Volume 66, Summer 2014, Issue 3
This Article analyzes evidence of bias in over two decades of congressional deliberations concerning the Hate Crime Statistics Act (the HCSA), which functions as a “gateway” for groups seeking protection under federal hate crime legislation. The Article reviews congressional decisions relating to eight groups: the seven currently covered groups—race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity—and the only candidate group to receive a congressional hearing that has not yet been admitted to the HCSA: the homeless.
A lot has been said about two particular challenges that face law school clinical programs: managing student diversity and managing the potential conflicts between clinic students and clinic clients. This Article attempts to answer an unexplored question that sheds light on both of these concerns: when and how should clinic students’ extant talents be employed to assure positive student outcomes without compromising client interests? Throughout this piece, “extant talents” means the law-related and non-law-related skills, abilities, and professional experience that clinic students already possess at the time they enroll in a clinic.
Consider the reaction of Trayvon Martin’s family to the jury verdict. They were devastated that George Zimmerman, the defendant, was found not guilty of manslaughter or murder. Whatever the merits of this outcome, what does the Martin family’s emotional reaction mean? What does it say about criminal punishment—especially the reasons why we punish? Why did the Martin family want to see George Zimmerman go to jail? And why were—and are—they so upset that he did not?
This Article will argue for three points. First, what fuels this kind of outrage is vengeance: the desire to see defendants like George Zimmerman forced to “pay” for the harms that they needlessly and culpably inflict on others. While this point may seem obvious, it isn’t. Most people repudiate revenge and therefore the notion that it plays any role in the criminal justice system.
WHO NEEDS A LAWYER ANYWAY?
The Honorable Deanell Reece Tacha
Judge Leonard I. Garth is far too kind in his introduction. Judge Garth is one of the real greats of the federal bench. He is the symbol of my topic this evening: who needs a lawyer, anyway? Why are we lawyers? What should we be educating lawyers for? Indeed, the core question—is a legal education valuable? Sarah and Leonard Garth are outstanding examples of public servants who bring to the legal profession a true commitment to excellence—to their communities, to their law school, to their law clerks, to so many people—that models the great lawyer and the great judge, and the families that support and sustain them.
Eyewitness identification evidence is an integral part of the United States justice system. Solving crimes often depends on an eyewitness’s account of events. Someone testifying precisely to what he or she observed can send an influential message to a jury during trial. Hence, in criminal trials, “[e]yewitness identification can be the most powerful evidence presented.” Furthermore, the drama of the courtroom coupled with the seeming infallibility of what someone saw with their own eyes presents a picture that can be manipulated by an attorney to signify virtual certainty as to the accuracy of the identification.
In 1994, Congress recognized “for the first time that crimes motivated by gender are important enough to deserve Federal civil rights protection” through its enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). From its inception, VAWA acknowledged the unique plight of battered undocumented women and provided them with avenues to obtain relief. Subsequent reauthorizations reaffirmed the continued need to legislate protection of these victims and firmly established Congress’s intent that VAWA function as the vehicle through which this need could be met.
In 2008, Anglo-Irish Bank held €101 million in assets on its balance sheet, equal to half of the GDP of Ireland. As the global economy deteriorated, the bank faced liquidity issues, to the point that the Irish Government was forced to guarantee liabilities of the bank for two years in September 2008 and then to nationalize the bank in 2009. As the government guarantee expired in 2010, the Minister of Finance proposed a restructuring of the subordinated debt, including the notes at issue in Assénagon Asset Management, S.A. v. Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited. The bank’s exchange offer and corresponding exit consent gave bondholders every incentive to cooperate with the restructuring by setting up a Hobson’s Choice: either bondholders could consent to the restructuring and receive twenty cents of new notes for every Euro of the old ones, or they could receive one cent of new notes for every thousand Euros worth of old bonds if they did not consent.