Monday, September 22, 2014
March 6 and 7, 2015
Announcement and Call for Papers
Co-sponsored by the American Society of Comparative Law; the Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University; the University of Illinois College of Law and the UCLA Law School
Workshop Planning Committee:
Kim Lane Scheppele, Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University
Maximo Langer, Law School, University of California at Los Angeles
Jacqueline Ross, University of Illinois College of Law
The organizers invite all interested comparative law scholars to consider submitting a paper to the next annual Comparative Law Work-in-Progress Workshop, which will be held on Friday and Saturday, 6-7 March 2015, Princeton University. We will accept up to seven papers for workshop discussion, and we plan to select a mix of both junior and senior scholars.
Interested authors should submit papers to Kim Lane Scheppele at Princeton (firstname.lastname@example.org) by Monday, 5 January 2015.
The conference organizers will inform authors of their decision by the end of January. Participants whose papers have been accepted should plan to arrive in Princeton, New Jersey no later than noon on Friday 6 March and to leave on Sunday 8 March.
The annual workshop continues to be an important forum in which comparative law work in progress can be explored among colleagues in a serious and thorough manner that will be truly helpful to the respective authors. "Work in progress" means scholarship that has reached a stage at which it is substantial enough to merit serious discussion and critique but that has not yet appeared in print (and can still be revised after the workshop, if it has already been accepted for publication.) It includes law review articles, book chapters or outlines, substantial book reviews, and other appropriate genres.
Our objective is not only to provide an opportunity for the discussion of scholarly work but also to create the opportunity for comparative lawyers to get together for two days devoted to nothing but talking shop, both in the sessions and outside. We hope that this will create synergy that fosters more dialogue, cooperation, and an increased sense of coherence for the discipline.
The participants in the workshop will consist of the respective authors, commentators, and faculty members of the host institutions. The overall group will be kept small enough to sit around a large table and to allow serious discussion. The papers will not be presented at the workshop. They will be distributed well in advance and every participant must have read them before attending the meeting. Each paper will be introduced and discussed first by two commentators before opening the discussion to the other workshop participants. Each of the authors selected for the workshop is expected to have read and to be prepared to discuss each of the papers selected. The author of each paper will be given an opportunity to respond and ask questions of his or her own. There are no plans to publish the papers. Instead, it is up to the authors to seek publication if, and wherever, they wish. The goal of the workshop is to improve the work before publication.
The Workshop will be funded by the host school and by the American Society of Comparative Law. Authors of papers and commentators will be reimbursed for their travel expenses and accommodation up to $600, by either by the American Society of Comparative Law or Princeton University, in accordance with the ASCL reimbursement policy (as posted on its webpage.) The organizers ask that authors inquire into funding opportunities at their home institutions before applying for reimbursement by the ASCL or by Princeton.
Friday, September 19, 2014
We are pleased to post this announcement:
Call for Papers
AALS Sections on Comparative and African Law
Works-in-Progress Program: Understudied Comparative Law
AALS Annual Meeting, January 3, 2015
After a successful and lively session featuring new scholarship in the Section on Comparative Law works-in-progress program for the first time last year, the Section on Comparative Law —this time, jointly with the Section on African Law—is pleased to announce a Call for Papers for a second Works-in-Progress Program in Comparative and African Law from 10:30am to 12:15pm on Saturday, January 3rd at the AALS 2015 Annual Meeting in Washington DC.
A central aim of this program will be to bring together junior and senior comparative law scholars for a lively discussion of the junior scholars’ works-in-progress. Junior comparatists and African law scholars, based on our call for papers, are encouraged to submit papers that are substantially complete (many may have been submitted in the summer/fall 2014 law review submission cycle). After the selected junior scholars briefly present their papers, senior comparative law scholars will provide oral comments and critiques on the papers, to which the junior scholars will have an opportunity to respond and the audience will have a chance to join in discussion of the paper. Confirmed senior scholars include Professor Duncan Kennedy of Harvard Law School and Professor Teemu Ruskolafrom Emory University School of Law. Continuing the trend of last year, this program presents an opportunity to participate in discussions of cutting-edge comparative law scholarship by recently joined members of the academy.
