Courts Commons^™

A Critical Perspective On Testimonial Injustice: Interrogating Witnesses' Credibility Excess In Criminal Trials, Jasmine Gonzales Rose

Faculty Scholarship

This paper offers a critical race theory perspective on the testimonial injustice experienced by racially minoritized criminal defendants in evidential practice. It builds off Federico Picinali’s paper, inter alia, substantiating how minoritized criminal defendants experience testimonial harm through credibility deficit, by exploring epistemic injustice to the same when prosecutorial witnesses receive identity-based credibility excess. It argues that in an adversarial criminal legal system, the testimonial injustice of credibility excess afforded racial in-group prosecutorial witnesses should be considered in tandem with the testimonial injustice of credibility deficit imposed on racial out-group defendants. Only then can the epistemic harm and resultant …

The Right To Trial By Jury Shall Remain Inviolate: Jury Trials In Civil Actions In Georgia’S Courts, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Trials, though rare, “shape almost every aspect of procedure,” and the jury trial is a distinctive feature of civil litigation in the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ‘preserves’ the right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Even though this amendment does not apply to the states, courts in the states “honor the right to the extent it is created in their constitutions or local statutes.”

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and Georgia’s appellate courts have shown …

Meaningful Or Meaningless? The Temporal Scope Of The Constitutional Right Of Access To Courts For Incarcerated Litigants, Alison Aimers

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note will advocate for the position taken by the Third and Seventh Circuits that incarcerated individuals’ right to affirmative assistance in accessing legal materials extends past the pleading stage to all stages of civil rights claims and post-conviction criminal appeals. U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports this position, and judicial clarity on this issue is required to best protect the constitutional right of access in light of significant existing barriers to incarcerated litigants’ access to courts.

Harnessing Hypocrisy: A Crack In The Supreme Court’S Colorblindness Mask, Zamir Ben-Dan

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Essay contends that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Harness v. Watson stands as a testament to its hypocrisy. The day after the Court professed an allegiance to promoting racial equality in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, it refused to even consider invalidating a clear barrier to racial equality. The day after the Court struck down a remedy designed to address a long, sad, and painful history of racism, the Court left undisturbed an obvious symbol of this long, sad, and painful history of racism. When juxtaposed against both the denial …

Professional Norms At A Crossroads: Farhane And Its Implications For Legal Counsel, Hayley Sandoval

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note examines the right to effective assistance of counsel during guilty pleas through the lens of the pending Second Circuit case Farhane v. United States. This case will have significant implications for the right to effective legal representation, particularly in terms of defense attorneys’ duty to warn clients of the potential risk of denaturalization as a consequence of pleading guilty. In May 2024, the court reheard Farhane en banc and will issue a decision later this year. If this opinion aligns with the court’s initial decision, it will severely limit the rights of all defendants in criminal proceedings in …

Self-Defense And Political Rage, Erin L. Sheley

Faculty Scholarship

This Article considers how American political polarization and the substantive issues driving it raise unique challenges for adjudicating self-defense claims in contexts of political protest. We live in an age where roughly a quarter of the population believes it is at least sometimes justifiable to use violence in defense of political positions, making political partisans somewhat more likely to pose a genuine threat of bodily harm to opponents. Furthermore, the psychological literature shows that people are more likely to perceive threats from people with whom they politically disagree and that juries tend to evaluate reasonableness claims according to their own …

The Transmogrification Of Moratoria In Support Of Rent Regulations: False Steps To Affordable Housing, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The real challenge in property law is demarcating its contours. In this Article, I explore current challenges to our conception of property and the courts' specification or retraction of long-recognized limits on government interference for larger societal benefits. I am largely prompted by recent rulings in state and federal courts on moratoria on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing burdens of rent regulation in a world of persistent housing shortages. In Part II, I discuss property law theories as a backdrop to the discussion of political limits, with a brief summary of how the concepts have evolved over …

Preambles Before The Preamble: Rediscovering The Preamble’S Role In Constitutional Interpretation, Stuart Ford

Brooklyn Law Review

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms …

Balancing Preservation With Growth: How Less Judicial Deference To Decisions Made By The Landmarks Preservation Commission Can Save New York City, Amy Cushman

