Law Commons^™

The Forensic Interviewer At Trial: Guidelines For The Admission And Scope Of Expert Testimony Concerning A Forensic Interview In A Case Of Child Abuse (Revised And Expanded), Victor I. Vieth

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Can't Trust Everything On The Internet: A Look Into Texas' And Maryland's Approach Of Social Media Authentication, Danielle Orr

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

If unauthenticated evidence is admitted into the court's record, and makes a defendant’s charge more probable, that defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to life and liberty have been violated. Social media evidence, due to the ease of hacking and catfishing, can be unreliable, thus Maryland and Texas have led the way, with two respective approaches, on how to handle such evidence. Maryland, with its proscribed three authentication methods, has a less trusting view of social media, and realizes the dangers wrongfully entered evidence may have on a defendant’s due process. Alternatively, Texas has not heighten scrutiny on social media …

West Mesa Murders Informational Website, Olivia Jackman, Lauren Hunter

Spectrum

No abstract provided.

State V. Doyle, 235 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2020), Rebekkah Ruth Nardi Stoeckler

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

The Reliability Of Statements Made For Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment: A Medical – Legal Analysis Of A Hearsay Exception, 54 Uic L. Rev. 679 (2021), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Would You Say That? Addressing Systemic Injustice In The Evidentiary Standard For Opposing Party Statements, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2021), Hugh Mundy, L. Alexandra Mcdonald

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

A Monopoly Of Thought—How Growing Anticompetitive Practices On The Internet Affect Creative Work, Laurel Brown

Seattle University Law Review

This Note will address how dominant Internet companies detrimentally impact creative work and how legal solutions might be employed to combat the damage inflicted by online monopolies. Part I will focus on how certain Internet companies became dominant, showing an evolution from egalitarian ideals to the consolidated control of the World Wide Web (the web) by companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. In Part II, this Note will focus on how two particular companies—Google and Facebook—affect creative endeavors in their control of access to audiences and by determining the economics of content production on the Internet. Part III details what …

Comment: Wysiati And False Confessions, Michael R. Hoernlein

Washington and Lee Law Review

Decades after the Supreme Court mandated in Miranda v. Arizona that police advise suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation, confusion remains about the contours of the rule, and some law enforcement officers still try to game the system. In his excellent Note, “No Earlier Confession to Repeat”: Seibert, Dixon, and Question-First Interrogations, Lee Brett presents a careful analysis of the legal landscape applicable to so-called question-first interrogations. Mr. Brett offers a compelling argument urging courts not to interpret Bobby v. Dixon as limiting the application of Missouri v. Seibert to two-step (i.e., question-first) interrogations only when …

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

The Confusion Of Mcdonnell Douglas: A Path Forward For Reverse Discrimination Claims, Christian Joshua Myers

Seattle University Law Review

It is no secret that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. Fiercely debated and enacted during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Title VII prohibits employers from engaging in various forms of discrimination within the workplace. For instance, employers may not unlawfully consider race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment decisions. Given Bostock v. Clayton County’s recent extension of Title VII’s protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer workers, this Article posits that evaluating Caucasian workers’ “reverse …

Systemic Racism And Immigration Detention, Carrie L. Rosenbaum

Seattle University Law Review

The denouement of the Trump presidency was a white supremacist coup attempt against a backdrop of public reawakening to the persistence of institutionalized racism. Though the United States has entered a new administration with a leader that expresses his commitment to ending institutionalized racism, the United States continues to imprison Central American and Mexican immigrants at the southern border. If the majority of the people in immigration jails at the border are Latinx, does immigration law disparately impact them, and do they have a right to equal protection? If they do, would equal protection protect them? This Article explores whether …

“No Earlier Confession To Repeat”: Seibert, Dixon, And Question-First Interrogations, Lee S. Brett

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Missouri v. Seibert forbade the use of so-called question-first interrogations. In a question-first interrogation, police interrogate suspects without giving Miranda warnings. Once the suspect makes incriminating statements, the police give the warnings and induce the suspect to repeat their earlier admissions.

Lower courts are increasingly interpreting a per curiam Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, to significantly limit the scope and applicability of Seibert. These courts claim that postwarning statements need only be suppressed under Seibert when there is an “earlier confession to repeat.” In this Note, I argue that this reading …

State V. Medina, 222 A.3d 1246 (R.I. 2020), Brendan Horan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Not An Ocean Away, Only A Moment Away: A Prosecutor's Primer For Obtaining Remotely Stored Data, Robert J. Peters, Alicia D. Loy, Matthew Osteen, Joseph Remy, Justin Fitzsimmons

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …

Confronting The Biased Algorithm: The Danger Of Admitting Facial Recognition Technology Results In The Courtroom, Gabrielle M. Haddad

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

From unlocking an iPhone to Facebook “tags,” facial recognition technology has become increasingly commonplace in modern society. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and call for police reform in the United States, it is important now more than ever to consider the implications of law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. A study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that facial recognition algorithms generated higher rates of false positives for Black faces—sometimes up to one hundred times more false identifications—than white faces. Given the embedded bias of this technology and its increased prevalence, the …