This Note discusses how cashless business practices disparately harm low-income individuals, minorities, and other groups, and proposes the need for federal, state, and local legislation to combat these impacts.
Although there is considerable literature on the causes of false confessions and the effects confession evidence has on juror decision-making, little research has examined attorneys’ decision-making in disputed confession cases. As the intervening step between when the confession is elicited and the case is resolved, it is crucial that research examine effects of confession evidence on this population. The current studies investigate defense attorneys’ knowledge and perception of key interrogation and confession issues as well as their decision-making in a disputed confession case. Overall, results show that defense attorneys are knowledgeable about key interrogation and confession issues and are aware of how powerful confession evidence is at trial. Regarding trial strategies, however, defense attorneys focused more on highlighting the lack of non-confession evidence than discounting the confession. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
In this Essay, the authors argue that the Delaware Chancery Court’s opinion in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, which appeals to territoriality as a decisive “first principle,” is deeply misguided. The notion that each state’s legislative jurisdiction is bounded by its territorial limits is a formalist and arbitrary notion that has been broadly rejected by various jurisdictions, including Delaware. Moreover, an opinion truly grounded in “first principles” would take comity—the basic framework for choice of law in the early Republic—as its lodestar, necessitating a functionally and strategically sensitive approach to determining the validity of the federal forum provisions. In this case, comity would recommend not invalidating the forum provisions, as the Chancery Court did, but rather dismissing the suit for lack of ripeness.
This Note highlights the tension between Section 547 and Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code, with specific attention paid to the interaction between set-off rights and the hypothetical liquidation invoked by a court in a voidable preference action, and proposes adopting the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning as a bankruptcy court standard when confronted with a similar conflict between the formalized tests in Sections 547 and 553, in an attempt to achieve a more equitable outcome.
This Note argues that due to the inherent failures of COPPA and the ever rising online presence of both teenagers and minors, the FTC should expand COPPA to include eraser and advertisement protection provisions similar to those found in SB 568 in order to further ensure the protection teenagers and minors online.
When the National Emergencies Act was enacted in 1976, Congress could revoke a national emergency declaration by the President by a simple majority vote. Following a major Supreme Court decision in 1983, Congress, to simply retain its own legislative authority, suddenly was required to muster the support of two-thirds of the members of each chamber to override such a declaration. This Article proposes a practical, simple, and sturdy repair to the National Emergencies Act that will limit the potential for executive abuses by requiring Congress to extend, rather than to revoke, a national emergency declaration.
Professor Stephanie Roberts Hartung reviews The Wrongful Convictions Reader, a 2019 book by Russell D. Covey and Valena E. Beety.