This year’s theme is Understudied Comparative Law—aiming to attract papers that address subjects and methodologies in comparative and African law that move beyond, critique, or engage traditional categories, however defined, in new ways. We will limit our selection to no more than four papers to allow junior participants to receive substantive feedback from senior commentators and to enable the members of this joint section meeting to engage in substantive discussion of comparative law methodologies. While all are welcome to submit papers, scholars writing on African law, Chinese law, Islamic law, South or East Asian law—or methodologies for these and other understudied comparative law areas—are especially encouraged to submit papers.
Form and length of submission
Eligible faculty members are invited to submit manuscripts dealing with any aspect of the foregoing topics. Draft papers should be comprehensive enough to allow the committee to meaningfully evaluate the aims and likely content of papers they propose.
Untenured faculty members are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts. Papers may be accepted for publication but must not be published prior to the Annual Meeting.
Deadline and submission method
To be considered, papers must be submitted electronically to Intisar Rabb, Chair, Section on Comparative Law, email@example.com; and Susan Hascall, Chair, Section on African Law, firstname.lastname@example.org by November 1, 2015.
Papers will be selected after review by officers of the Sections on Comparative and African Law. The authors of the selected papers will be notified by November 15, 2015.
Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. The following are ineligible to submit: foreign, visiting (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, fellows, non-law school faculty, and faculty at fee-paid non-member schools. Papers co-authored with a person ineligible to submit on their own may be submitted by the eligible co-author. Call for Papers participants will be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Please forward this Call for Papers to any eligible faculty who might be interested.
For questions, please contact:
Susan Hascall, Chair, Section on African Law, email@example.com
Intisar Rabb, Chair, Section on Comparative Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
Stephen Ellmann, Chair-Elect, Section on African Law, email@example.com
Sudha Setty, Chair-Elect, Comparative Law Section,firstname.lastname@example.org
Intisar A. Rabb
Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Professor of History, Harvard University
Director, Islamic Legal Studies Program
1525 Massachusetts Avenue•Griswold 402• Cambridge, MA 02138
Monday, September 15, 2014
Forty-three veterans and active reservists from an elite Israeli military unit sent a letter last week to their commanders, as well as Israel's Prime Minister, in which they announced their refusal to continue to spy on Palestinians in the occupied territories. The letter chastizes Israel for not affording Palestinians currently living under military occupation the same protection from surveillance that Israeli citizens possess and alleges that the surveillance is designed to "create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself."
According to their letter, their commanders had required them to perform intelligence activities that made “no distinction between Palestinians who are and are not involved in violence.” The soldiers claim that the information collected by their unit “harms innocent people” and “is used for political persecution." The letter goes on to claim that Palestinians may not be able to get a fair trial in Israel's military courts because they are not given access to the evidence collected against them.
While the veterans have been criticized for making their claims public, the letter's signatories claim that it was necessary to go public because their commanders had previsouly refused to investigate their claims.
At the same time, it is apparent that the individuals who signed the letter aim to advance a larger argument beyond individual intelligence missions. Indeed, the letter sets out to challenge the larger Israeli narrative concerning the role that settlements play in Israel's national security as it states that "[s]ettlement expansion has nothing to do with national security."
Perhaps the soldiers' most thought provoking allegation is their argument that intrusive surveillance activities do not allow people to live normal lives and "fuels more violence further distancing us from the end of the conflict."
Although the release of the letter to the public as well as its contents raise issues of insubordination, the larger issues of whether the Israeli government should spy on Palestinians who have not been involved in violence as well as those who have and how the government elects to use that intelligence raises issues that are not unique to Israel. When intelligence is used to disrupt not only the activities of terrorists, but also the activities of law-abiding residents, it raises questions regarding the extent to which Israel is committed to the peace process.
For example, is it lawful for the NSA to collect data on internet users who are not suspected of committing crimes? By law, the NSA is obligated to make efforts to exclude U.S. citizens from its data collection activities. Despite that fact, the agency's data collection procedures capture domestic emails from U.S. citizens. While NSA attempts to purge its computers of information on Americans not involved in terrorist activities, neither the FBI nor the CIA are engaged in similar data purges. The continued existence of that information poses a threat to our right to privacy.
