Law Commons^™

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 5 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Arrival Then Denial: Interpreting §203(A) Of The Clean Air Act, Analyzing Evidentiary Challenges, & Assessing Conflicting Statutory Directives, Jesse Levine

Distinguished Student Research Papers

An “arrival then denial” occurs when uncertified engines arrive at a U.S. port, but are denied entry to the U.S. by Customs & Border Protection (Customs). Why does this matter? In most cases these uncertified engines are sent back to the country of origin. However, due to resource constraints, a sizeable number of uncertified engines slip past Customs and enter the U.S. each year. Uncertified engines, without proper controls, have been estimated to emit at least 30% more emissions than their certified counterparts. Such emissions exacerbate climate change, acid rain, and air quality generally. EPA attorneys assert that their best …

No Witness? No Admission: The Tale Of Testimonial Statements And Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts, Jody L. Sellers

Mercer Law Review

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts trial court's admission into evidence of forensic "certificates of analysis" violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Following Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the accused has a right to be confronted with the forensic analysts at trial unless "the analysts [are] unavailable to testify at trial" and the accused "had a prior opportunity to cross-examine" the analysts. Melendez-Diaz will have an important impact on criminal evidence procedure, specifically in regard to the potential growth of notice-and-demand statutes.

No Longer The Right To Remain Silent: Cross-Examining Forensic Analyst Testimony, Casey Unwin

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juror Testimony Of Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations: United States V. Benally And The Obstacle Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 606(B) , Brandon C. Pond

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Herring V. United States: The Continued Erosion Of The Exclusionary Rule, Robert W. Smith

Mercer Law Review

At its inception, the exclusionary rule was relatively straightforward: The use at trial of evidence obtained from a search or seizure that violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was itself a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. But throughout the exclusionary rule's history, its source, scope, purpose, and applicability have all seen changes, ultimately limiting the situations in which evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation would be suppressed. The key to the limitation of the exclusionary rule was the United States Supreme Court's eventual conclusion that the use at trial of illegally seized evidence does not always violate the …

Crossing Over: Why Attorneys (And Judges) Should Not Be Able To Cross-Examine Witnesses Regarding Their Immigration Statuses For Impeachment Purposes, Colin Miller

NULR Online

You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking a Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no …

14. Investigative Interviewing Of The Child., Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

21. Children’S Reasoning About Disclosing Adult Transgressions: Effects Of Maltreatment, Child Age, And Adult Identity., Thomas D. Lyon, Elizabeth C. Ahern, Lindsay A. Malloy, Jodi A. Quas

Thomas D. Lyon

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 1 - Transcript Of Motions Hearing, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Thinking Like A Public Interest Lawyer: Theory, Practice, And Pedagogy, Jocelyn Simonson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Crime Music, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Wired: What We've Learned About Courtroom Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony In Child Sexual Abuse Litigation: Consensus And Confusion, John E.B. Myers

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Individualization Claims In Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Jonathan Koehler, Michael J. Saks

Faculty Working Papers

In a 2008 paper published in the Vanderbilt Law Review entitled "The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence," we argued that no scientific basis exists for the proposition that forensic scientists can "individualize" an unknown marking (such as a fingerprint, tire track, or handwriting sample) to a particular person or object to the exclusion of all others in the world. In this special issue of the Brooklyn Law Review, we clarify, refine, and extend some of the ideas presented in Fallacy. Some of the refinements are prompted by Professor David Kaye's paper, also in this issue of the Review, in …

Vol. Xvii, Tab 54 - Google's Reply Motion In Further Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xviii, Tab 55 - Google's Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Its Motion To Exclude The Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's First Request For The Production Of Documents From Google, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Retribution And The Experience Of Punishment, Christopher J. Buccafusco, J. Bronsteen, J. Masur

All Faculty Scholarship

In a prior article, we argued that punishment theorists need to take into account the counterintuitive findings from hedonic psychology about how offenders typically experience punishment. Punishment generally involves the imposition of negative experience. The reason that greater fines and prison sentences constitute more severe punishments than lesser ones is, in large part, that they are assumed to impose greater negative experience. Hedonic adaptation reduces that difference in negative experience, thereby undermining efforts to achieve proportionality in punishment. Anyone who values punishing more serious crimes more severely than less serious crimes by an appropriate amount - as virtually everyone does …

Valuing Intellectual Property: An Experiment, Christopher J. Buccafusco, C. Sprigman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this article we report on the results of an experiment we performed to determine whether transactions in intellectual property (IP) are subject to the valuation anomalies commonly referred to as “endowment effects”. Traditional conceptions of the value of IP rely on assumptions about human rationality derived from classical economics. The law assumes that when people make decisions about buying, selling, and licensing IP they do so with fixed, context-independent preferences. Over the past several decades, this rational actor model of classical economics has come under attack by behavioral data showing that people do not always make strictly rational decisions. …

