Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (190)
- University of Michigan Law School (25)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (5)
- University of Colorado Law School (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
-
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- William & Mary Law School (3)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (1)
- Fordham Law School (1)
- Lewis & Clark Law School (1)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (1)
- University of Dar es Salaam (1)
- University of Maine School of Law (1)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (1)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (13)
- Law (12)
- SFFA (7)
- Testimony (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
-
- Common Law (6)
- ESG (6)
- Witnesses (6)
- Diversity (5)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (5)
- Privacy (5)
- Securities and exchange commission (5)
- Addiction (4)
- Artificial intelligence (4)
- Confrontation Clause (4)
- Constitution (4)
- Hearsay (4)
- Negligence (4)
- Public health (4)
- Regulation (4)
- SEC (4)
- Supreme Court (4)
- Technology (4)
- Admissibility (3)
- Corporate (3)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- Courts (3)
- Data (3)
- Discrimination (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (190)
- Michigan Law Review (18)
- Articles (3)
- Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press (3)
- Publications (3)
-
- Vanderbilt Law Review (3)
- William & Mary Law Review (3)
- Book Chapters (2)
- Dalhousie Law Journal (2)
- LLM Theses and Essays (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- Cardozo Law Review (1)
- Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Faculty Works (1)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (1)
- Indiana Law Journal (1)
- Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (1)
- Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review (1)
- Maine Law Review (1)
- Oregon Law Institute, 1995 (1)
- Reviews (1)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (1)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (1)
- Touro Law Review (1)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (1)
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (1)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 181 - 210 of 251
Full-Text Articles in Common Law
A Synthesis Of The Science And Law Relating To Eyewitness Misidentifications And Recommendations For How Police And Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based On Them, Henry F. Fradella
A Synthesis Of The Science And Law Relating To Eyewitness Misidentifications And Recommendations For How Police And Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based On Them, Henry F. Fradella
Seattle University Law Review
The empirical literature on perception and memory consistently demonstrates the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications. Exoneration data lend external validity to these studies. With the goal of informing law enforcement officers, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and judicial law clerks about what they can do to reduce wrongful convictions based on misidentifications, this Article presents a synthesis of the scientific knowledge relevant to how perception and memory affect the (un)reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Article situates that body of knowledge within the context of leading case law. The Article then summarizes the most current recommendations for how law enforcement personnel should—and …
Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas
Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas
Dalhousie Law Journal
This paper examines the constitutionality of the Anton Piller order in Canadian law. First, the paper examines whether Anton Piller orders overall are unconstitutional through three major avenues of attack: (i) Charter challenges; (ii) the ultra vires doctrine; and (iii) the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. Afterwards, in the event that no challenge against Anton Piller orders broadly would succeed, the paper examines whether their uniquely Canadian variant known as a “rolling” or “John (or Jane) Doe” Anton Piller orders could be challenged, looking at both Charter and non-Charter challenges. Finally, this paper proposes the imposition of additional …
Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes
Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes
Seattle University Law Review
The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Seattle University Law Review
This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.
We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Seattle University Law Review
Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.
Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
Re-Thinking The Process For Administering Oaths And Affirmations, Colton Fehr
Re-Thinking The Process For Administering Oaths And Affirmations, Colton Fehr
Dalhousie Law Journal
Courts around the world require witnesses to swear an oath to a religious deity or affirm to tell the truth before providing testimony. It is widely thought that such a process has the potential to give rise to unnecessary bias against witnesses based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Scholars have offered two main prescriptions to remedy this problem: (i) abolish the oath and have all witnesses promise to tell the truth; or (ii) require oath-swearing witnesses to invoke a non-specific reference to God. The former proposal is problematic as it rests on the unproven assertion that giving an …
Dispute Settlement Under The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement: A Preliminary Assessment, Olabisi D. Akinkugbe
Dispute Settlement Under The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement: A Preliminary Assessment, Olabisi D. Akinkugbe
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA) will add a new dispute settlement system to the plethora of judicial mechanisms designed to resolve trade disputes in Africa. Against the discontent of Member States and limited impact the existing highly legalized trade dispute settlement mechanisms have had on regional economic integration in Africa, this paper undertakes a preliminary assessment of the AfCFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM). In particular, the paper situates the AfCFTA-DSM in the overall discontent and unsupportive practices of African States with highly legalized dispute settlement systems and similar WTO-Styled DSMs among other shortcomings. Notwithstanding the transplantation of …
Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin
Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin
Seattle University Law Review
Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
Must A Friend Indeed Reveal A Friend’S Misdeed? Exploring The Merits Of A Friendship Privilege, Michael D. Moberly
Must A Friend Indeed Reveal A Friend’S Misdeed? Exploring The Merits Of A Friendship Privilege, Michael D. Moberly
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming.
In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth
In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth
Seattle University Law Review
Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.
