Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal law; criminal justice system; criminal legal system; Victim; Victim Rights; Victim’s Rights; pro se; constitution; confrontation clause; standby counsel (1)
- McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs; Circuit Split; data breach; second circuit; supreme court; social security; standing; injuries in fact; email; transunion; Whole Women’s Health (1)
- Prior conviction impeachment; evidence; Federal Rules of Evidence; FRE 609; character for truthfulness; prosecution witness; crimina falsi; qualifying felony convictions; abolition; criminal system reform; criminal law; criminal justice system; criminal legal system (1)
- Victims’ Rights; Victimology; Criminal Procedure; Criminal Law; Evidence; Restorative Justice; Law and Psychology; Judicial Decision-Making; Jury Decision-Making; criminal law; criminal justice system; criminal legal system (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Standing In The Ether: Constitutional Standing In Data Breach Cases After Mcmorris, Andrew Ridge
Standing In The Ether: Constitutional Standing In Data Breach Cases After Mcmorris, Andrew Ridge
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
For some time, circuit courts have been ostensibly divided over the power of plaintiffs to maintain claims for injuries sustained from data breaches based merely on an increased risk of injury. However, in McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit denied the existence of the circuit split, instead contending that its three-factor balancing test for determining standing for risk of future injury in data breach cases could be reconciled with the positions of both clusters of circuits. The three factors are “(1) whether the plaintiffs’ data has been exposed as the …
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
What Are Victim Impact Statements For?, Susan A. Bandes
Brooklyn Law Review
In Payne v. Tennessee, the US Supreme Court upheld the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) on the ground that they provide valuable information to the sentencer. In the three decades since, two additional rationales for VIS have become ascendant: most prominently, a therapeutic rationale, and more recently, a public education rationale. In this article, I expand upon my critiques of the informational and therapeutic rationales in light of a growing body of empirical evidence about how VIS affect both sentencers and crime victims. Focusing on the powerful and viral VIS delivered at the Larry Nassar guilty plea hearings and …
Protecting The Constitution While Protecting Victims: Challenges To Pro Se Cross-Examination, Katharine L. Manning
Protecting The Constitution While Protecting Victims: Challenges To Pro Se Cross-Examination, Katharine L. Manning
Brooklyn Law Review
Defendants have constitutional rights to cross-examine witnesses and to represent themselves. But when these rights are combined, they can have devastating effects on crime victims. All too often, defendants use the rights in a last-ditch effort to harass, bully, and intimidate the crime’s victims, sometimes leading to a dismissal of charges altogether, as victims withdraw their testimony to avoid personal cross-examination by the defendant. It does not have to be this way. Numerous courts have allowed standby counsel to conduct cross-examination of the victim within constitutional constraints. This article explores the limitations courts have imposed on pro se cross-examination to …
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Defense Counsel’S Cross Purposes: Prior Conviction Impeachment Of Prosecution Witnesses, Anna Roberts
Brooklyn Law Review
A broad scholarly coalition supports the prohibition or diminution of the impeachment of criminal defendants with their convictions. Yet scholars should pay more attention to the flipside arrangement: impeachment of prosecution witnesses by defense counsel. First, because those engaged in reform efforts need to resolve the competing interests: constitutional arguments on behalf of the defense, but, on the other hand, concerns about a tool that (regardless of the nature of the witness) risks reinforcing biases and stereotypes. Second, because the impossibility of adequate resolution is itself important to note. Whether one considers the conflicting values of rule-makers deciding whether to …