Friday, September 12, 2014
As noted in a prior blog, the most striking visible comparison at this homicide trial was the absence of a twelve-person lay jury and the presence of a single judicial factfinder who, assisted by two assessors, sat in judgment of the defendant. The rendition of a verdict magnifies this difference. In the United States, of course, the law forbids a criminal jury from explaining its guilty/not guilty verdict in any way, even to the point of prohibiting any sort of questions or special interrogatories that we regularly use in civil cases. Even when jurors are interviewed post-trial and actually tell the media why they decided a case the way they did, that information has absolutely no legal significance unless there has been an invasion into the jury room, e.g., a bribe, a newspaper article, and the like. To be sure, we do have judicial factfinders who explain their findings of fact in detail and on the record; but in most cases those factfinders are making factual determinations in connection with legal rulings, e.g., suppression hearings, sentencing, and the like – and not judging the guilt or non-guilt of fellow citizens, with all the consequences of that determination.
There are good reasons for our prohibition about impeaching a jury’s verdict. Briefly, those reasons stem from the role of the jury in our system – the people in the courtroom – and the freedom of that group of supposedly “impartial” “peers” to do what it thinks is best and for whatever reasons it wants, without fear of reprisal or reversal. That is a basic protection for defendants in our system, and, accordingly, we devote a tremendous amount of resources to jury selection and the jury process. In South Africa, however, the jury trial was abolished along with apartheid, and the jury in a murder case – like Pistorius – consists of a judge and two assisting assessors – two jurors who, as far as I can tell, have never appeared publicly during the trial, certainly not during the announcement of their own verdict. And of course, this process has lasted a painfully long time, much longer than the actual trial would have taken in the United States (assuming this case would be one of the rare ones that actually goes to trial).
Less protection for the accused? Greater protection for the accused? Different protection for the accused? If you’re looking for the power of the people to do what they want to render a just verdict, that protection is missing. Visually, this is striking – a single judge is handing down the decision of guilty or not guilty, and two members of the jury are apparently invisible. But there is something comforting about knowing exactly why the factfinder decided as it did. Of course, we are familiar with the underlying notion in our system that one way we limit judicial discretion is to require a judge to write down reasons for his or her rulings – both because it forces the judge to justify and articulate the findings and so that those rulings can be reviewed. But more than that, on a human level, it just feels right to require anyone who judges another human being – and condemns him – to explain why.
A different set of protections, to be sure. But food for comparative thought.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
We would like to share the following announcement:
Call for Participation
Twelfth Annual LatCrit-SALT
Junior Faculty Development Workshop
October 9, 2014
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV
LatCrit, Inc. and the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) are pleased to invite interested participants to the Twelfth Annual Junior Faculty Development Workshop (FDW), immediately preceding the SALT Teaching Conference. This annual workshop is designed for critical, progressive, and social justice oriented pre-tenure professors, including clinicians and legal writing professors, as well as those who may be contemplating a teaching career. However, we also encourage more senior members of the profession to attend, share their experience, and serve as resources and mentors.
The FDW is designed to familiarize critical, progressive, and social justice oriented junior faculty with LatCrit and SALT principles and values and support them in the scholarship, teaching, and service aspects of professional success. In addition, the FDW seeks to foster scholarship in progressive, social justice, and critical outsider jurisprudence, including LatCrit theory, among new and junior faculty, students, and practitioners. Finally, the FDW aims to cultivate a community of scholars interested in the continuation of this and similar projects over the years.
To facilitate community building through shared experiences and the exchange of ideas, we strongly encourage all participants to attend the entire workshop.
If you have questions about the workshop or would like to attend, please email SALTLatCritFDW@gmail.com. Although we will make efforts to accommodate all interested participants, RSVPs are strongly suggested by September 30, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Rather than permitting former Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, the Vatican’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic, to stand trial on the soil where he seduced young children for cash, the Vatican recalled him to Rome. While he is apparently now free to roam the streets of Rome, he left behind scores of young victims whose poverty he apparently exploited. Despite the fact that the Vatican's own guidelines state that reports of child abuse should be made in the country where the abuse occurred, the Vatican chose to recall and defrock its ambassador and failed to file a report with the local authorities.
