Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law

2008

Civil Rights

Seattle University School of Law

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Critical Error, Bryan L. Adamson Sep 2008

Critical Error, Bryan L. Adamson

Bryan L Adamson

Critical Error raises a novel double standard: while fact-specific trial court findings of actual malice are reviewed under the “independent judgment” standard (a wholesale re-weighting of the trial court record and decision) on appeal, intentional race discrimination findings are reviewed under the far more deferential Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 clear error standard. Both legal concepts are arrived at through assessing state-of-mind determinations; both directly trigger constitutional proscriptions. Only actual malice, however, is classified as a constitutional fact, thus taking it out of the more deferential standard of review. The Supreme Court has failed to clarify this important procedural …


Focus On Batson: Let The Cameras Roll, Mimi Samuel Mar 2008

Focus On Batson: Let The Cameras Roll, Mimi Samuel

Mimi Samuel

While the Supreme Court outlawed discrimination in jury selection over 40 years ago, both empirical studies and candid interviews show that lawyers routinely rely on characteristics such as race, gender, and religion in striking prospective jurors. In large part, this practice continues because, when challenged, attorneys proffer non-verbal factors such as facial expressions, inattentiveness, eye contact (or lack thereof), or even laughing or coughing to justify their peremptory strikes. Without a way to assess the validity of these reasons, the trial judge and then the appellate court on review, have little ability to enforce the anti-discrimination prohibition set forth in …