latest legislative attempt to ban access and distribution of violent materials to children, reminiscent of the comic books debate over sixty years ago. This paper goes beyond a discussion of the First Amendment obstacles to violent video game restrictions. It focuses …

Déjà Vu: From Comic Books To Video Games: Legislative Reliance On “Soft Science” To Protect Against Uncertain Societal Harm Linked To Violence V. The First Amendment, Terri R. Day, Ryan C.W. Hall M.D.

Terri R. Day

This article discusses the weaknesses and limitations of social science evidence to prove that the virtual world of violent video games causes any real world harm. The Supreme Court, in its next term, will consider the constitutionality of California’s ban on the sale and rental of violent video games to minors. The controversy on violent video games is the latest legislative attempt to ban access and distribution of violent materials to children, reminiscent of the comic books debate over sixty years ago. This paper goes beyond a discussion of the First Amendment obstacles to violent video game restrictions. It focuses …

War Courts: Terror's Distorting Effects On Federal Courts, Collin P. Wedel

Collin P Wedel

In recent years, federal courts have tried an increasing number of suspected terrorists. In fact, since 2001, federal courts have convicted over 403 people for terrorism-related crimes. Although much has been written about the normative question of where terrorists should be tried, scant research exists about the impact these recent trials have had upon the Article III court system. The debate, rather, has focused almost exclusively upon the proper venue for these trials and the hypothetical problems and advantages that might inhere in each venue. The war in Afghanistan, presenting a host of thorny legal issues, is now the longest …

May It Please The Senate: An Empirical Analysis Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins

Lori A. Ringhand

This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This dataset, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which …

Can The American People, Through Their Legislature, Determine What Remedy Should Be Available For Fourth Amendment Violations?, Kevin R. Pettrey

Kevin R Pettrey

The United States Supreme Court, in Hudson and Herring, has opened the door to possible alternative Fourth Amendment remedies. Due to these recent cases, Congress and the states may have room to maneuver legislatively to create a remedy of another kind. This article proposes a statute to serve as an alternative remedy and supports the statute's constitutionality through a careful analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment and related topics.

Trawling For Herring: Lessons In Doctrinal Borrowing And Convergence, Jennifer E. Laurin

Jennifer E. Laurin

The Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Herring v. United States has prompted both criticism and puzzlement concerning the source, meaning, and implications of the new culpability-based framework that it announced for the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. This Article proposes that Herring may be better understood not solely by reference to the exclusionary rule precedents to which the majority opinion claims fidelity, but rather in the context of the important and largely unexamined influence that constitutional tort doctrine has had in shaping exclusionary rule jurisprudence. That influence has been driven by the interrelated processes of borrowing and convergence – the former, …

Due Process And Counterterrorism, Amos N. Guiora

Amos N. Guiora

In this article, I examine counterterrorism from the perspective of detention, interrogation and trial and in particular how these three are articulated and implemented. The broader question is whether the contemporary counterterrorism paradigm is based in due process or a legal (not necessarily lawful) regime that minimizes individual rights. That is, does civil, democratic society discard core principles in the face of an on-going, viable threat or are political rights and national security rights effectively balanced in order to protect both. Answering this question requires analyzing the interface between threats and rights; in particular, the extent to which society responds …

A “Supremer” Court?: How An Unfavorable Ruling In The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Should Impact United States Domestic Violence Jurisprudence, Ethan G. Kate

Ethan G. Kate

After her substantive and procedural due process claims were dismissed in the Supreme Court, Jessica Gonzales took the unprecedented step of filing a claim with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, the first time such an allegation of human rights violations had been brought against the United States. Gonzales’ case has implicated two hot-button issues in modern United States jurisprudence: domestic violence prevention and the role of international law in domestic courts. Several scholars have looked at Gonzales’ case as it relates either to domestic violence or international law, but few have looked at the interplay between both issues. Specifically, …

A “Supremer” Court?: How An Unfavorable Ruling In The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Should Impact United States Domestic Violence Jurisprudence, Ethan G. Kate

Ethan G. Kate

After her substantive and procedural due process claims were dismissed in the Supreme Court, Jessica Gonzales took the unprecedented step of filing a claim with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, the first time such an allegation of human rights violations had been brought against the United States. Gonzales’ case has implicated two hot-button issues in modern United States jurisprudence: domestic violence prevention and the role of international law in domestic courts. Several scholars have looked at Gonzales’ case as it relates either to domestic violence or international law, but few have looked at the interplay between both issues. Specifically, …

Reverse Incorporation Of State Constitutional Law, Joseph Blocher

Joseph Blocher

State supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court are the independent and final arbiters of their respective constitutions, and may therefore take different approaches to analogous state and federal constitutional issues. Such issues arise often, because the documents were modeled on each other and share many of the same guarantees. In answering them, state courts have, as a matter of practice, generally adopted federal constitutional doctrine as their own. Federal courts, by contrast, have largely ignored state constitutional law when interpreting the federal constitution. In McDonald v. Chicago, to take only the most recent example, the Court declined to …

Utilizing Rule Based Bias Filtering To Standardize Reasonable Doubt And Ameliorate Cognitive Biases, Yali Corea-Levy