Although, under Vatican law, sexual abuse may be punished by 12 years of imprisonment, the Vatican's decision to recall their ambassador rather than report the matter to local authorites will apparently deprive many of the Arbishop's victims their day in court. Given that child sexual abuse and human trafficking are serious problems in the Dominican Republic, by whisking away the alleged perpetrator to stand trial away from the scene of his crimes, the Vatican has deprived the citizens of the Dominican Republic the opportunity to seek justice for their own citizens.
Laurie Goodstein, "For Nuncio Accused of Abuse, Dominicans Want Justice at Home, Not Abroad," August 23, 2014. New York Times.
Laurie Goodstein, "Ex-Diplomat for the Vatican Could be Tried," August 25, 2014. New York Times.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Through the mechanisms of the jury trial and popularly elected district attorneys and legislatures, our system of criminal justice is supposedly responsive to popular opinion. Yet this sensitivity to politics at times threatens the system's basic conceptions of due process. For example, the failure of state and federal government to adequately fund indigent defense services undermines the implicit assumption in our system that a battle between equal parties will produce the truth. Public support for "tough on crime" policies helped to fuel the nation's massive over-incarceration problem.
Although our nation's system of immigration courts is largely separate from our criminal justice system, some of the same inequities which run rampant in our criminal justice system have recently come to light in rural detention centers. Just last week, the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, the National Immigration Law Center, and the American Immigration Center filed suit in federal court alleging that immigration authorities in Artesia, New Mexico were engaging in a set of behaviors designed to compromise the due process rights of ten women and children by making it difficult for the individuals to file for asylum.
Some politicians including the current governor of Texas, seem eager to equate rapid deportation with "enforcing the law." Those who seek to use the law instrumentally as a tool of the state without regard for procedural guarantees risk reducing the law to a mere tool of the powerful. One wonders, how Mr. Perry would respond, if he was immediately jailed and tried on the charges in his recent indictment. Increasingly, the only individuals who get their day in court in this country are the ones who possess the power and means to enforce their rights. Perhaps, Mr. Holder, who recently created hope for the disempowered in Ferguson, Missouri might make Artesia, New Mexico his next stop.
Julia Preston, "U.S. Faces Suit Over Tactics at Immigrant Detention Center," NEW YORK TIMES, August 22, 2014.
Friday, August 22, 2014
I have been involved in the criminal justice system for more than forty years, and I feel as if there has never been a summer with so much going on in the public eye. Ferguson, Missouri, is the most recent and most alarming event, following so closely on the Staten Island chokehold case. These cases have focused serious attention on the police-citizen relationship that was front and center last year in the stop-and-frisk decision and the settlement of that lawsuit by the new New York City mayor. We have been witness to the unprecedented actions of the Brooklyn, New York Conviction Integrity Unit in the District Attorney’s office, and to the dismissal of erroneous convictions in that county. These dismissals have been followed by substantial financial settlements by New York City. The New York Times ran a series of editorials urging the de-criminalization of marijuana possession in some circumstances, and another editorial calling for revisions in the virtually-non-existent clemency process. Four state governors are either being tried, charged, or investigated. Rampant prisoner abuse has been exposed just as claims made by prisoners has spiked, and there is now dialogue about the excessive use and destructive results of solitary confinement. The entire capital punishment process has come under scrutiny because the drug companies who provide the lethal drugs to accomplish our executions are no longer willing to do so. There is increasing focus on our entire system of punishment because of international attention on our disgracefully large prison population. On an international level, we have also been witness to mass executions in Egypt and a long-awaited English investigation of the poisoning of a Russian journalist in London. Scotland abolished its long-standing and unique corroboration requirement. We were witness to an historic event: a Black, South African, and female judge presiding at the trial of a young white male, who happened to be an internationally acclaimed athlete.
Having been raised on a September to September calendar, and having continued with that conception of the “year” as a law professor, I am pausing to wonder what we will witness in the next twelve months.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
In October, I will be visiting China for the first time to appear at a Global Conference on Corruption in Jinan. I have come to corruption through the backdoor of writing about whistleblowing legislation in the U.S. and am still getting my feet wet. Building on my prior work, I am interested in exploring corruption law from the perspective of prosecutorial discretion. While public concern with corruption has grown world wide during the past twenty years, prosecution has been selective.
