Law Commons^™

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry Colb

Sherry Colb

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

A Summary Reflection On Legal Education, Robert Pascal, Olivier Moreteau

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

L’Enseignement De Droit National Aux Étudiants Étrangers En France, Olivier Moreteau, Frédérique Ferrand

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

L’Interprétation Des Textes Juridiques Rédigés Dans Plus D’Une Langue, Olivier Moreteau, Didier Lamèthe

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

Book Review: Z. K. Bankowski, N. R. Hutton Et J. J. Mcmanus, Lay Justice?, Olivier Moreteau

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

Les Frontières De La Langue Et Du Droit: Vers Une Méthodologie De La Traduction Juridique, Olivier Moreteau

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

Louisiana 1812-2012: 200 Years Of Statehood And 300 Years Of French Law Influence, Olivier Moreteau

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

Opening Remarks, Olivier Moreteau

Olivier Moréteau

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property In Outer Space: International Law, National Jurisdiction, And Exclusive Rights In Geospatial Data And Databases, Lee Ann Lockridge

Lee Ann W. Lockridge

No abstract provided.

Exporting The Legal Incubator: A Conversation With Fred Rooney, Fred Rooney, Justin Steele

Fred Rooney

A legal conversion between Justin Steele, Executive Articles Editor of the UMass Law Review and Fred Rooney, Director of the International Justice Center for Post-Graduate Development at Touro Law Center.

Why Law Teachers Should Teach Undergraduates, Kevin Clermont, Robert Hillman

Kevin M. Clermont

For many years, members of the law school faculty at Cornell have taught an introduction to law course that is offered by the government department in the College of Arts and Sciences. The course has surveyed law in general, structured thematically around what law is and what law can and cannot do. Although its teachers have used law school pedagogic techniques in the undergraduate setting, they certainly have not intended the course to be a prelaw practice run. In short, the course--The Nature, Functions, and Limits of Law--is a general education course about law. Our experience leads us to believe …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case. The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

Three Myths About Twombly-Iqbal, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This essay tries to convey the meaning of the recent revolutionary cases on federal pleading law. To do so, it refutes the three leading myths about the Twombly and Iqbal cases and thereby establishes these three propositions: First, the Supreme Court has not revived code-based fact pleading. This first conclusion implies that the codes’ law/fact distinction plays no role in screening allegations under the new test for nonconclusoriness, and it also implies that the courts should not apply the new test for plausibility to each allegation but only to the ultimate assertion of liability. Second, we academics must beware of …

How Employment-Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart Schwab

Kevin M. Clermont

Employment-discrimination plaintiffs swim against the tide. Compared to the typical plaintiff, they win a lower proportion of cases during pretrial and after trial. Then, many of their successful cases are appealed. On appeal, they have a harder time in upholding their successes, as well in reversing adverse outcome. This tough story does not describe some tiny corner of the litigation world. Employment-discrimination cases constitute an increasing fraction of the federal civil docket, now reigning as the largest single category of cases at nearly 10 percent. In this article, we use official government data to describe the appellate phase of this …

The Role Of Private International Law In The United States: Beating The Not-Quite-Dead Horse Of Jurisdiction, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Territorial authority to adjudicate is the preeminent component of private international law. Empirical research proves that forum really affects outcome, probably by multiple influences. This practical effect makes international harmonization of jurisdictional law highly desirable. Although harmonization of nonjurisdictional law remains quite unlikely, jurisdictional harmonization is increasingly feasible because, among other reasons, U.S. jurisdictional law in fact exhibits no essential differences from European law. None of the usual assertions holds up as an unbridgeable difference, including that (1) the peculiar U.S. jurisdictional law flows inevitably from a different theory of governmental authority, one that rests on power notions; (2) U.S. …

Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.” A close reading reveals …

How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare In Federal Court, Kevin Clermont, Stewart Schwab

Kevin M. Clermont

This article presents the full range of information that the Administrative Office’s data convey on federal employment discrimination litigation. From that information, the authors tell three stories about (1) bringing these claims, (2) their outcome in the district court, and (3) the effect of appeal. Each of these stories is a sad one for employment discrimination plaintiffs: relatively often, the numerous plaintiffs must pursue their claims all the way through trial, which is usually a jury trial; at both pretrial and trial these plaintiffs lose disproportionately often, in all the various types of employment discrimination cases; and employment discrimination litigants …

Foreigners' Fate In America's Courts: Empirical Legal Research, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

This article revisits the controversy regarding how foreigners fare in U.S. courts. The available data, if taken in a sufficiently big sample from numerous case categories and a range of years, indicate that foreigners have fared better in the federal courts than their domestic counterparts have fared. Thus, the data offer no support for the existence of xenophobic bias in U.S. courts. Nor do they establish xenophilia, of course. What the data do show is that case selection drives the outcomes for foreigners. Foreigners’ aversion to U.S. forums can elevate the foreigners’ success rates, when measured as a percentage of …

Death Of Paradox: The Killer Logic Beneath The Standards Of Proof, Kevin Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof. I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form …

Feminist Legal Theory, Feminist Lawmaking, And The Legal Profession, Cynthia Bowman, Elizabeth Schneider

Cynthia Grant Bowman

No abstract provided.

