 |
|
|
|
FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses an interesting recent Fourth Amendment federal appeals case, arising from an incident in which police forced their way into a single-stall restroom that a couple had entered together. Colb argues that the appeals court was wrong to say that the entrance was not a search at all, but also notes that under the circumstances, police may have had enough reasonable suspicion to render the search that occurred legal.
|
FindLaw columnist, Hofstra law professor, and visiting University of North Carolina law professor Joanna Grossman analyzes a recent decision by a Manhattan court that the New York State constitution requires that same-sex couples be able to marry. Grossman notes that two other county courts reached the opposite conclusion, and that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he will appeal.
Tuesday, Feb. 08, 2005
FindLaw columnist and Brooklyn law professor Anthony Sebok discusses an extremely significant recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The decision reversed a district court ruling that had opened the way for a $280 billion civil RICO disgorgement remedy, sought by the Department of Justice in a suit against the tobacco industry. Now, that remedy is impossible -- and it seems futile for the civil RICO trial to even go forward, as Sebok explains.
Monday, Feb. 07, 2005
FindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram Amar, and FindLaw guest columnist and U.C. Davis law professor Alan Brownstein, discuss what makes a proposed constitutional amendment wise or unwise. They focus, in particular, on President Bush's proposal of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage -- and argue that the amendment would be unwise, in that it would cut off a democratic debate on the issue that is still very much in progress. They also explain why state constitutional amendments and federal constitutional amendments should, in their view, be analyzed differently.
Friday, Feb. 04, 2005
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus examines several shifts in legal thinking from generation to generation, and considers whether the current shift towards favoring security and executive power, and away from favoring liberty and judicial power, may be the legacy of this generation of lawyers. Lazarus notes that reports of the initial enthusiasm of government lawyers over the Bush Administration "torture memos" may be a more reliable indication of their true feelings, than later recantations by the Administration.
Thursday, Feb. 03, 2005
FindLaw guest columnist, attorney, and author Elaine Cassel comments on a the trial of a South Carolina boy who, at twelve, killed his grandparents. At the time, the boy, who suffered from depression, was taking Zoloft, and his defense attorneys contend that its side effects, for him, included hearing voices that told him to kill, and that its presence in his system rendered him "involuntarily intoxicated." Can this argument succeed? Cassel evaluates the evidence on Zoloft, and the boy's chances in court.
Thursday, Feb. 03, 2005
FindLaw guest columnist, trial attorney, and legal commentator Jonna Spilbor discusses a recent, key ruling in the Michael Jackson case -- holding that Jackson's accuser must face him in open court. She also considers what questions defense attorneys may want to ask in voir dire, in light of the fact that the accuser is a fifteen year old whose youth may elicit the jury's sympathy.
Wednesday, Feb. 02, 2005
FindLaw columnist and human rights attorney Joanne Mariner argues that the United States is wrong to oppose the recommendation of the U.N.'s special commission on the crisis in Darfur. (The special commission has advised that the situation immediately be referred to the International Criminal Court, which could initiate prosecutions of the perpetrators.) Mariner contends that even if the U.S. will not drop its general opposition to the ICC, it should make an exception in light of what it has admitted is ongoing genocide.
Wednesday, Feb. 02, 2005
FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf discusses an important recent Supreme Court decision --one with two very interesting dissents. The opinion holds that when a drug-sniffing dog "alerts" to indicate the presence of drugs in a car trunk, no Fourth Amendment "search" has occurred -- and thus, the drugs in the trunk may be used as evidence at trial. Dorf considers the implication of the decision for police activities involves dog sniffs directed at persons, not cars, and involving bomb-sniffing dogs.
Tuesday, Feb. 01, 2005
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden comments on a recent, potentially very important decision by a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania. As Hilden explains, constitutional challenges to obscenity have, historical, always failed -- but in this opinion, a new type of challenge has succeeded. The new attack on obscenity law is grounded not just in First Amendment concerns, but also in the kind of privacy concerns that have motivated the Supreme Court to protect at-home reading, and, recently, at-home consensual sexual conduct between adults.
Monday, Jan. 31, 2005
|
| --- |
|
|
|
Columnist Anita Ramasastry On Cases Involving Banks And The Internet
AND Guest Noah Leavitt
|
|
|