Right now, concerns with bribes in the health care and pharmaceutical industries have moved to the forefront. Just last week, Syria announced that it is investigating claims that representatives from GlaxoSmithKline bribed Syrian doctors to boost sales of medicines. These new allegations follow allegations in China last year in which four GSK executives allegedly evaded the company's internal control systems in an effort to boost sales.
As my research continues, I hope to discover why certain industries either seem prone to corruption or are prone to investigation.
Scott Campbell, "Glaxo China Bribery Allegations-Timeline," THE TELEGRAPH, May 14, 2014.
"GlaxoSmith Kline Faces Bribery Claims in Syria," THE TELEGRAPH, August 12, 2014.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Many of us working in comparative law, especially those of us engaged in long-term qualitative research, rely on summer for getting intensive fieldwork done. I'm curious how others have spent their summers, what "the field" looked like this year, and the limits or potential you see in summer re-engagement with familiar terrain.
I spent my summer working in and on Ukraine. I've worked there for 19+ years and this year was like no other I've ever experienced. (Many thanks to Shawn and Lissa for keeping the blogfires burning when internet complications and data overload kept me from it. There was a lot to process.) I'll be blogging more about aspects of my long-term research and current developments in upcoming posts.
For now, suffice it to say that the war in Ukraine has permeated life far beyond the areas of active fighting in the east. The war is palpable in Kyiv [Kiev]. Even today (literally), Ukrainian friends wonder if open invasion of the eastern border is imminent. And in potentially related news, volunteers and city authorities in Kyiv today cleared out several hundred "maidanovtsi," the remainder of those occupying the central square (Maidan) in Kyiv since the inception of protests last November. Some in Kyiv saw these remaining hundreds of (almost all) men living 24/7 in a large tent encampment on the Square as protecters of the revolution that drove out a repressive government in February. Others saw them as legitimate heros whose PTSD has kept them clinging to a place where comrades were felled by their own government's bullets. Others, playing on the term for self-formed platoon, sotnya, together with the word for alcoholic, had started to refer to them as alcosotni, desperate opportunists -- otherwise underemployed or unhoused -- who moved in or hung on when other protesters moved on to civilian lives. And still others saw the tent encampment of the remaining maidanovtsi as a potential security threat, a Trojan horse in the center of Kyiv waiting to be filled by unmarked military forces of the ilk that invaded Crimea in March or eastern Ukraine in April. No wonder, then, that ordinary residents of Kyiv (including many who supported the Maidan protests at risk to their own lives) joined the mayor in cleaning out the tents and belongings and rubbish of the remainders today.
Thus evictions, occupations, perceptions of risk, claims to rights, discourses of inclusion and exclusion are preoccupying me these days. Gautam Bhan has a new paper out that speaks to some of these themes (and attests to the potential richness of long-term qualitative research in comparative law) in a very different context. Gautam looks at bastis, or evictions of poor illegal settlements, in Delhi. [The Hindustani word basti, Gautam explains, comes from its root basna (to settle) and means, quite literally, settlement. Colloquially, it invokes an image of an impoverished settlement often made of temporary or kuccha materials that reflects in its form the vulnerability of its residents.]
Cribbing from his introduction, "This paper’s core preoccupation is in many ways an old one: through what mechanisms do democratic polities produce, maintain and reproduce inequality? It grapples with this preoccupation, however, in a particular and emergent milieu."
Looking at case law that led to a seemingly relentless series of evictions of poor illegal settlements (colloquially known as bastis) in New Delhi over the last two decades, it asks: how is inequality reproduced within and through contemporary Indian urbanism?"
Occupations, evictions, invasions. What has occupied you this summer?
Bhan, Gautam (2014) The impoverishment of poverty: reflections on urban citizenship and inequality in contemporary Delhi. Environment & Urbanization. Vol 26 (2): pp. 1-14 DOI:10.1177/0956247814542391.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
During my most recent trip to Germany in July, I asked several German law professors whether there were any “wrongful convictions” in Germany. The widely agreed answer was “no.” That led me to wonder whether inquisitorial systems of justice are perhaps better structured to prevent wrongful convictions.