Legal Limbo Of The Student Intern: The Responsibility Of Colleges And Universities To Protect Student Interns Against Sexual Harassment, Cynthia Bowman, Marybeth Lipp

Cynthia Grant Bowman

No abstract provided.

Unwell: Indiana V. Edwards And The Plight Of Mentally Ill Pro Se Defendants, John Blume, Morgan Clark

John H. Blume

An Empirical Look At Atkins V. Virginia And Its Application In Capital Cases, John Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher Seeds

John H. Blume

In Atkins vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared that evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment prohibit the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disability (formerly, "mental retardation"). Both supporters and opponents of the categorical exemption, however, have criticized the Atkins opinion. The Atkins dissent, for example, urged that the decision would open the gates of litigation to a flood of frivolous claims. Another prominent criticism, heard from those more supportive of the Court's ruling, has been that the language the Court used communicating that states must "generally conform" to the clinical definitions of mental retardation is ambiguous enough …

Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part One, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

This article addresses the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements.

Victim Gender And The Death Penalty, Caisa Royer, Amelia Hritz, Valerie Hans, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin Wells, John Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson

John H. Blume

Previous research suggests that cases involving female victims are more likely to result in death sentences. The current study examines possible reasons for this relationship using capital punishment data from the state of Delaware. Death was sought much more for murders of either male or female white victims compared to murders of black male victims. Analyzing capital sentencing hearings in Delaware from 1977-2007 decided by judges or juries, we found that both characteristics of the victims and characteristics of the murders differentiated male and female victim cases. The presence of sexual victimization, the method of killing, the relationship between the …

"I Object" Is Not Enough: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Avoiding Procedural Default, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

No abstract provided.

Judicial Politics, Death Penalty Appeals, And Case Selection: An Empirical Study, John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg

John H. Blume

Several studies try to explain case outcomes based on the politics of judicial selection methods. Scholars usually hypothesize that judges selected by partisan popular elections are subject to greater political pressure in deciding cases than are other judges. No class of cases seems more amenable to such analysis than death penalty cases. No study, however, accounts both for judicial politics and case selection, the process through which cases are selected for death penalty litigation. Yet, the case selection process cannot be ignored because it yields a set of cases for adjudication that is far from a random selection of cases. …

Killing The Non-Willing: Atkins, The Volitionally Incapacitated, And The Death Penalty, John Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson

John H. Blume

Jamie Wilson, nineteen years old and severely mentally ill, walked into a school cafeteria and started shooting. Two children died, and Jamie was charged with two counts of capital murder. Because he admitted his guilt, the only issue at his trial was the appropriate punishment. The trial judge assigned to his case, after hearing expert testimony on his mental state, found that mental illness rendered Jamie unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the crime—not impaired by his mental illness in his ability to control his behavior, but unable to control his behavior. …

Crime Labs And Prison Guards: A Comment On Melendez-Diaz And Its Potential Impact On Capital Sentencing Proceedings, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Four years ago, in Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that this right bars the admission of testimonial hearsay statements against criminal defendants, regardless of whether or not the statements fall within an evidentiary hearsay exception. It was a decision that other courts later described as a "bombshell," a "renaissance," and "a newly shaped lens" through which to view the Confrontation Clause. The case generated an extensive amount of discussion among legal commentators. Since its …

Fcc V. Fox Television Moot Court, Robert Barnes, Joan Biskupic, John Blume, Erwin Chemerinsky, Thomas Goldstein, Linda Greenhouse, John Mcginnis, David Savage, Paul Smith, William Van Alstyne, Timothy Zick

John H. Blume

The Bill of Rights Institute and William and Mary Law School hosted a moot court on the FCC v. Fox Television indecency case. The case rests on the FCC’s ban against the use of curse words in television broadcasts Erwin Chermerinsky and Thomas Goldstein argued the case before Joan Biskupic, Robert Barnes, John Blume, Linda Greenhouse, John McGinnis, David Savage, Paul Smith, William Van Alstyne, and Timothy Zick. After the oral argument the judgment was shown. Then the panelists responded to questions from members of the audience. This program contains language some may find offensive.