Law Commons^™

“Rap Music On Trial”: Examining The Consequences Of Rap Lyrics Being Admissible At Trial, Malik Stewart

SLU Law Journal Online

Rap lyrics are being deemed admissible in court to convict criminal defendants. In this article, Malik Stewart considers the consequences of admitting rap lyrics to evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt, possible First Amendment violations, the efforts to prevent prosecutors from using rap lyrics as evidence, and the ways in which rap music is being targeted by prosecutors. The article also considers the emergence of Drill music and what to expect moving forward.

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Newsroom: Good Reason For Secrecy On 38 Studios 8/12/2016, Niki Kuckes, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Protecting Public Employee Trial Testimony, Joseph Deloney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In a number of jurisdictions around the United States, police officers and other public employees that regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties can be placed in compromising positions. Because these types of employees regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties, such testimony is considered “employee speech” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. Consequently, governmental employers can take adverse employment actions against an employee based on his or her truthful trial testimony without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lane v. Franks and other circuit court cases, …

Filming The Police: An Interference Or A Public Service, Aracely Rodman

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …

When Truth Cannot Be Presumed: The Regulation Of Drug Promotion Under An Expanding First Amendment, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires that, prior to marketing a drug, the manufacturer must prove that it is safe and effective for the manufacturer’s intended uses, as shown on the proposed label. Nonetheless, physicians may prescribe drugs for other “off-label” uses, and often do so. Still, manufacturers have not been allowed to promote the unproven uses in advertisements or sales pitches.

This regime is now precarious due to an onslaught of scholarly critiques, a series of Supreme Court decisions that enlarge the First Amendment, and a landmark court of appeals decision holding that the First Amendment precludes …

The System Of Modern Criminal Conspiracy, Steven R. Morrison

Steven R Morrison

Something has changed in the modern system of American criminal conspiracy law compared to its prior iterations. This article explores that change, arguing that the system of modern criminal conspiracy now gives to the government such great discretion to charge and prove a conspiracy that unpopular ideas and the speech that expresses them have become ready subjects of prosecution. At its center, this article defines the system of modern conspiracy law, which is one of uniformity rather than dynamism. Where dynamic systems of law contain distinct components that perform different tasks (proving actus reus and mens rea, for example), the …

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where Did My Privilege Go? Congress And Its Discretion To Ignore The Attorney-Client Privilege, Don Berthiaume, Jeffrey Ansley

Don R Berthiaume

“The right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience or executive branch whimsy. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted... However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law.”[1] So said Senator Arlen Specter on February 13, 2009, just seven months before Congress chose to ignore the very privilege he lauded. Why then, if the right to counsel is as important as Senator Specter articulated, does Congress maintain …

Discovering Who We Are: An English Perspective On The Simpson Trial, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach

Seattle University Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested.

Prior Restraint Of Expression Through The Private Search Doctrine, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.