Law Commons^™

Revitalizing Fourth Amendment Protections: A True Totality Of The Circumstances Test In § 1983 Probable Cause Determinations, Ryan Sullivan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

The Article analyzes claims of police misconduct and false arrest, specifically addressing the issue of whether a police officer may ignore evidence of an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, when determining probable cause for an arrest. The inquiry most often arises in § 1983 civil claims for false arrest where the officer was aware of some evidence a crime had been committed, but was also aware of facts indicating the suspect had an affirmative defense to the crime observed. In extreme cases, the affirmative defense at issue is actually self-defense in response to the officer’s own unlawful conduct. As police …

The In Pari Delicto Defense May Bar Trustees That Bring Claims Which Are Property Of The Estate Under 11 U.S.C. § 541(A), Carmine Broccole

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The in pari delicto doctrine states that “[i]n a case of equal or mutual fault … the position of the [defending] party … is the better one.” This doctrine is guided by the premise that it is not within the purview of the court to resolve disputes among wrongdoers, and that denial of judicial relief in these instances effectively deters illegal activity. Within the bankruptcy context, “every Circuit to have considered the question has held that in pari delicto can be asserted against a trustee bringing a claim on behalf of a debtor in bankruptcy.”

Under Section 541(a)(1) of …

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor.

The …

Affirmatively Inefficient Jurisprudence?: Confusing Contractors’ Rights To Raise Affirmative Defenses With Sovereign Immunity, Steven L. Schooner, Pamela Kovacs

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In M. Maropakis Carpentry v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upset the commonly understood rules of practice and procedure for government contracts dispute litigation. In what the Supreme Court might view as a drive-by jurisdictional ruling, the court held that a contractor must file its own claim for time extensions before it can defend against a government claim for liquidated damages. Two Court of Federal Claims cases then confirmed fears that the decision would create a significant, disruptive, and disadvantageous change in procedural posture for a large number of contractors defending against government …

Rehabilitating Mental Disorder Evidence After Clark C. Arizona: Of Burdens, Presumptions, And The Rights To Raise Reasonable Doubt, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The right not to be found guilty of a crime absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a powerful right. It can be undermined, however, by rules that at first seem to have little to do with reasonable doubt or with burdens of proof.

In the recent case of Clark v. Arizona, the Supreme Court considered whether states may enact rules that categorically prohibit criminal defendants from offering mental disorder evidence for the purpose of raising reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea element of a charged offense. In Arizona law, mental disorder evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of disproving …

Race And The Doctrine Of Self Defense: The Role Of Race In Determining The Proper Use Of Force To Protect Oneself, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

License To Harass: Holding Defendants Accountable For Retaining Recidivist Harassers, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

Harassment victims who suffer a "tangible employment action," which the Supreme Court defines as a "significant change in employment status such as hiring, firing, failure to promote, reassignment, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits," enjoy unfettered recourse when they sue their employers. However, victims who do not endure what a court will deem a "tangible employment action" will have their prima facie case of harassment then rendered vulnerable to the interposition of an affirmative defense by a defendant-employer, who will escape liability if it can show "(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct …

Dealing With Harrassment In All Of Its Forms, Michael T. Zugelder, Paul J. Champagne, Steven D. Maurer

Finance Faculty Publications

Workplace harassment in its many forms presents an increasingly serious challenge for employers, in terms of legal liability and its potential negative effect on employee behavior. This article reviews workplace harassment with attention to the affirmative defense that the Supreme Court has authorized and the factors the courts have considered in deciding whether the defense has been established. That analysis in turn is applied to a discussion of specific actions organizations might take to prevent harassment and create a more positive and effective organizational environment.

Back To The Future: Does Apprendi Bar A Legislature's Power To Shift The Burden Of Proof Away From The Prosecution By Labeling An Element Of A Traditional Crime As An Affirmative Defense?, Leslie Yalof Garfield

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article considers whether it would be sound to extend the Apprendi rule to affirmative defenses. Part II of this Article considers the historical foundation of the Due Process Clause and the evolution of the assignment of the burden of proof for affirmative defenses and sentencing factors. Part II also reviews Mullaney and its progeny through the most current case, Apprendi. Part III discusses the Court's model for determining which categories of statutory language constitute elements requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt and which are "nonessential element[s] of an offense." Part IV evaluates whether it is appropriate to assign the …

The Appropriate Role Of Plaintiff Misuse In Products Liability Causes Of Action, Peter Zablotsky

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.