Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interpreting The Phrase "Newly Discovered Evidence": May Previously Unavailable Exculpatory Testimony Serve As The Basis For A Motion For A New Trial Under Rule 33?, Mary Ellen Brennan
Interpreting The Phrase "Newly Discovered Evidence": May Previously Unavailable Exculpatory Testimony Serve As The Basis For A Motion For A New Trial Under Rule 33?, Mary Ellen Brennan
Fordham Law Review
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a federal court to grant a new trial to a criminal defendant if the “interest of justice so requires,” specifying as one potential basis the availability of “newly discovered evidence.” The federal circuit courts have disagreed as to whether postconviction testimony proffered by a codefendant who had remained silent at trial may serve as the basis for a Rule 33 motion grounded on newly discovered evidence. A majority of the federal circuits, including, most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have held that, while a codefendant’s …
On The Face Of It? Establishing Jurisdiction On Claims To Compel Arbitration Under Section 4 Of The Faa, Leda Moloff
On The Face Of It? Establishing Jurisdiction On Claims To Compel Arbitration Under Section 4 Of The Faa, Leda Moloff
Fordham Law Review
Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act enables a party with an arbitration agreement to bring suit to compel arbitration if the dispute between parties is brought in court. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are split over how to establish jurisdiction when faced with a claim to compel arbitration. The disagreement centers on whether the court may “look through” to the underlying claim between parties to establish jurisdiction or whether establishment of jurisdiction must comply with the well-pleaded complaint rule, a rule requiring the petitioner to state the reason for jurisdiction on the face of their complaint to compel arbitration. …