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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 14 of 14

Full-Text Articles in Law

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora Dec 2014

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Court Of Appeals Of New York, In The Matter Of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 "Doe Law Firm" V. Spitzer, Christin Harris Nov 2014

Court Of Appeals Of New York, In The Matter Of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003 "Doe Law Firm" V. Spitzer, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Michaelides, Christin Harris Nov 2014

Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Michaelides, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin Nov 2014

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, Bronx County, People Ex Rel. Furde V. New York City Dep't Of Correction, Adam D'Antonio Nov 2014

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People Ex Rel. Furde V. New York City Dep't Of Correction, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Rivette, Michele Kligman Nov 2014

Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Rivette, Michele Kligman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan Nov 2014

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman Jun 2014

Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan May 2014

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Unconstitutionality And The Rule Of Wide-Open Cross-Examination: Encroaching On The Fifth Amendment When Examining The Accused, Ronald L. Carlson, Michael S. Carlson Apr 2014

Unconstitutionality And The Rule Of Wide-Open Cross-Examination: Encroaching On The Fifth Amendment When Examining The Accused, Ronald L. Carlson, Michael S. Carlson

Scholarly Works

When Georgia adopted a new evidence code on January 1, 2013, it embraced the rule on scope of cross-examination which local courts have traditionally followed. This is the wide-open rule which permits the cross-examiner to range across the entire case, no matter how limited the direct exam. Subjects foreign to the direct can be freely explored, limited only by the rule of relevancy.

Commentators have associated the majority, more limited cross-examination methodology with American jurisprudence and the wide-ranging approach with English courts. Reflecting this divide, the Supreme Court of South Dakota recognized "two principal schools of thought" when it comes …


Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein Mar 2014

Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

All Faculty Scholarship

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become a …


Evidence And The Pursuit Of Truth In The Law, Jeffery L. Johnson Mar 2014

Evidence And The Pursuit Of Truth In The Law, Jeffery L. Johnson

Jeffery L Johnson

Lawyers should be much more concerned with the concepts of truth and evidence. The entire profession depends on truth. It is what police detectives, District Attorneys, juries, trial judges, appellate judges, and academic lawyers offering interpretive theories, are all concerned with. But, since truth is seldom apparent on its sleeve, these legal actors are equally dependent on evidence as the only(?) reliable(?) means of determining truth. I defend a commonsensical theory of [good] evidence. I argue that this view, inference to the best explanation, captures most, if not all, of a lawyer’s appeal to evidence. It is far from clear, …


The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In Bankruptcy And The Plight Of The Debtor, Timothy R. Tarvin Feb 2014

The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In Bankruptcy And The Plight Of The Debtor, Timothy R. Tarvin

Timothy R Tarvin

An innocent debtor, who is either ignorant of her constitutional right to the privilege against self-incrimination or ineffectual in asserting it, may find herself wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in a criminal matter, due to unwitting complicity in the delivery of testimony or documents in her bankruptcy case. This lack of understanding poses a serious risk to debtors, and especially affects the increasing number of pro se debtors in bankruptcy.
The privilege extends to debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. However, a debtor who fails to properly invoke the privilege waives her rights. This possibility is made more probable because there is no …


Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean Feb 2014

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …