Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Fordham Law Review

2016

Discipline
Keyword

Articles 91 - 108 of 108

Full-Text Articles in Law

Are Campus Sexual Assault Tribunals Fair?: The Need For Judicial Review And Additional Due Process Protections In Light Of New Case Law, Emily D. Safko Apr 2016

Are Campus Sexual Assault Tribunals Fair?: The Need For Judicial Review And Additional Due Process Protections In Light Of New Case Law, Emily D. Safko

Fordham Law Review

The pervasiveness of sexual assault on college and university campuses and the schools’ failures to take sexual assault seriously have resulted in recent reforms to college campus disciplinary proceedings. The federal government has largely prompted this wave of reform through Title IX, requiring schools to employ particular policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating sexual assault as a condition of receiving federal funds. Although the federal government’s mandates may be properly motivated, these reforms are criticized because they encourage schools to enact procedures that are heavily stacked against those accused of sexual assault. Consequently, students alleging that they have been …

Go to article

Rethinking The Rationale(S) For Hearsay Exceptions, Stephen A. Saltzburg Mar 2016

Rethinking The Rationale(S) For Hearsay Exceptions, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

The thirty-seven principal provisions that permit out-of-court statements to be admitted for their truth under the Federal Rules of Evidence are found in Article VIII of the Rules. There are eight provisions in Rule 801(d), twenty-three provisions in Rule 803, five provisions in Rule 804 and one provision in Rule 807 that can be relied upon to admit hearsay evidence for its truth value.

Go to article

The Philip D. Reed Lecture Series: Symposium On Hearsay Reform, Panel Discussion Mar 2016

The Philip D. Reed Lecture Series: Symposium On Hearsay Reform, Panel Discussion

Fordham Law Review

This Panel Discussion was held on October 9, 2015, at John Marshall Law School. This transcript of the Panel Discussion has been lightly edited and represents the panelists’ individual views only and in no way reflects those of their affiliated firms, organizations, law schools, or the judiciary.

Go to article

The Hearsay Rule As A Rule Of Admission Revisited, Ronald J. Allen Mar 2016

The Hearsay Rule As A Rule Of Admission Revisited, Ronald J. Allen

Fordham Law Review

Now to substance. To intelligently analyze what changes to the hearsay rule should be considered, one needs to examine: first, the overall objectives of the field of evidence; second, the particular objectives of the Federal Rules of Evidence; third, how well the hearsay rule advances, or retards, those objectives; and finally, the sense and sensibility of any proposed changes.

Go to article

Prior Statements Of Testifying Witnesses: Drafting Choices To Eliminate Or Loosen The Strictures Of The Hearsay Rule, Daniel J. Capra Mar 2016

Prior Statements Of Testifying Witnesses: Drafting Choices To Eliminate Or Loosen The Strictures Of The Hearsay Rule, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

One of the panels at the Symposium on Hearsay Reform—sponsored by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules— considered whether the federal hearsay regime should be changed to provide for greater admissibility of prior statements of testifying witnesses. This Article is intended to provide some background to the questions addressed by the panel and to consider how the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Advisory Committee” or “the Committee”) might best implement an expansion of admissibility of prior witness statements should it decide that such an expansion is warranted.

Go to article

Forward Progress: A New Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction For Impeachment With Prior Inconsistent Statements Will Ease The Court’S Burden By Emphasizing The Prosecutor’S, Hugh M. Mundy Mar 2016

Forward Progress: A New Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction For Impeachment With Prior Inconsistent Statements Will Ease The Court’S Burden By Emphasizing The Prosecutor’S, Hugh M. Mundy

Fordham Law Review

In this Article, I discuss the history of Rule 801(d)(1)(A), focusing on the origins and importance of the Rule’s restrictive language. In addition, I review the current federal landscape of pattern criminal jury instructions for witness impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement. Finally, I propose a revised jury instruction designed to clarify juror confusion while maintaining the critical safeguards for substantive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements.

