Law Commons^™

Lawyer Speech In The Regulatory State, Renee Newman Knake

Fordham Law Review

A lawyer’s speech as advisor and advocate not only holds First Amendment value for the client and for the public, but also for the functioning of American democracy. This is supported both by foundational values undergirding the First Amendment as well as Supreme Court doctrine. This Article builds upon that analysis to posit that lawyers for the regulatory state ought not to be treated as government employees for purposes of the First Amendment when engaged in speech about workplace conditions related to curbing abuse of power, corruption, or other illegality. While this position runs counter to the existing precedent of …

Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston

Fordham Law Review

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial in criminal cases. While the Court articulated a number of interests relevant to representational competence, it left to states the difficult task of formulating an actual competence standard. This Article offers the first examination and assessment of the constitutionality of state standards post-Edwards. It reveals that seven states have endorsed a representational competence standard with a communication component. Additionally, twenty states have embraced vague, capacious standards that could consider communication skills. In applying these standards, states …

Guns And Drugs, Benjamin Levin

Fordham Law Review

This Article argues that the increasingly prevalent critiques of the War on Drugs apply to other areas of criminal law. To highlight the broader relevance of these critiques, this Article uses as its test case the criminal regulation of gun possession. This Article identifies and distills three lines of drug war criticism and argues that they apply to possessory gun crimes in much the same way that they apply to drug crimes. Specifically, this Article focuses on: (1) race- and class-based critiques; (2) concerns about police and prosecutorial power; and (3) worries about the social and economic costs of mass …

Oh, Won't You Stay With Me?: Determining Whether § 3 Of The Faa Requires A Stay In Light Of Katz V. Cellco Partnership, Alessandra Rose Johnson

Fordham Law Review

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides the legal framework to render international and interstate arbitration agreements judicially enforceable in the United States. In furtherance of that goal, it provides that, if a party initiates litigation rather than arbitration of an arbitrable dispute, either party may request that the court stay the litigation pending resolution in an arbitration proceeding. The U.S. courts of appeals are currently split as to whether § 3 of the FAA requires a court under these circumstances to stay the action or whether the court has the discretion to dismiss the action altogether. In Katz v. Cellco …

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.

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, …

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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 …

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 …

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 …

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. …

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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 …

Containing The Uncontainable: Drawing Rico’S Border With The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, Miranda Lievsay

Fordham Law Review

In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court created a two-step test governing the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically altering the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). While courts widely agree that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts vehemently disagree about the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is appropriately domestic or impermissibly foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, its legislative history, and the evolution of its extraterritorial application in Morrison’s …

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 …

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.

Historians And The New Originalism: Contextualism, Historicism, And Constitutional Meaning, Martin S. Flaherty

Fordham Law Review

    Toward that end, this Foreword addresses three matters. First, it considers why the use of history in constitutional interpretation is inescapable. Next, it suggests that the Essays in this forum do not go far enough in debunking the idea of “public meaning” originalism as a serious alternative to previous approaches. Finally, the balance of this Foreword reviews the also perhaps inescapable misuses of history that constitutional interpretation invites and considers the type of misuse that public meaning originalism represents.

Historicism And Holism: Failures Of Originalist Translation, Jonathan Gienapp

Fordham Law Review

    For as long as the U.S. Constitution has existed, Americans have appealed to the history of its creation to interpret its meaning. But only since the advent of originalism—the well-known constitutional theory that requires interpreting the Constitution today in accordance with its original meaning—has historical study been so immediately implicated by constitutional interpretation. Despite potential, though, for meaningful exchange between originalists and historians, little has taken place. That originalism plays an ever-growing role in contemporary political culture only makes the lack of dialogue all the more unfortunate.

Outsourcing The Law: History And The Disciplinary Limits Of Constitutional Reasoning, Helen Irving

Fordham Law Review

    Debates about the use of history in constitutional interpretation find their primary nourishment in the originalism debate. This has generated a vast amount of literature, but also narrowed the terms of the debate. Originalism is a normative commitment wrapped in a questionable methodological confidence. Regardless of the multiple forms originalism takes, originalists are confident that the meaning (in the sense of intention) that animated the framing of the Constitution can be ascertained and, indeed, that they can ascertain it. The debate has largely focused, then, on whether modern-day scholars and jurists can ascertain original historical meaning or, alternatively, whether they …

Behind Enemy Phone Lines: Insider Trading, Parallel Enforcement, And Sharing The Fruits Of Wiretaps, Alexandra N. Mogul

Fordham Law Review

    Two key trends were present in the successful prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam and his coconspirators in one of the largest insider-trading conspiracies in history: the use of wiretaps to investigate and prosecute insider trading and a joint effort between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct the investigation. Despite the close working relationship between the DOJ and the SEC, the DOJ never disclosed the fruits of the wiretaps to the SEC, presumably due to its belief that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended, the …

Disruptive Technology And Securities Regulation, Chris Brummer

Fordham Law Review

    Nowhere has disruptive technology had a more profound impact than in financial services—and yet nowhere do academics and policymakers lack a coherent theory of the phenomenon more, much less a coherent set of regulatory prescriptions. Part of the challenge lies in the varied channels through which innovation upends market practices. Problems also lurk in the popular assumption that securities regulation operates against the backdrop of stable market gatekeepers like exchanges, broker-dealers, and clearing systems—a fact scenario increasingly out of sync in twenty-first-century capital markets.

    This Article explains how technological innovation “disrupts” not only capital markets but also the exercise of …

Tone Deaf To The Past: More Qualms About Public Meaning Originalism, Jack Rakove

Fordham Law Review

    With some apologies for a vast degree of oversimplification, let us stipulate that there are two main forms of originalism. One is known as “semantic” or “public meaning” originalism. Its leading advocates include Lawrence Solum, Keith Whittington, and Randy Barnett (professional friends, all). The leading premise of semantic originalism is that the meaning of the constitutional text—or, more specifically, of its individual clauses—was fixed at the moment of its adoption. Under this view, the goal of constitutional interpretation is to recover that original meaning, and the best way to do that pivots on reconstructing how an informed reader, whether a …

(Don't) Take Another Little Piece Of My Immunity, Baby: The Application Of Agency Principles To Claims Of Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Daniel P. Roy Iii

Fordham Law Review

    This Note examines the split among the federal circuit courts regarding the application of agency principles to claims of foreign sovereign immunity. Specifically, a minority of courts have applied the doctrine of apparent authority in determining whether a sovereign is bound by the acts of its agents. The majority of courts have, however, declined to apply the doctrine, holding that only actual authority is sufficient to bind sovereigns to their agents’ acts. This Note examines the policy ramifications of the minority view through the lens of sovereign debt litigation, especially those conducted by so-called vulture funds, and ultimately concludes that …

“To Assemble Together For Their Common Good”: History, Ethnography, And The Original Meanings Of The Rights Of Assembly And Speech, Saul Cornell

Fordham Law Review

    The Whiskey Rebellion is not generally a major focus in constitutional histories or casebooks. Given this fact, it is hardly surprising that the 1795 case Respublica v. Montgomery seldom figures as more than a minor footnote in scholarly writing about early American constitutional development, if it receives any attention at all. The case has little precedential value for modern First Amendment doctrine and only obliquely implicates larger jurisprudential questions about the rights of assembly and freedom of expression. In strictly doctrinal terms, Montgomery is primarily about the obligation of a justice of the peace to put down a riot, not …