Law Commons^™

"Once Victim, Always Victim": Compensated Individuals Under The Amended Sentencing Guidelines On Fraud, Jacqueline Harrington

Michigan Law Review

Until recently, courts disagreed over whether individuals who were compensated by a third party such as a bank or insurance company ought to count as victims for purposes of the multiple-victim sentencing enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Fraud. The most recent Amendments to the Guidelines resolve this split, permitting compensated individuals to be counted as victims where their identity was used in the commission of the fraud. However, the new Guidelines do not resolve a separate split, likely to become more divisive under the new Guidelines, over whether both compensated individuals and their compensators can simultaneously be treated …

Adequate (Non)Provocation And Heat Of Passion As Excuse Not Justification, Reid Griffith Fontaine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

For a number of reasons, including the complicated psychological makeup of reactive homicide, the heat of passion defense has remained subject to various points of confusion. One persistent issue of disagreement has been the justificatory versus excusatory nature of the defense. In this Article, I highlight and categorize a series of varied American homicide cases in which the applicability of heat of passion was supported although adequate provocation (or significant provocation by the victim) was absent. The cases are organized to illustrate how common law heat of passion may apply in instances in which there is no actual provocation or …

The Values Of Interdisciplinarity In Homicide Law Reform, Robert Weisberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Professor Reid Fontaine's article, Adequate (Non)Provocation and Heat of Passion as Excuse Not Justification, makes a convincing case for treating heat of passion wholly as an excuse not a justification, as the only sensible way to comprehend its various forms. In doing so, Professor Fontaine stimulates further thinking about heat of passion doctrine, along two dimensions.

Unjustified: The Practical Irrelevance Of The Justification/Excuse Distinction, Gabriel J. Chin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In recent decades, the distinction between justification and excuse defenses has been a favorite topic of theorists of philosophy and criminal law. Notwithstanding the impressive intellectual efforts devoted to the task, no single scholar or viewpoint appears to be on the verge of generating practical consensus about the concepts of justification and excuse, categorization of the defenses, or categorization of difficult individual cases. This Essay suggests that none of these goals can be usefully advanced through the justification/excuse distinction.

Misunderstanding Provocation, Samuel H. Pillsbury

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Provocation is and always has been a compromise rule whose success depends on its ability to appeal to all ideological constituencies, and therefore will always-as long as it lasts-resist the final categorization that this question seeks. As long as provocation involves an inquiry into reasonableness, it will include considerations of justification. As long as it provides for mitigation of punishment based on the difficulty of resisting temptations to violence inspired by strong emotion, it will speak to considerations of excuse.

How Not To Argue That Reasonable Provocation Is Not An Excuse, Peter K. Westen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Reid Fontaine draws two conclusions regarding the partial defense to murder of reasonable provocation-one regarding its substantive content, the other regarding its formal classification…. I agree with both of Fontaine's two conclusions, and, indeed, I have previously written to that effect. Unfortunately, while I agree with Fontaine's conclusions, I do not think he adequately supports them.

On Passion's Potential To Undermine Rationality: A Reply, Reid Griffith Fontaine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Reply is organized into several sections. Following the Introduction, I respond to my six distinguished commentators. In Section II, I consider Professor Chin's concern that the distinction between justification and excuse bears no practical relevance for the criminal law. In Section III, I respond to Professor Baron's argument that reasonable mistake of fact is consistent with justification-a view, she observes, that is generally reflected in the criminal law. Building on the discussion of whether mistake and justification are compatible, Section IV addresses Professor Pillsbury's treatment of heat of passion as a hybrid defense that uniquely incorporates components of both …

The Provocation Defense And The Nature Of Justification, Marcia Baron

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In this Essay, I evaluate the evidence of "adequate nonprovocation” that Fontaine puts forward to show that the heat of passion defense is decidedly an excuse (more precisely, a partial excuse). I will be focusing my remarks on the traditional heat of passion defense.

The Irreducibly Normative Nature Of Provocation/Passion, Stephen J. Morse

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I agree with Professor Fontaine that provocation/passion is best interpreted as a partial excuse, but the ground for my conclusion is normative and not analytic. Indeed, I fear that he has not made the analytic case in large part because he begs a question about failed justifications that has only a normative and not an analytic answer. This Essay first briefly provides my own understanding of provocation/ passion. In the course of doing so, I address Professor Fontaine's argument that provocation/passion should also be applied to people with provocation interpretational bias. I then turn to why Fontaine's case for …

Tattoos Of Girls Under Pimp Control & Pimp Rules For The Control Of Victims, Donna M. Hughes Dr.