Go to article

On Hearsay, Richard A. Posner Mar 2016

On Hearsay, Richard A. Posner

Fordham Law Review

I need to place the remarks that follow in context. And that means I need to acknowledge a number of heresies: I don’t like legal jargon; I don’t like the complexity of legal jargon; I don’t like the legal profession’s indifference to brevity; I don’t like the tendency of lawyers and judges always to be looking to the past for answers to novel questions; and I don’t consider law to be a science or remotely like a science. I want law to be simple and commonsensical and forward-looking. I take my judicial credo from a poem by the great Irish …

Go to article

Reality Check: A Modest Modification To Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter Mar 2016

Reality Check: A Modest Modification To Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions, Liesa L. Richter

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Rules”) identify hearsay that is admissible, notwithstanding the classic hearsay prohibition, by delineating categories of hearsay statements that may be admitted into evidence. For example, “dying declarations” of now-unavailable declarants may be admitted in homicide prosecutions or civil cases. “Excited utterances” relating to a startling event also may be admitted for their truth. The purported justification for admitting certain categories of hearsay rests upon the inherent reliability of human statements uttered in certain contexts, as well as litigants’ need for crucial evidence to build cases.

Go to article

Prior Inconsistent Statements And Substantive Evidence—Federal Rule 801(D)(1)(A): The Compromise, Stephen A. Saltzburg Mar 2016

Prior Inconsistent Statements And Substantive Evidence—Federal Rule 801(D)(1)(A): The Compromise, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Fordham Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court’s version of the Rule, which it submitted to Congress in 1972, would have made all prior inconsistent statements of a witness present in court for cross-examination admissible as substantive evidence. The Court’s proposal was strongly favored by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Advisory Committee”) members who drafted the Rule. They submitted it to the Court knowing that it was consistent with the approach taken by some states and favored by authorities like John Henry Wigmore, Edmund Morgan, and Charles McCormick. But the Court’s …

Go to article

A Right Not To Marry, Kaiponanea T. Matsumura Mar 2016

A Right Not To Marry, Kaiponanea T. Matsumura

Fordham Law Review

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. Although the decision is an important milestone in the struggle for equality, it also threatens to destabilize the relationships of those who previously entered into civil unions or domestic partnerships and may, for a variety of reasons, prefer not to trade their existing status for marriage. That is because states have routinely responded to the legalization of same-sex marriage by eliminating their nonmarital statuses. Some states have terminated such statuses and have required couples to opt into marriage to continue receiving …

Go to article

Misconduct Risk, Christina Parajon Skinner Mar 2016

Misconduct Risk, Christina Parajon Skinner

Fordham Law Review

Financial misconduct and systemic risk are two critical issues in financial regulation today. However, for the past several years, financial misconduct and systemic risk have received markedly different treatment. After the global financial crisis, regulators responded to the traditional quantitative risks that banks pose—those found on their balance sheets and in their business models—with sweeping reforms on an internationally coordinated scale. Meanwhile, with respect to misconduct, regulators have reacted with a traditional enforcement approach—imposing fines and, in some cases, prosecuting individual malefactors. Yet misconduct is not only an isolated or idiosyncratic risk that can be spot treated with enforcement: misconduct …

Go to article

Using Johnson V. United States To Reframe Retroactivity For Second Or Successive Collateral Challenges, Thomas H. Gabay Mar 2016

Using Johnson V. United States To Reframe Retroactivity For Second Or Successive Collateral Challenges, Thomas H. Gabay

Fordham Law Review

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence in federal prison for persons with at least three prior “violent felony” convictions who are subsequently convicted of being in possession of a firearm. In Johnson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down one portion of this statute on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague. In addition to an enumerated list of “violent felonies” that can result in a conviction, this portion included a catchall category that defined a violent felony as a crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk …

Go to article

One Time To Sue: The Case For A Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Consumers To Sue Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Brianna Gallo Mar 2016

One Time To Sue: The Case For A Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Consumers To Sue Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Brianna Gallo

