Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administration of criminal justice (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- DNA fingerprinting--Law and legislation (1)
- Due process of law (1)
- Equality (1)
-
- Evidence (1)
- Executive privilege (Government information) (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Judicial error (1)
- Judicial process (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Jurors—Attitudes (1)
- National security (1)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (1)
- Political questions and judicial power (1)
- Post-conviction remedies (1)
- Race discrimination (1)
- Right of privacy (1)
- Security classification (Government documents) (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses
From the criminal trial of Aaron Burr on charges of treason to modern-day litigation involving the CIA, the state secrets privilege presents a thorny issue for federal judges. Judge Trenga examines the legal issues at the heart of this privilege—separation of powers, non-justiciability, evidentiary privilege, national security interests, and military secrets—and the two primary doctrinal tracks judges invoke. Then, based on interviews with thirty-one federal judges, Judge Trenga offers insights into how judges think about applying the state secrets privilege to sensitive material.
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Darryl K. Brown, Robert P. Burns, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar, Jessica L. West
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Darryl K. Brown, Robert P. Burns, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar, Jessica L. West
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Dna And Distrust, Kerry Abrams, Brandon L. Garrett
Dna And Distrust, Kerry Abrams, Brandon L. Garrett
Faculty Scholarship
Over the past three decades, government regulation and funding of DNA testing has reshaped the use of genetic evidence across various fields, including criminal law, family law, and employment law. Courts have struggled with questions of when and whether to treat genetic evidence as implicating individual rights, policy trade-offs, or federalism problems. We identify two modes of genetic testing: identification testing, used to establish a person’s identity, and predictive testing, which seeks to predict outcomes for a person. Judges and lawmakers have often drawn a bright line at predictive testing, while allowing uninhibited identity testing. The U.S. Supreme Court in …
Criminal Adjudication, Error Correction, And Hindsight Blind Spots, Lisa Kern Griffin
Criminal Adjudication, Error Correction, And Hindsight Blind Spots, Lisa Kern Griffin
Faculty Scholarship
Concerns about hindsight in the law typically arise with regard to the bias that outcome knowledge can produce. But a more difficult problem than the clear view that hindsight appears to provide is the blind spot that it actually has. Because of the conventional wisdom about error review, there is a missed opportunity to ensure meaningful scrutiny. Beyond the confirmation biases that make convictions seem inevitable lies the question whether courts can see what they are meant to assess when they do look closely for error. Standards that require a retrospective showing of materiality, prejudice, or harm turn on what …