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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Ex Parte Communication By The Judiciary, Jay C. Carlisle Nov 1986

Ex Parte Communication By The Judiciary, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The recent establishment of an Individual Assignment System in New York has introduced what one commentator has referred to as new "rules of the game". Nonetheless, the old rules still apply with respect to ex parte communication by judges which is governed by Canon 3(A)( 4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3(A)(4), as adopted by the New York State Bar Association in 1973, prohibits a judge from initiating or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. This prohibition, which has been strictly construed by decisional law and bar association advisory opinions, has new significance under …


Attorney Loyalty And Client Perjury - A Postscript To Nix V. Whiteside, Bennett L. Gershman Jan 1986

Attorney Loyalty And Client Perjury - A Postscript To Nix V. Whiteside, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

How much, if at all, can a criminal defense lawyer cooperate in his or her client's decision to commit perjury? Courts, commentators, and bar committees have grappled with this question for years without offering clear or consistent guidelines. Any principled response must take into account some very hard questions. Under what circumstances, for instance, does the lawyer ever really "know" that his client's proposed testimony is false? Is it sufficient if the lawyer simply disbelieves his client's story, or that of his client's witnesses? Does it make any difference if the attorney learns of a plan to perjure during the …


Why Prosecutors Misbehave, Bennett L. Gershman Jan 1986

Why Prosecutors Misbehave, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The author, perhaps the nation's top authority on prosecutorial misconduct, raises and analyzes two questions: Why does this misconduct occur? (It often pays off.) And why does it continue? (There are no effective sanctions.)