Welfare As Happiness (With J. Bronsteen & J. Masur), Christopher J. Buccafusco

All Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps the most important goal of law and policy is improving people’s lives. But what constitutes improvement? What is quality of life, and how can it be measured? In previous articles, we have used insights from the new field of hedonic psychology to analyze central questions in civil and criminal justice, and we now apply those insights to a broader inquiry: how can the law make life better? The leading accounts of human welfare in law, economics, and philosophy are preference-satisfaction - getting what one wants - and objective list approaches - possessing an enumerated set of capabilities. This Article …

Reasonable Grounds Evidence Involving Sexual Violence In Darfur (With J. Hagan & R. Brooks), Todd Haugh

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Introductory Note For The International Criminal Court, Susana Sacouto

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

INTRODUCTION: On February 3, 2010, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denying his application for an arrest warrant against President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir in relation to the crime of genocide. Holding that the PTC had applied an erroneous standard of proof, the Appeals Chamber reversed the PTC's decision and directed it to reconsider whether the warrant should be issued in light of the Appeals Chamber's discussion of the appropriate standard of proof.

Do You Swear To Tell The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth Against Your Child?, Hillary B. Farber

Faculty Publications

Currently in the United States there is no federally recognized parent-child privilege. The U.S. Supreme Court has never granted certiorari in a case involving the recognition of a parent-child privilege. For many, it is a revelation to learn that the government can compel testimony about communications and observations between parents and their children. Scholars have written about the social policy implications caused by the lack of parent–child privilege. In spite of these thoughtful policy-based arguments, neither Congress nor forty-six state legislatures have responded by recognizing even a limited form of a parent-child privilege. This Article singles out one specific context …

The Architect As Expert Witness: A Survival Guide, Robert Greenstreet

Architecture Faculty Articles

Despite the challenges of deposition and courtroom pressures, expert witness work is both professionally interesting and financially rewarding, and many architects excel in the field. Being an expert does take you into the field of law, however, so it is advisable to sharpen up your skills of communication and presentation and thereby enhance your credibility and ultimate success.

Working With An Expert Witness: A Lawyer’S Guide, Robert Greenstreet

Architecture Faculty Articles

Expert witnesses form an integral part of many legal proceedings where factual evidence must be supplemented with professional opinion. Their services are not inexpensive, and their time should be used appropriately to optimize their effectiveness. It is prudent to select them carefully based upon their fit to the case and their demonstrated skills and experience, and then to prepare them carefully at each stage to ensure that their expert opinions are defensible and not invalidated by inconsistency or poor performance.

Valuing Intellectual Property: An Experiment, Christopher J. Buccafusco, C. Sprigman

Christopher J. Buccafusco

In this article we report on the results of an experiment we performed to determine whether transactions in intellectual property (IP) are subject to the valuation anomalies commonly referred to as “endowment effects”. Traditional conceptions of the value of IP rely on assumptions about human rationality derived from classical economics. The law assumes that when people make decisions about buying, selling, and licensing IP they do so with fixed, context-independent preferences. Over the past several decades, this rational actor model of classical economics has come under attack by behavioral data showing that people do not always make strictly rational decisions. …

Welfare As Happiness (With J. Bronsteen & J. Masur), Christopher J. Buccafusco

Christopher J. Buccafusco

Perhaps the most important goal of law and policy is improving people’s lives. But what constitutes improvement? What is quality of life, and how can it be measured? In previous articles, we have used insights from the new field of hedonic psychology to analyze central questions in civil and criminal justice, and we now apply those insights to a broader inquiry: how can the law make life better? The leading accounts of human welfare in law, economics, and philosophy are preference-satisfaction - getting what one wants - and objective list approaches - possessing an enumerated set of capabilities. This Article …

Retribution And The Experience Of Punishment, Christopher J. Buccafusco, J. Bronsteen, J. Masur

Christopher J. Buccafusco

In a prior article, we argued that punishment theorists need to take into account the counterintuitive findings from hedonic psychology about how offenders typically experience punishment. Punishment generally involves the imposition of negative experience. The reason that greater fines and prison sentences constitute more severe punishments than lesser ones is, in large part, that they are assumed to impose greater negative experience. Hedonic adaptation reduces that difference in negative experience, thereby undermining efforts to achieve proportionality in punishment. Anyone who values punishing more serious crimes more severely than less serious crimes by an appropriate amount - as virtually everyone does …

Foreword: Why "The Child Witness" Now?, Jules Epstein

Jules Epstein

No abstract provided.