Yali Corea-Levy

The standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is meant to, at least in part, ensure that the government meets the highest practical standard of proof possible before imposing a criminal penalty on a person. This article argues that the standard, as currently applied in trial settings, does not succeed in being the vanguard of prudence and equity it was meant to be. Specifically, it falls short because of its vagueness coupled with our cognitive peculiarities, including our tendency to feel certain about facts more easily than we should. This article describes the problem and ultimately suggests a relatively simple …

Using Cognitive Neuroscience As A Basis Upon Which To Accurately Predict The Future Dangerousness Of Violent Criminals And Thus Provide A Procedure For The Involuntary Commitment Of Such Individuals As A Part Of Or Following The Duration Of Their Sentence, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

I Fought The Law And The Law Lost: The Case For Congressional Oversight Over Systemic Doj Discovery Abuse In Criminal Cases, Christopher R. Smith

Christopher R Smith

ABSTRACT I Fought the Law and the Law Lost: The Case for Congressional Oversight Over Systemic DOJ Discovery Abuse in Criminal Cases This article addresses the need for congressional oversight over systemic DOJ criminal discovery abuse. The first section of the article outlines a sample group of cases across multiple federal districts, which represent the most highly publicized systemic DOJ criminal discovery abuse cases over the last two years. This first section of the article also examines the statistical record of DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) in terms of investigating federal prosecutorial abuse in criminal matters and enforcement of …

From Enemy Combatant To American Citizen: Protecting Our Constitution, Not Our Enemy, Annie Macaleer

Annie Macaleer

This Article advocates maintaining the use of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and military commissions in the framework that the executive and legislative branches have already established during the Bush administration, despite the Obama administration’s recent policy to try detainees in federal court. Furthermore, this Article argues against the use of Article III criminal courts as an arena to prosecute unlawful enemy combatants.

Law Regulating Culture: The Legislative War On Videogames, Sarah E. Spruce

Sarah E. Spruce

No abstract provided.

The Vitality Of The American Sovereign, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In this book review, I examine Christian Fritz's "American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War." I dispute Fritz's claim that Americans today have essentially ceded their sovereign prerogatives to government officials. Contrary to Fritz's suggestion, ordinary Americans do still sometimes intervene directly in day-to-day governmental affairs in ways that are unauthorized by their elected leaders, and they do alter their constitutional landscape by means other than those formally authorized by Article V. Americans have determined that their long-term interests are often best served by manifesting their sovereign desires through extended interactions with government officials and …

Rethinking Children As Property, Kevin Noble Maillard

Kevin Noble Maillard

Despite the collective view in law and social practice that it is intrinsically taboo to consider human beings as chattel, the law persists in treating children as property. Applying principles of property, this Article examines paternity disputes to explain and critique the law’s view of children as property of their parents. As evidenced in these conflicts, I demonstrate that legal paternity exposes a rhetoric of ownership, possession, and exchange. The law presumes that a child born to a married woman is fathered by her husband, even when irrefutable proof exists that another man fathered the child. Attempts by the non-marital …

Forget Privacy: The Warren Court’S Regulatory Revolution In Criminal Procedure, Eric J. Miller

Eric J. Miller

The standard story describing the Warren Court’s criminal procedure “rights revolution,” claims that the Court, motivated by liberal egalitarianism, engaged in a rights-expanding jurisprudence that made it harder for the police to search, seize, and interrogate criminal defendants. Frightened by the popular backlash against high crime rates, a cowed Court in Terry v. Ohio shifted from its rights-expanding to a rights-constricting phase, making it easier for the police to search and seize criminal suspects. Measured by this rights revolution, there were in fact two Warren Courts, a liberal and a more conservative one, emblematically separated by Terry.

The standard story …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Sugarcoating The Eighth Amendment: Gross Disproportionality Review Is Simply The Fourteenth Amendment Rational-Basis Test, Christopher J. Declue

Christopher J DeClue

It is extremely difficult for a defendant to successfully challenge the length of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. To succeed in such a challenge, a defendant must establish that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. However, the Court has never offered consistent, workable guidelines to determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate.

This Article demonstrates that gross disproportionality review is simply a rational-basis test, one which is virtually identical to the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test. Under the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test, a law is upheld so long as it furthers a …

Sugarcoating The Eighth Amendment: Gross Disproportionality Review Is Simply The Fourteenth Amendment Rational-Basis Test, Christopher J. Declue

Christopher J DeClue

It is extremely difficult for a defendant to successfully challenge the length of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. To succeed in such a challenge, a defendant must establish that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. However, the Court has never offered consistent, workable guidelines to determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate.

This Article demonstrates that gross disproportionality review is simply a rational-basis test, one which is virtually identical to the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test. Under the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test, a law is upheld so long as it furthers a …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …

Once Upon A Time In Law: Myth, Metaphor, And Authority, Linda H. Edwards

Linda H. Edwards

We have long accepted the role of narrative in fact statements and jury arguments, but in the inner sanctum of analyzing legal authority? Surely not. Yet cases, statutes, rules, and doctrines have stories too. When we talk about legal authority, using all our best formal logic and its bedfellows of analogy and policy, we are actually swimming in a sea of narrative, oblivious to the water around us. As the old Buddhist saying goes, we don’t know who discovered the ocean, but it probably wasn’t a fish.

This article teases out several familiar archetypes hidden in discussions of cases and …