The Missing Algorithm: Safeguarding Brady Against The Rise Of Trade Secrecy In Policing, 2021 University of Michigan Law School
The Missing Algorithm: Safeguarding Brady Against The Rise Of Trade Secrecy In Policing, Deborah Won
Michigan Law Review
Trade secrecy, a form of intellectual property protection, serves the important societal function of promoting innovation. But as police departments across the country increasingly rely on proprietary technologies like facial recognition and predictive policing tools, an uneasy tension between due process and trade secrecy has developed: to fulfill Brady’s constitutional promise of a fair trial, defendants must have access to the technologies accusing them, access that trade secrecy inhibits. Thus far, this tension is being resolved too far in favor of the trade secret holder—and at too great an expense to the defendant. The wrong balance has been ...
Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, 2021 Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law
Evidentiary Policies Through Other Means: The Disparate Impact Of “Substantive Law” On The Distribution Of Errors Among Racial Groups, Gustavo Ribeiro
Utah Law Review
This Article develops an analytical framework to investigate novel ways in which legal reforms disguised as “substantive” can affect procedural due process safeguards differently among racial groups. Scholars have long recognized the impact evidence rules have on substantive policies, such as modifying primary incentives or affecting the distribution of legal entitlements in society. However, legal scholars have not paid enough attention to the reverse effect: how changes in “substantive law” influence policy objectives traditionally associated with evidence law—“evidentiary policies.”
To fill this gap, this Article discusses three related evidentiary policies. The first is accuracy, which courts and scholars consider ...
Can Speech Act Theory Save Notice Pleading?, 2021 Northwestern University School of Law
Can Speech Act Theory Save Notice Pleading?, Susan E. Provenzano
Indiana Law Journal
Countless scholars have debated—and lower courts have attempted to apply—the plausibility pleading regime that the Supreme Court introduced in Twombly and Iqbal. Iqbal took Twombly’s requirement that a complaint plead plausibly and turned it into a two-step test. Under that test, the life or death of a lawsuit rests on the distinction between “well-pleaded” and “conclusory” allegations. Only the former are assumed true on a motion to dismiss. Seven decades of pleading precedent had taken a sensible, if unstable, approach to the truth assumption, making a single cut between factual contentions (assumed true) and legal conclusions (ignored ...
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, 2021 Brooklyn Law School
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
Journal of Law and Policy
Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test. With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.
Rejecting ‘Unjustified’ Rejection: Why Family Courts Should Exclude Parental Alienation Experts, 2021 Boston College Law School
Rejecting ‘Unjustified’ Rejection: Why Family Courts Should Exclude Parental Alienation Experts, Alyssa G. Rao
Boston College Law Review
Parental alienation is a controversial and disputed proposed mental disorder whereby children unjustifiably reject one parent because of the other parent’s influence. One parent often raises parental alienation in family court when the other parent makes an accusation of domestic abuse. Despite appearing in the legal discourse, no professional organization officially recognizes either parental alienation or the related concept of parental alienation syndrome, the original anti-feminist theory from which parental alienation derives. Domestic violence advocates staunchly criticize both “disorders” because the theories can undercut legitimate and concerning abuse allegations. Nonetheless, courts invite such experts into the courtroom to aid ...
Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, 2021 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
Rather than expressing a view on the issues raised and ably briefed by the parties, amicus submits this brief to inform the Court of the scholarly research she has conducted regarding Section 1782 proceedings since this Court’s seminal decision in Intel. As Section 1782 applications have proliferated, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Intel factors as this Court had envisioned. Especially in the context of Section 1782 applications submitted by parties to an international proceeding (as opposed to those made by the international tribunal itself), lower courts have frequently found themselves unable to analyze and apply the ...
Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., 2021 Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Enock Kahale & 3 Others V The People  Zmca 26, 2021 University of Buckingham (Emeritus)
Enock Kahale & 3 Others V The People  Zmca 26, John Hatchard
SAIPAR Case Review
In both criminal and civil cases, the general rule is that a witness may only testify as to matters of fact of which they have personal knowledge. Thus, a witness may not draw inferences from the facts, speculate about the causes of the facts or make value judgments about those facts. The case of Kahale is unusual in that the expert who was required to give evidence, i.e., the ballistics expert, did not do so whilst PW7, a non-expert, was permitted to give evidence that required an expert in the relevant field. There was therefore a complete absence of ...
A Comparative Examination Of Police Interrogation Of Criminal Suspects In Australia, Canada, England And Wales, New Zealand, And The United States, Carol A. Brook, Bruno Fiannaca, David Harvey, Paul Marcus, Renee Pomerance, Paul Roberts
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The interrogation process is central to the investigation and resolution of criminal matters throughout the world. It is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of comparative criminal procedure to study and appreciate the different approaches to the interrogation process in different nations. This Article developed through a series of conversations between six international criminal justice professionals— practicing attorneys, scholars, and judges—regarding the interrogation practices and rules in their respective countries. Providing a comparative look at this important area, this Article examines the applicable practices and procedures in the common law nations of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and ...
Chimerism And Mosaicism: The Fallibility Of Dna Evidence, 2021 Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Chimerism And Mosaicism: The Fallibility Of Dna Evidence, Robert Ellis-Liang
Child and Family Law Journal
No abstract provided.
#Wetoo, 2021 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
#Wetoo, Kimberly Kessler Ferzan
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
The #MeToo movement has caused a widespread cultural reckoning over sexual violence, abuse, and harassment. “Me too” was meant to express and symbolize that each individual victim was not alone in their experiences of sexual harm; they added their voice to others who had faced similar injustices. But viewing the #MeToo movement as a collection of singular voices fails to appreciate that the cases that filled our popular discourse were not cases of individual victims coming forward. Rather, case after case involved multiple victims, typically women, accusing single perpetrators. Victims were believed because there was both safety and strength in ...
Level The Playing Field: Advocating For The Removal Of Major League Baseball’S Prohibition On The Admissibility Of Statcast-Generated Sabermetrics As Evidence In Salary Arbitration Hearings, 2021 Pepperdine University
Level The Playing Field: Advocating For The Removal Of Major League Baseball’S Prohibition On The Admissibility Of Statcast-Generated Sabermetrics As Evidence In Salary Arbitration Hearings, Christian Podest
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
This paper argues that Major League Baseball should amend its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to remove the outright ban on certain types of statistical evidence to help prove a player’s value. First, the paper briefly describes the history of the compensation system in the MLB and its evolution. Then, it details how final offer arbitration became the default mechanism for resolving compensation disputes between teams and players. The paper subsequently focuses on the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s carve-out of statistical evidence and notes the similarities and differences between Major League Baseball’s evidentiary standards governing salary arbitration hearings and ...
Science And Law: The Quest For The Neutral Expert Witness. A View From The Trenches, Carl B. Meyer
Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law
No abstract provided.
The Attorney-Client Privilege And Former Employees, 2021 The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
The Attorney-Client Privilege And Former Employees, Douglas R. Richmond
Catholic University Law Review
Attorney-client relationships are infused with confidentiality, and the attorney-client privilege is critical to the protection of sensitive and important communications between clients and their lawyers. Organizational clients, like individuals, are entitled to assert the attorney-client privilege concerning communications that fall within its scope.
In the organizational context, a common problem is determining who among the entity’s employees speaks on its behalf, such that communications between the entity’s lawyers and those employees may be protected against discovery by the organization’s adversaries and other third parties. And, of course, as organizations experience the inevitable turnover in their workforces, another ...
The Absence Or Misuse Of Statistics In Forensic Science As A Contributor To Wrongful Convictions: From Pattern Matching To Medical Opinions About Child Abuse, Keith A. Findley
Dickinson Law Review
The new scrutiny that has been applied to the forensic sciences since the emergence of DNA profiling as the gold standard three decades ago has identified numerous concerns about the absence of a solid scientific footing for most disciplines. This article examines one of the lesser-considered problems that afflicts virtually all of the pattern-matching (or “individualization”) disciplines (largely apart from DNA), and even undermines the validity of other forensic disciplines like forensic pathology and medical determinations about child abuse, particularly Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT). That problem is the absence or misuse of statistics. This article begins ...
Do You See What I See? The Science Behind Utah Rule Of Evidence 617, 2021 S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
Do You See What I See? The Science Behind Utah Rule Of Evidence 617, Louisa Heiny
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
Eyewitness identifications play a key role in many investigations and are often central to a prosecutor’s case. At the same time, eyewitness identifications can be tainted, accidentally or purposely, thus tainting the justice system as well. There are myriad reasons for this phenomenon, but the primary responsibility lies not with the witness, but rather a system that fails to recognize, and often amplifies, mistakes and assumptions in the identification process.
Scientific Gerrymandering & Bifurcation, 2021 Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Scientific Gerrymandering & Bifurcation, Katrina F. Kuh, Megan Edwards, Frederick A. Mcdonald
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Environmental litigation must often examine the propriety of corporate conduct in areas of scientific complexity. In the second generation of climate nuisance suits, for example, allegations of corporate participation in the climate disinformation campaign are woven into plaintiffs’ claims. Toxic tort suits, currently and most notably in the Roundup and PFAS litigation, present another area of environmental litigation grappling with the legal ramifications of alleged corporate deception about scientific information. Toxic tort suits often surface allegations, and in many cases disturbing evidence, of what we term corporate “scientific gerrymandering”— corporate efforts to finesse, slow, or even mislead scientific understanding of ...
Continuous Burdens Of Proof, 2021 University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law
Continuous Burdens Of Proof, Mark Spottswood
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
What Telling Of A Survivor's Story Will Finally Force A Remedy? Notes On A Silencing By Lacy Crawford And Is Rape A Crime? A Memoir, An Investigation, And A Manifesto By Michelle Bowdler, 2021 DePaul University College of Law, USA
What Telling Of A Survivor's Story Will Finally Force A Remedy? Notes On A Silencing By Lacy Crawford And Is Rape A Crime? A Memoir, An Investigation, And A Manifesto By Michelle Bowdler, Jody Raphael
Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence
No abstract provided.
The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), 2021 University of Michigan Law School
The Liar’S Mark: Character And Forfeiture In Federal Rule Of Evidence 609(A)(2), Jesse Schupack
Michigan Law Review
Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an outlier. The Rule mandates admission of impeaching evidence of a witness’s past convictions for crimes of dishonesty. It is the only place in the Rules where judges are denied their usual discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. This Note analyzes three assumptions underlying this unusual Rule: (1) that there is a coherently definable category of crimes of dishonesty, (2) that convictions for crimes of dishonesty are uniquely probative of a person’s character, and (3) that an ...