Fordham Law Review

In 1977, Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in an effort to provide injured consumers with uniform protection against the systematically abusive practices of the debt collection industry. The FDCPA created a private right of action for victims to sue; however, an individual who wishes to bring a private suit under the FDCPA must do so “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” The effectiveness of this private right of action has been unsettled due to the circuit split over the meaning of this provision. For many FDCPA violations, the debt collector might …

Go to article

Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Simple Virtues Of The Original Federal Rule, Daniel D. Blinka Mar 2016

Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Simple Virtues Of The Original Federal Rule, Daniel D. Blinka

Fordham Law Review

How well do hearsay rules function under the current Federal Rules of Evidence? One issue, dormant yet pulsating beneath the surface for decades, involves the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements by witnesses. The long-standing “orthodox” rule admitted the prior statement only to impeach the witness’s trial testimony; it could not be used as substantive evidence of the facts asserted. In 1972, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Advisory Committee” or “the Committee”) proposed an innovative rule permitting all prior inconsistent statements to be used both for impeachment and as substantive evidence—a sea change in practice. Congress, …

Go to article

The British Experience With Hearsay Reform: A Cautionary Tale, Mark S. Brodin Mar 2016

The British Experience With Hearsay Reform: A Cautionary Tale, Mark S. Brodin

Fordham Law Review

Among the proposals being considered by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Committee”) is the scrapping of the categorical exception regime for hearsay, leaving questions of reliability and admissibility ad hoc to district court judges along the lines of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 403 and 807. Over the past decades, the British have moved toward this approach, and it is the purpose of this Article to identify the lessons that can be learned from that experience, especially with regard to criminal prosecutions and the right of confrontation.

Go to article

When “Testing The Waters” Tests The Limits Of Coordination Restrictions: Revising Fec Regulations To Limit Pre-Candidacy Coordination, Marc E. Klepner Mar 2016

When “Testing The Waters” Tests The Limits Of Coordination Restrictions: Revising Fec Regulations To Limit Pre-Candidacy Coordination, Marc E. Klepner

Fordham Law Review

During the preliminary stages of the 2016 presidential election, many prospective candidates took an active role in the Super PACs that would eventually support them after they became candidates. The regulatory system in place provides clear restrictions on Super PACs’ abilities to coordinate with candidates; however, what is less clear is whether such regulations restrict the behavior of individuals during pre-candidacy, known under Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations as the “testing-the-waters” phase. This Note gives an overview of the laws and regulations governing Super PACs, as well as the regulations and FEC guidance concerning when an individual becomes a candidate. …

Go to article

The New Tate Letter: Foreign Official Immunity And The Case For A Statutory Fix, Luke Ryan Mar 2016

The New Tate Letter: Foreign Official Immunity And The Case For A Statutory Fix, Luke Ryan

Fordham Law Review

Plaintiffs sometimes bring civil lawsuits in U.S. federal courts against officials or ex-officials of foreign governments accused of committing atrocities abroad. In these types of cases, the foreign individuals will almost certainly invoke the affirmative defense of foreign official immunity. In the 2010 decision, Samantar v. Yousuf, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)—a 1976 statute governing the immunity of foreign states—did not control judicial determination of a foreign individual’s request for immunity. Instead, the Court said that foreign officials may be entitled to immunity as a matter of federal common law. Because of …

Go to article

Lawyers And The Secret Welfare State, Milan Markovic Jan 2016

Lawyers And The Secret Welfare State, Milan Markovic

Fordham Law Review

This Article suggests that the United States maintains a secret welfare state. The secret welfare state exists because of lawyers' ubiquitous use of questionable practices in representing clients before benefit-granting government agencies, which enable thousands of individuals to collect public benefits who may not qualify for them. This Article focuses in particular on lawyers' handling of evidence of nondisability in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) proceedings and participation in Medicaid planning. Although lawyers' conduct in seeking to minimize their clients' tax obligations has received substantial scrutiny, lawyers' conduct in asserting claims to public benefits has not.

Go to article

First Prev