Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Employment Discrimination; McDonnell; Douglas; Ortiz; Nassar; evidence; evidentiary standard; retaliation claim; burden of proof; standard; but for; causation; jurisprudence; Seventh Circuit; employee (1)
- Evidence; forensic science (1)
- Jurors; Eyewitness Identification Evidence; Judges; Expert Testimony; Judicial Discretion; New York; Accomplice Testimony; Wise And Safer Study; Legrand Test; People V. Mccullough; Corroborating Evidence; Corroboration; Wrongful Conviction (1)
- White-collar crime; Compelled testimony; Cross-border; International white-collar investigation; Financial corporations; International; Multijurisdictional; United States v. Allen; Kastigar hearing; DOJ; Department of Justice; MLAT; Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty; Taint; Taint Teams; Parallel Investigations; Future Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; Fifth Amendment; Derivative Use Immunity; Financial Conduct Authority; FCA (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The (Not-So) “Brave New World Of International Criminal Enforcement”: The Intricacies Of Multi-Jurisdictional White-Collar Investigations, Emily T. Carlson
The (Not-So) “Brave New World Of International Criminal Enforcement”: The Intricacies Of Multi-Jurisdictional White-Collar Investigations, Emily T. Carlson
Brooklyn Law Review
We have entered a new age of international white-collar crime and are seeing the growing interdependency of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and parallel foreign agencies to conduct investigations and subsequent prosecutorial proceedings. This coordination to combat these crimes, however, has revealed a troubling question—how can enforcement agencies work effectively together if they have fundamental differences in the legal authority governing testimony-gathering and what evidence is allowed before a grand jury? The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Allen, confronted this issue directly as it overturned two indictments arising out of suspected manipulation of a …
Throwing Out Junk Science: How A New Rule Of Evidence Could Protect A Criminal Defendant's Right To Confront Forensic Scientists, Michael Luongo
Throwing Out Junk Science: How A New Rule Of Evidence Could Protect A Criminal Defendant's Right To Confront Forensic Scientists, Michael Luongo
Journal of Law and Policy
As the forensic science industry grows, so do the scandals – overburdened crime labs, unverified science, corrupt analysts, and diminishing federal oversight. Given the need to ensure that valid forensic science-based evidence is used at trial, a criminal defense attorney typically has the opportunity to cross-examine the scientist who conducted the forensic analysis. However, the 2012 Supreme Court decision of Williams v. Illinois has muddied an otherwise cohesive Confrontation Clause doctrine, allowing for the admission of forensic evidence without the testimony of the forensic scientist, but with no clear holding and different interpretations about what is considered “testimonial evidence.” To …
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Brooklyn Law Review
The admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification evidence is an effective means of ensuring that juries and judges will weigh eyewitness identification evidence appropriately. The fallibility of such evidence is an increasingly well-researched and documented phenomenon in criminal law. Despite publicity of the frequency with which eyewitness identification evidence leads to wrongful convictions, studies show that jurors are often unable to properly assess the probative value of such testimony. Judges are also often unfamiliar with the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. A 2016 Court of Appeals of New York case, People v. McCullough, represented a …
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that may be a harbinger for an important shift in the federal judiciary’s long-standing employment discrimination jurisprudence. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Judge Easterbrook reiterated the frustration with the existing “rat’s nest” of tests and standards used in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The note contains two overarching arguments. First, the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination and “rat’s nest” of tests and standards has led to an untenable situation in which federal district courts apply different standards at different stages of litigations. This in turn has caused confusion amongst the various federal …