Washington’S Young Offenders: O’Dell Demands A Change To Sentencing Guidelines, Erika Vranizan
Washington’S Young Offenders: O’Dell Demands A Change To Sentencing Guidelines, Erika Vranizan
Seattle University Law Review
This Note argues that the O’Dell decision was a watershed moment for criminal justice reform. It argues that the reasoning in O’Dell should be seized upon by the legislature to take action to remediate instances in which defendants are legal adults but do not possess the cognitive characteristics of an adult sufficient to justify adult punishment. Given both the scientific impossibility of identifying a precise age at which characteristics of youthfulness end and adulthood begins and the Court’s repeated recognition that these very factors impact culpability, the current approach to sentencing young offenders aged eighteen to twenty-five as adults simply …
Experiments With Suppression: The Evolution Of Repressive Legality In Britain In The Revolutionary Period, Christopher M. Roberts
Experiments With Suppression: The Evolution Of Repressive Legality In Britain In The Revolutionary Period, Christopher M. Roberts
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review
This article is concerned with the structure of repressive governance, and how it has evolved historically. It examines this theme through an exploration of the manner which repressive laws and institutions evolved in Britain over the course of the late eighteenth century. In particular, it reviews the various measures that British authorities utilized and relied upon in order to confront a growing wave of calls for social and political reforms. These included a policy of aggressive prosecutions of dissidents; the creation of new institutions such as the Home Office designed to enhance the powers of the central authorities; extralegal measures …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Possession Of Child Exploitation Material In Computer Temporary Internet Cache, Sungmi Park, Yunsik Jake Jang, Joshua I. James
Possession Of Child Exploitation Material In Computer Temporary Internet Cache, Sungmi Park, Yunsik Jake Jang, Joshua I. James
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law
When considering the possession of child exploitation material U.S. and German courts have the same focus, but slightly different interpretations. This slight difference in interpretation could mean that in one country a defendant will be found guilty of possession while in the other country he or she could be found not guilty. In this work we examine the standards courts in Germany and the United States have used to combat child pornography, and analyze the approaches specifically related to viewing and possession of CEM. A uniform solution is suggested that criminalizes “knowing access with the intention to view” as a …
“Please Stop Telling Her To Leave.” Where Is The Money: Reclaiming Economic Power To Address Domestic Violence, Margo Lindauer
“Please Stop Telling Her To Leave.” Where Is The Money: Reclaiming Economic Power To Address Domestic Violence, Margo Lindauer
Seattle University Law Review
In this Article, I argue that economic dependence is a critical factor in violence prevention. For many victims of domestic violence, the economic entanglement with an abusive partner is too strong to sever contact without another source of economic support. This Article is a thought experiment in economic justice; it asks the question: is there a way to provide outside economic support for a victim of violence fleeing a battering partner? In this Article, I examine existing systems such as Social Security, unemployment assistance, work-readiness programs, crowd sourcing, and others to evaluate how these sources could provide emergency economic support …
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
If It (Ain’T) Broke, Don’T Fix It: Twombly, Iqbal, Rule 84, And The Forms, Justin Olson
Seattle University Law Review
The past decade has not been kind to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). From the growth of summary judgment as a mechanism to let judges instead of juries determine facts, to the love–hate relationship with class actions, judicial interpretations of the Rules have revealed a trend toward complicating the ability of plaintiffs to find redress for their claims. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shifting standards of pleading requirements under Rule 8. Much has been written by academics and practitioners alike regarding the ripples caused by Twombly and Iqbal. Although the Court would like to …
Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers Of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Christopher B. Mueller
Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers Of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
A recent amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) expands the situations in which prior consistent statements by testifying witnesses can be used as substantive evidence, and not merely as rehabilitating evidence. In this piece, the Authors argue that the revised rule may mislead judges and lawyers to conclude that prior consistent statements are always usable as substantive evidence when offered to rehabilitate a witness. Nothing could be further from the truth. The intent, although hard to discern on the face of the revised rule, is only to allow substantive use of consistent statements that are otherwise admissible to rehabilitate …
Military Rules Of Evidence: Adoption Or Abrogation Of The Common Law?, Richard H. Mills
Military Rules Of Evidence: Adoption Or Abrogation Of The Common Law?, Richard H. Mills
Akron Law Review
Posit: What role should the common law of evidence play in a military judge's decisions under the present rules of evidence? My conclusion is that the answer to this question is of bedrock importance to military justice.
Yet despite these differences, an understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the common law precedents from which they evolved is imperative if the majority of the military rules is to be properly employed.
Hague Evidence Convention: A Practical Guide To The Convention, United States Case Law, Convention - Sponsored Review Commissions (1978 And 1985), And Responses Of Other Signatory Nations: With Digest Of Cases And Bibliography, Denise L. Dunham
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
Sweet Caroline: The Backslide From Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(B) To The Rule In Queen Caroline's Case, Katharine T. Schaffzin
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Since 1975, Rule 613(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has governed the admission of extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in federal court. Rule 613(b) requires the proponent of the prior inconsistent statement to provide the declarant an opportunity to explain or deny it. There is no requirement that the proponent provide that opportunity at any particular time or in any particular sequence. Rule 613 reflected a change from the common law that had fallen out of fashion in the federal courts. That common law rule, known as the Rule in Queen Caroline’s Case, required the proponent of …
Congressional Policy For Work Product Protection In Congressional Investigations, Jay Brody
Congressional Policy For Work Product Protection In Congressional Investigations, Jay Brody
Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal
The note examines the conflict between congressional investigative powers and the work product doctrine, advocating for a balanced approach that considers the nature of the investigation. It argues that the type of congressional investigation—legislative, oversight, or investigative—should determine the level of work product protection applied, ensuring both effective governance and legal fairness.
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman
The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.
In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …
Back To The Future With Privileges Abandon Codification, Not The Common Law, Paul Rice
Back To The Future With Privileges Abandon Codification, Not The Common Law, Paul Rice
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
No abstract provided.
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Face To Face': Rediscovering The Right To Confront Prosecution Witnesses, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception. This article argues that this framework should be abandoned. The clause should not be regarded …