Corey Rayburn Yung who teaches criminal law and procedure at the John Marshall Law School has posted a draft paper (Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals) on SSRN. Professor Yung’s scholarship is primarily focused on sex crimes and judicial decision-making. Here is an Abstract of the paper:
July 15, 2009
Abstract: Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
July 16, 2009:
1. People v. Ross, 678, 4397/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4164; 62 A.D.3d 619; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, …
2. People v. Boateng, 668, 380/06, 668A, 2434/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4157; 62 A.D.3d 614; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), …
3. People v. Glover, 109, 876/04, 110, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4168; 62 A.D.3d 626; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, …
4. People v. Frederick, 663, 6348/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4155; 62 A.D.3d 612; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4041, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, …
5. People v. Manrique, 674, 1575/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4162; 62 A.D.3d 617; 880 N.Y.S.2d 51; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, …
6. People v. Hogans, 654, 1437/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4118; 62 A.D.3d 595; 878 N.Y.S.2d 890; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …
7. People v. Nevarez, 630, 630A, 3633/06, 6046/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4104; 62 A.D.3d 585; 878 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, …
.
Continue reading
Ten top stories.
July 17, 2009.
Work-Life Balance Jack Welch: Women Take Time Off for Kids at Their Peril
Can the offering of goods and services such as Google searches free of charge be considered in violation of antitrust? Many librarians have expressed an interest in this issue. They are concerned about what any resolution of this question wll have on their continuing efforts to provide knowledge based goods and services (including new and enhanced products) in an increasingly financially constrained environment to patrons with ever increasing expectations. They want to be informed about what the producers and providers they depend on, such as Google, are thinking about this issue? Hence this postingl
In a July 10 posting on the Google Policy Blog Dana Wagner responds to comments by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of the book Free in a piece Chris wrote for CNN and possibly to additional comments by Chris during his presentation at the Google D.C. office earlier in the week. In his D.C. presentation Chris explained how new business models and approaches to advertising will change the focus of global commerce.
What really seems to have caught Dana Wagner’s attention however is the following excerpt from Chris’s CNN piece:
David Badertscher
Legal experts and prosecutors are quite concerned about possible results of the June 25, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 07-591. In this decision the Court has ruled that forensic analysts conducting tests must be in court to testify about their test results and that lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic, or breath test printouts describing a suspect’s blood-alcohol level are no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence. A person is now required to be in court to talk about the test results. The basic question the Supreme Court addressed in this opinion was: “Is a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?”* In its ruling the Supreme Court answered, yes.
_________________________ *The above quote was taken from discussion of this opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Oyez website at. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_591 . This site also includes links to the text of the opinion as well at to the Syllabus, dissent, concurrance, and argument. For additional information see discussion in a July 15, 2009 Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, and follow the link on the U.S. Supreme Court website.
BY KAT SANDERS*
It’s easier to solve crime today than it was 50 years ago, because of the advances that have been made in the field of science, or to be more specific, forensic science. In fact, new and innovative crime solving techniques are being introduced by the day to help law enforcement officers solve cases that are baffling at first. If we took a long and hard look at the role that forensics play in the fields of criminal law and justice, we would see how important it is in solving crime because:
It helps establish the nature of the crime: There are some crimes that are accidents and others that are by design. Looking at the evidence through a forensic microscope allows cops and others in the law enforcement area to determine if the crime was a murder, suicide or other form of accidental death. In the case of a murder, forensic evidence tells them if the crime was accidental or carried out in cold blood. Forensic science is also used to investigate and solve burglaries, drug offenses, arsons and automobile accidents.
The Unclassified Report of the President’s Surveillance Program released on July 10, 2009 is a review of the National Security Agency Warrantless Search Program, created during the presidency of George W. Bush some time after September 11, 2001. The unclassified report was prepared by the inspectors general of five government bodies involved in the original program. Among its many observations it raises questions about both whether the extensive secrecy of the original warrantless surveillance program limited its effectiveness and the legal basis of the original program..
The following is an excerpt from the Introduction to the Unclassified Report followed by a link to the entire Report:
From the Introduction:
Search run on West Thomson Website on July 14, 2009.
NEW PUBLICATIONS:
Crown Court Index, 2009, 29th
NEW This work provides an index of common penalties and formalities in cases tried on indictment…
Release Date: 6/29/2009
Witness Preparation and Examination for DUI Proceedings: Leading Lawyers on Developing Questioning Strategies, Gathering…
NEW This Aspatore product provides the best practices for gathering witness testimony and…
Release Date: 6/25/2009 $100.00
Archbold International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence, 3d
NEW This is a comprehensive, nuts-and-bolts manual to handle matters before the International…
Release Date: 8/1/2009
For more information click here.
RECENTLY UPDATED EDITIONS:
Pennsylvania Rules of Court, State & Federal, 2009 Revised ed.
NEW This set contains Pennsylvania state and federal civil, criminal, appellate procedure,…
Last Updated: 7/24/2009 $97.00
The Georgia DUI Trial Practice Manual, 2009 ed.
NEW Gain strategic advice, trial guidance, and discovery techniques for DUI matters, including a…
Last Updated: 6/12/2009 $173.00
Search and Seizure Checklists, 2009 ed.
NEW Quick-reference guide provides instant access to the latest developments in the field of…
Last Updated: 6/12/2009 $539.00
Daniel’s Georgia Handbook on Criminal Evidence, 2009 ed.
NEW Gives you a practical guide to the law of evidence in Georgia in criminal cases.
Last Updated: 6/19/2009 $245.00 Continue reading
Ten top stories.
July 10, 2009.
Editor’s Note: Check back at ABAJournal.com starting Monday for live coverage of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings. The Journal’s U.S. Supreme Court expert Richard Brust will post highlights from the Senate committee Q&A.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
July 6-10, 2009.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 US v. Meadows, No. 08-1122 Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress as the officers acted within the permissible scope of an investigatory stop when they handcuffed defendant and removed him from his sister’s home; 2) the court did not err in its handling of defendant’s status as a felon during trial as defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by any information about his criminal history that came before the jury; 3) the government did not err in the challenged statements it made during its closing summation; and 4) the government did not err in its instructions to the jury.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 US v. Bryant , No. 08-1160 Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in not requiring the government to show that the presentence report’s description of the prior New York conviction was based on a sufficiently reliable source to establish the accuracy of that description, and thus the government could not have met its burden of establishing the existence of the prior conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes; 2) the court did not err in finding that a certified copy of the record from the Suffolk Superior Court was sufficiently reliable to support the fact of defendant’s Suffolk Superior Court conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes; 3) both of the defendant’s prior convictions, if proven, qualify as a predicate offenses under U.S.S.G. sec. 4B1.2; and 4) the court did not err in considering the two transactions as part of the same course of conduct for purposes of sentencing.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 06, 2009 Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 07-1950 In a prisoner civil rights action, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim fails as a matter of law as entreaties to activity such as petitions protesting prison conditions are not entitled to First Amendment protection where other less disruptive means of airing grievances are available; and 2) plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated his due process rights are without merit as any error on the part of the corrections officer assigned to assisting plaintiff was harmless in light of defendant’s owns failures.
Continue reading