Brooklyn Law Review

The New York City Landmarks Law of 1965, envisioning the preservation of historical treasures, empowered the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) with the authority to designate and regulate landmarks and historic districts. Originally established in response to public outcry over the loss of iconic architectural structures, the LPC aimed to safeguard the city's cultural, social, and architectural legacy. However, this note contends that recent LPC decisions, particularly the issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness for luxury residential construction involving partial demolition of landmarks, betray the original preservation goals. Delving into the legal recourse available under the New York Civil …

Full Moon Or Full Fraud? A Proposed Method For Interpreting Emojis Under Rule 10b-5, Sophie Abrams

Brooklyn Law Review

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans who were stuck at home turned to social media forums in search of community and investing advice. Fifteen million (and counting) of them found community in r/wallstreetbets, a group on Reddit that banded together to drive up the prices of “meme stocks.” Bed Bath and Beyond was one stock that piqued retail investors’ interest after seeing billionaire investor Ryan Cohen take a 10 percent stake and activist role in the company. However, Cohen ended up being a large disappointment to his retail investor fans, as he subsequently sold off his stake …

Plea Bargains, Prosecutorial Breach, And The Curious Right To Cure, Michael D. Cicchini

Brooklyn Law Review

When the prosecutor breaches a plea bargain—e.g., by recommending prison instead of the agreed-upon probation—the defendant is entitled to a remedy: either sentencing in front of a different judge or plea withdrawal. However, if defense counsel objects to the breach, the prosecutor may halfheartedly change the recommendation to probation. Most courts have held that to be an effective “cure”—even when the judge then sentences the defendant to prison, as the prosecutor originally recommended. The right to cure, which was intended for commercial sales contracts, fails miserably in the plea-bargain context. In the above example, the attempted cure is too late, …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

Reimagining Youngblood's Bad Faith Requirement: Safeguarding Criminal Defendants' Due Process Rights Through A Burden-Shifting Framework, Rita Elfarissi

Michigan Law Review

Criminal defendants face an uphill battle when attempting to prove that the government’s loss or destruction of evidence that could have played a significant role in their defense deprived them of their constitutional due process rights. To make this showing, the defendant must prove that the government lost or destroyed the evidence in bad faith. This requirement is problematic because direct evidence illustrating the subjective intent of the government officials who lost or destroyed the evidence is unlikely to exist, and in the off chance it does, the prosecution is unlikely to freely hand it over to the defendant. Thus, …

Movement For Quality Government V. Knesset, Esther Hayut, Yael Willner, Alex Stein, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz, Yosef Elron, Isaac Amit, Ruth Ronnen, Uzi Vogelman, Khaled Kabub, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Daphne Barak-Erez

Translated Opinions

Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset concerned challenges to Amendment No. 3 to Basic Law: The Judiciary (the “reasonableness amendment”). In view of the controversy surrounding the amendment and the fundamental constitutional question it raised in regard to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review Basic Laws, the Court took the unprecedented step of sitting en banc. A translation of the official abstract issued by the Court appears here.

On January 1, 2024, a majority of the Court (12 of 15 justices) held that the Court held the authority to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws and to intervene in …

Breaking The Vicious Cycle Fragmenting National Law, Ryan Vacca, Peter S. Menell

Faculty Publications

One of the most troubling and increasingly overlooked problems plaguing the federal judiciary has been the reduction of throughput at the Supreme Court and the resulting fragmentation of national law. The imperative to resolve circuit splits has taken a back seat as the Court grapples with high-profile battles and the relentless crush of certiorari petitions. This fuels confusion and greater fragmentation of national law. Add in the general expansion of national law, and the vicious cycle intensifies.

This Article proposes a solution for expanding structural capacity to address fragmentation that does not require legislative reform or constitutional amendment. It utilizes …

The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring

Articles

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …

The Reno Court Of Inquiry, Albert Winkler

Faculty Publications

Following the Battle of the Little Big Horn, there had been many accusations of poor conduct, neglect of duty, or outright cowardice leveled chiefly at both Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen for their actions or inactions at the engagement, which could have led to the destruction of Custer's command. Most significantly, Frederick Whittaker's attack on Reno and Benteen in his A Complete Life of Gen. George Armstrong Custer published in December 1876 was simply scathing.

Barrier Breakers: Celebrating The Rhode Island Supreme Court’S First Female Majority, Kailey E. Chalmers

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Andy Warhol To Barbie: Copyright’S Fair Use Doctrine After Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.