Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Strengths, Limitations, And Controversies Of Dna Evidence, Naseam Rachel Behrouzfard
Strengths, Limitations, And Controversies Of Dna Evidence, Naseam Rachel Behrouzfard
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This article explores the benefits of DNA evidence as well as the evidentiary problems associated with DNA. Part II discusses the history, development, and the emergence of DNA in the criminal justice system. Part III analyzes the significance of DNA evidence and its impact on recent cases. Part IV describes the disadvantages of DNA evidence in terms of efficiency, risks, human error, and its impact on jurors.
Dna In The Courtroom: The 21st Century Begins, James T. Griffith, Susan L. Leclair
Dna In The Courtroom: The 21st Century Begins, James T. Griffith, Susan L. Leclair
University of Massachusetts Law Review
DNA is one of the most significant discoveries in the field of forensic evidence yet it remains underutilized in the courtroom setting. This article provides an introduction to the scientific principles, structure and composition of DNA in an effort to make DNA more accessible to the judicial process.
Back To Blood: The Sociopolitics And Law Of Compulsory Dna Testing Of Refugees, Edward S. Dove
Back To Blood: The Sociopolitics And Law Of Compulsory Dna Testing Of Refugees, Edward S. Dove
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Since October 2012, certain family members of refugees seeking reunification through the United States Refugee Admissions Priority Three program must undergo DNA testing to prove they are genetically related. The putative purposes of the policy include fraud prevention, enhanced national security, and greater efficiency in refugee claims processing. Upon close inspection, however, the new policy generates significant sociopolitical and legal concerns. The notion of what constitutes a family is significantly narrowed. Required DNA testing may violate domestic laws and international human rights instruments regarding voluntary informed consent, privacy, and anti-discrimination. Traditional legal solutions insufficiently remedy these concerns and cannot prevent …
Social Networking And Student Safety: Balancing Student First Amendment Rights And Disciplining Threatening Speech, John L. Hughes Iii
Social Networking And Student Safety: Balancing Student First Amendment Rights And Disciplining Threatening Speech, John L. Hughes Iii
University of Massachusetts Law Review
As the use of social media increases and becomes an integral part of nearly every student's life, problems arise when student expression on these sites turns into threats against the school or other students, implicating both student safety and the speaker's right to free speech. Facing a lack of Supreme Court precedent, school officials need guidance on whether and how to take action when a student makes threats on social network - how to prevent any danger at school while respecting the student's right to free speech. This note develops an approach that combines the Supreme Court's Watts "true threat" …
The Discoverability Of E-Mails: The Smoking Gun Of The Modern Era, Michael J. Martin
The Discoverability Of E-Mails: The Smoking Gun Of The Modern Era, Michael J. Martin
University of Massachusetts Law Review
The discoverability of e-mails is an area of law that every modern day lawyer must be familiar with in order to avoid the risk of being sanctioned. Over the past years, courts have awarded sanctions to moving parties at a steadily increasing pace. These sanctions have included adverse jury instructions, default judgements, attorney's fees, large monetary fines, and in one instance, a jail sentence. Courts have sent the message that improper conduct will not be tolerated in this developing area of law by not hesitating to order sanctions. Thus, it is essential that modern day lawyers become acquainted with the …
Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier
Redesigning The Science Court, Justin Sevier
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
Trial By Google: Judicial Notice In The Information Age, Andrew Ferguson
Trial By Google: Judicial Notice In The Information Age, Andrew Ferguson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This Article presents a theory of judicial notice for the information age. It argues that the ease of accessing factual data on the Internet allows judges and litigants to expand the use of judicial notice in ways that raise significant concerns about admissibility, reliability, and fair process. State and federal courts are already applying the surprisingly pliant judicial notice rules to bring websites ranging from Google Maps to Wikipedia into the courtroom, and these decisions will only increase in frequency in coming years. This rapidly emerging judicial phenomenon is notable for its ad hoc and conclusory nature – attributes that …
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, B. J. Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
All Faculty Scholarship
President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement, published here, containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent …
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, Bj Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris B. Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth S. Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
Law And Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted To The President's Bioethics Commission, Owen D. Jones, Richard J. Bonnie, Bj Casey, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris B. Hoffman, Read Montague, Stephen J. Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson, Elizabeth S. Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Anthony Wagner, Gideon Yaffe
Faculty Scholarship
It has become increasingly clear that implications for criminal justice – both negative and positive – emerge from the rapid, important, and challenging developments in cognitive neuroscience, the study of how the brain thinks. Two examples will illustrate.
First, lawyers are ever more frequently bringing neuroscientific evidence into the courtroom, often in the forms of testimony about, and graphic images of, human brains. This trend has produced many new challenges for judges as they attempt to provide fair rulings on the admissibility of such technical evidence, consider its proper interpretation, and assess whether the probative value of such testimony may …
A Scientific Approach To Scientific Evidence: A Four-Stage Rule For Admissibility And Scope, Robert Sanger
A Scientific Approach To Scientific Evidence: A Four-Stage Rule For Admissibility And Scope, Robert Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
Scientific or expert testimony is often critical in criminal cases. The Supreme Court has established that the trial judge is the "gatekeeper" who is to determine what evidence is allowed before the jury. The current rules of evidence are not organized in a way that makes this task readily intelligible. This chapter proposes a more direct our-step process to accomplish the gatekeeping function.