Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson
Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson
Scott Dodson
This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.
A Modest Memoir: Justice Stevens’S Supreme Court Life, Laura K. Ray
A Modest Memoir: Justice Stevens’S Supreme Court Life, Laura K. Ray
Laura K. Ray
No abstract provided.
Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira P. Robbins
Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira P. Robbins
Ira P. Robbins
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Laura K. Ray
The standard form of authorship for a Supreme Court opinion is a single author who then may be joined by any colleagues who are in agreement. There is, however, a significant and overlooked variant of this form, one used in a small cluster of major cases, most of them landmark decisions, over the past seventy years: the jointly authored opinion. In these cases, there may be as many as nine authors signing an opinion (as in Cooper v. Aaron) or as few as two (as in McConnell v. FEC). All the signatories may be credited with the entire opinion (as …
Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialism, Brady Violations, And The Prosecutorial Organizational Culture, Hadar Aviram
Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialism, Brady Violations, And The Prosecutorial Organizational Culture, Hadar Aviram
Hadar Aviram
Recently, in Connick v. Thompson (2011), the Supreme Court held that the failure of several prosecutors to disclose to the defense the blood type of the perpetrator, which did not match the defendant’s blood type, was not a systematic defect that required training of staff. According to the Court the prosecutors’ misconduct, and lack of training in Brady discovery duties, did not constitute “deliberate indifference” by the municipality, which would have entitled the exonerated defendant to relief under §1983. This Article criticizes the decision--and Brady policies in general—for their narrowness and excessive reliance on indications of intent or bad faith. …
Excerpts From Introduction To The Jury At A Crossroad: The American Experience And Introduction To The 50th Anniversary Of 12 Angry Men, Nancy Marder
Nancy S. Marder
No abstract provided.
Batson Revisited (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder
Batson Revisited (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder
Nancy S. Marder
The twenty-fifth anniversary of Batson v. Kentucky provides an important moment to reflect on Batson and to consider how this seminal case and its progeny have affected the use and abuse of peremptory challenges. I had initially welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to peremptory challenges in Batson back in 1986. Although Batson was a compromise—preserving peremptories while seeking to address discriminatory peremptories—it had the noble goal of trying to eliminate discrimination during jury selection. I also embraced its expansion over the years. The logic of Batson was inexorable: just as prosecutors should not be permitted to use peremptories to …
The Conundrum Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Nancy S. Marder
The Conundrum Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Nancy S. Marder
Nancy S. Marder