Donna M. Hughes

The Unintended Consequence Of Tort Reform In Michigan: An Argument For Reinstating Retailer Product Liability, Ashley L. Thompson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Tort reform became an important issue during the 1994 Congressional Campaign as part of the Republican Party's "Contract with America. "Since then, many federal and state laws have attempted to reduce both liability and recovery in tort actions. In 1996, Michigan passed the Tort Reform Act, encompassing many drastic changes to state tort law. One provision of the Act, § 294 7, scaled back liability against non-manufacturing retailers in product liability actions. The Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the exceptions of the law narrowly and the prohibition broadly, essentially barring recovery from retailers. Since 1996, this provision has prevented victims injured …

Fault In Contract Law, Eric A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

A promisor is strictly liable for breaching a contract, according to the standard account. However, a negligence-based system of contract law can be given an economic interpretation, and this Article shows that such a system is in some respects more attractive than the strict-liability system. This may explain why, as a brief discussion of cases shows, negligence ideas continue to play a role in contract decisions.

Foreword: Fault In American Contract Law, Omri Ben-Shahar, Ariel Porat

Michigan Law Review

The basic rule of liability in tort law is fault. The basic rule of liability in contract law is no fault. This is perhaps one of the most striking divides within private law, the most important difference between the law of voluntary and nonvoluntary obligations. It is this fault line (speaking equivocally) that the present Symposium explores. Is it a real divide-two opposite branches of liability within private law-or is it merely a rhetorical myth? How can it be justified? As law-and-economics scholars, this fault/no-fault divide between contract and tort is all the more puzzling. In law and economics, legal …

"An Opportunity For Effective Cross-Examination": Limits On The Confrontation Right Of The Pro Se Defendant, Alanna Clair

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The rights of a defendant to confront his accusers and conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel are sacrosanct in the American judicial system. The rights of the defendant are even sometimes exalted at the expense of the rights of the public or of victims of crime. This Note examines the problem of a pro se defendant using his confrontation right to intimidate or harass his alleged victims testifying against him. It is well-established that the confrontation right is not unconditional. The problem comes in determining whether the courts can place limits on the confrontation right of a pro …

Rewarding Prosecutors For Performance, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Prosecutorial discretion is a problem that most scholars attack from the outside. Most scholars favor external institutional solutions, such as ex ante legislation or ex post judicial and bar review of individual cases of misconduct. At best these approaches can catch the very worst misconduct. They lack inside information and sustained oversight and cannot generate and enforce fine-grained rules to guide prosecutorial decisionmaking. The more promising alternative is to work within prosecutors' offices, to create incentives for good performance. This symposium essay explores a neglected toolbox that head prosecutors can use to influence line prosecutors: compensation and other rewards. Rewards …

Prosecuting Torturers, Protecting "Child Molesters": Toward A Power Balance Model Of Criminal Process For International Human Rights Law, Mykola Sorochinsky

Michigan Journal of International Law

In the age of terrorism, human rights law globally suffers substantial setbacks. However, at the regional level, human rights law is now more relevant than ever. More cases are decided each year by regional human rights tribunals, particularly in Europe. More importantly, human rights law affects more areas of domestic legal systems than ever before-from trademark law to limits on corporal punishment of children. This growing complexity presents two challenges: first, the challenge of comprehension (or the increasing need to make sense of the ever-expanding case law in many substantive areas) and second, the challenge of responsibility (or the fact …

Fact Suppression And The Subversion Of Capital Punishment: What Death Penalty Foes On The Supreme Court And In The Media Do Not Want The Public To Know, Lester --- Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts, aided by the media in suppressing critical information about case facts and case law, have all but abolished capital punishment, turning what's left into a costly and agonizing farce. While pretending to superlative morality, dishonesty, especially half-truth, is central to their cause. An egregious example was Roger Coleman, widely but with knowing falsity portrayed as a choir boy executed because heartless judges impatiently refused to hear evidence of his innocence. Going further, in myriad cases, death sentences are reversed or banned when guilt is not even disputed. This is achieved by focusing upon …

Choosing Those Who Will Die: The Effect Of Race, Gender, And Law In Prosecutorial Decision To Seek The Death Penalty In Durham County, North Carolina, Isaac Unah

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

District prosecutors in the United States exercise virtually unfettered power and discretion to decide which murder cases to prosecute for capital punishment. According to neoclassical theory of formal legal rationality, the process for determining criminal punishment should be based upon legal rules established and sanctioned by the state to communicate the priorities of the political community. The theory therefore argues in favor of a determinate mode of decision-making that diminishes the importance of extrinsic elements such as race and gender in the application of law. In the empirical research herein reported, I test this theory using death eligible cases in …

The Truth About Torts: Rethinking Regulatory Preemption And Its Impact On Public Health, William Buzbee, William Funk, Thomas Mcgarity, Nina A. Mendelson, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck, Matthew Shudtz

Other Publications

As consumers, we assume that the automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other products we purchase are generally safe for their intended uses. We rely on manufacturers to design and produce safe products, and we assume that federal regulators are conscientious watchdogs of the marketplace. In most instances, our assumptions are valid and we safely go about our lives. But the regulatory system is now frayed to the point that dangerous products sometimes slip through the cracks. Vioxx, Firestone/ATX tires, and toxics-laden children’s toys have endangered and harmed millions. In these cases, society depends on the state courts as a venue …