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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Rhetoric Of Predictability: Reclaiming The Lay Ear In Music Copyright Infringement Litigation, Austin Padgett Dec 2008

The Rhetoric Of Predictability: Reclaiming The Lay Ear In Music Copyright Infringement Litigation, Austin Padgett

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Some things cannot be described. This is the theory that recent literary criticism has placed as its cornerstone. Philosopher-critic Roland Barthes identified this trend in his Mythologies, stating that critics often “suddenly decide that the true subject of criticism is ineffable, and criticism, as a consequence, unnecessary. Unfortunately, this view has become singular within the legal academy whenever an author discusses music copyright infringement analysis. It seems that scholars fear the thought of trusting a jury with such an “ineffable” subject as music and must propose alternatives, such as expert testimony, specialized courts, or mechanical analysis, that will diminish …


Judicial Fact-Finding At Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas Dec 2008

Judicial Fact-Finding At Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

This encyclopedia entry summarizes the pendulum-swings that led the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and United States v. Booker to limit judges' ability to find facts at sentencing. Paradoxically, the much-criticized Federal Sentencing Guidelines have survived; a line of cases that began as an effort to restore juries' role has turned into a guarantor of judicial discretion; and the doctrine has quickly moved far from its Sixth Amendment roots to a policy balancing test. The Court could instead have pursued a different, more fruitful path. The Court did not have to force sentencing factors into …


Judicial Nullification? Judicial Compliance And Non-Compliance With Jury Improvement Efforts, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor Jul 2008

Judicial Nullification? Judicial Compliance And Non-Compliance With Jury Improvement Efforts, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Many jury trial procedures and practices are left to "the sound discretion of the trial court." This discretion provides judges with flexibility to meet the individual needs of each trial. Using information from the State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts, this article documents the extent to which trial judges exercise that discretion with respect to trial procedures and practices designed to improve jury comprehension, performance, and satisfaction. It describes legal, cultural, and case-specific factors that contribute to jurisdictional variation in the use of these procedures and practices, including judicial non-compliance with prohibited and mandatory practices. Finally, it discusses whether judicial …


The Demise Of The Law-Finding Jury In America And The Birth Of American Legal Science: History And Its Challenge For Contemporary Society, Jonathan R. Lahn Jun 2008

The Demise Of The Law-Finding Jury In America And The Birth Of American Legal Science: History And Its Challenge For Contemporary Society, Jonathan R. Lahn

Jonathan R Lahn

Today we take for granted the division of labor in the courtroom whereby judges have the exclusive authority to determine the law applicable to a given case, while juries decide questions of fact. Yet this strict separation of powers did not become a fact of American legal life until the mid-19th Century, and was not recognized by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional principle until the 1890s. Legal historians, while certainly aware of the tradition of the law-finding jury in early American legal practice, have thus far failed to fully explore its significance as a reflection of early …


Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein May 2008

Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein

San Diego International Law Journal

Parliament enacted a statute in 1996 intended to limit the double jeopardy bar in some situations in which the defendant obtained an acquittal through improper means, thereby permitting the government to retry the person for the same offense of which he previously was tried and acquitted. The statute, part of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, allows a retrial when an individual's acquittal was tainted, which, under the statute, means an acquittal resulting from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror, witness, or potential witness. In allowing a retrial in such circumstances, the statute creates an exception to the …


Truth And Innocence Procedures To Free Innocent Persons: Beyond The Adversarial System, Tim Bakken May 2008

Truth And Innocence Procedures To Free Innocent Persons: Beyond The Adversarial System, Tim Bakken

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Through innocent pleas and innocence procedures, this Article urges a fundamental change to the adversarial system to minimize the risk that factually innocent persons will be convicted of crimes. The current system, based on determining whether the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, results in acquittals of guilty persons when evidence is sparse and convictions of innocent persons when evidence is abundant. It might be easier philosophically to accept that guilty persons will go free than to know that some innocent persons will be convicted and imprisoned, especially in the American justice system where erroneous jury verdicts based …


Providing A Safe Harbor For Those Who Play By The Rules: The Case For A Strong Regulatory Compliance Defense, Richard C. Ausness, H. Lee Barfield, David A. King, Joshua R. Denton, Stephen J. Jasper Jan 2008

Providing A Safe Harbor For Those Who Play By The Rules: The Case For A Strong Regulatory Compliance Defense, Richard C. Ausness, H. Lee Barfield, David A. King, Joshua R. Denton, Stephen J. Jasper

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On September 25, 2003, a fire broke out at the National Health Care (NHC) nursing home facility in Nashville, Tennessee, causing sixteen deaths and a number of injuries from smoke inhalation. Thirty-two victims subsequently filed suit against the nursing home, alleging that NHC was negligent for failing to install sprinklers in its facility. This claim was made notwithstanding the fact that applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations did not require the installation of sprinklers in this particular type of building, and notwithstanding that the NHC facility had been inspected by state fire inspectors just months before the fire and …


Criminal Law And The Pursuit Of Equality, Donald Braman Jan 2008

Criminal Law And The Pursuit Of Equality, Donald Braman

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article argues that, to make their vision of justice a reality, egalitarians need to change both their focus and their tactics with respect to criminal law. The tragedy of contemporary criminal justice is not that individual rights are too narrowly construed, but that those living in disadvantaged communities are injured both by crime and counter-productive law enforcement. The remedies that egalitarians have historically looked to - remedies articulated within the framework of individual rights - are poorly suited to address the systematic reproduction of inequality that results.

First, egalitarians will need to shift their focus from the racially motivated …


Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe: Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Dan Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Don Braman Dec 2007

Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe: Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Dan Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Don Braman

David A Hoffman

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to …