Given that the success of the inquisitorial form of justice has historically depended on securing the confession of the accused, the more important question may be whether the law adequately protects a suspect’s right to remain silent. Indeed, in the U.S., the use of the method of questioning suspects has led to false confessions- one of the main causes of wrongful convictions in this country.
During the recent Juris Diversitas conference in Aix-en-Provence, France, I sat on a panel with Michelle- Thérèse Stevenson, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Limerick. Her research indicates that the right to remain silent is under fire across Europe despite the fact that Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights upholds a suspect’s presumption of innocence. According to Stevenson, in both Ireland and France, there are signs that a suspect’s presumption of innocence and right to remain silent are being eroded despite the fact that both the European Convention and the respective state constitutions/case law recognize the right.
Ireland features an adversarial system of justice. Although the presumption of innocence is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is said to flow from Article 38.1 of the Irish Constitution. Additionally, courts have recognized a constitutional right to silence. In France’s inquisitorial system, the presumption of innocence is well recognized throughout the law. Despite these protections, in both countries, according to Stevenson, the role of defense counsel is held in low esteem. In Ireland, recent case decisions have held that where a suspect relies on counsel’s advice to remain silent, a jury may draw an adverse inference from that silence if it believes that the reason for his or her silence is they are “sure that the true reason for his silence is that he had no or no satisfactory explanation consistent with innocence to give.” In France, following the ECtHR decision in Salduz v. Turkey, France enacted legislation that recognized suspects’ rights to have a lawyer present during questioning and reaffirmed the fact that police have a duty to inform suspects that they possess the right to remain silent. Still, there is some evidence to suggest that resistance to this new legislation exists.
In sum, there is definite reason for concern for the future of the right to remain silent in Ireland. In France, the picture is less clear.
Code procédure pénale . Art. 63-1
Code civil, article 9-1
Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen du 26 Aout, 1789
ECHR Art. 6(2)
Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos, “Custodial Legal Assistance and Notification of the Right to Silence in France: Legal Cosmopolitanism and Local Resistance,” Criminal Law Forum. September 2013, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 291-329
Heaney v Ireland  IESC 1 IR 580.
Innocence Project, “The Causes of Wrongful Conviction,” Available online at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/.
Irish Criminal Justice Act, 2007.
Pat McInerney, “Equality of Arms” Between the Suspect Interrogated in Garda Custody and the Gardaí? 2 Judicial Studies Institute Journal (2010), pp 1-33, citing  E.W.C.A. Crim. 784, at para. 51.
Salduz v. Turkey, 49 EHRR 421.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Several interesting comparative ethics issues were addressed at the International Legal Ethics Conference VI held at City University, in London, July 10-12. The presentations by ethicists from all over the globe were divided into simultaneous sessions on ethics and Education, Philosophy, Regulation, Culture, and Empirical Approaches that offered a comparative view of how different jurisdictions view the interplay of ethics and the law.
Some of the interesting comparative issues I heard discussed included the evolution and regulation of alternative legal business systems (e.g., the LegalZoom phenomenon), the developing role of corporate general counsel, and the impact on the internet on practice and regulation of lawyers. As a comparativist with a US/UK focus, I was particularly interested in a presentation on the discipline of solicitors in England (which seemed to indicate the disciplinary process focused on ‘low hanging fruit’ just as it does in most of the United States).
A particularly interesting presentation focused on the English Bar Council’s ethics training for young barristers and, in particular, on recent developments in handling vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases. To my mind, the comparison between the English procedures in place for dealing with vulnerable witnesses and the comparable procedures in the United States illustrates at least one basic difference between the two criminal justice systems: the degree to which the English system empowers judges and the US system empowers the adversaries.
Thus, in England, procedures for dealing effectively with vulnerable witnesses rest largely in the hands of the judge while in the United States the lawyers are the responsible parties. For example, at an early pre-trial hearing, an English judge will undertake to manage the case and set a strict time table for interviews of witnesses. The judge is likely to address and resolve issues of whether a vulnerable witness should testify behind a screen or have the assistance of an intermediary to report to the court on the witness’s vulnerabilities and abilities, and to support the witness. The court may even require counsel to write down the questions proposed for cross-examination and may limit the time allowed for cross-examination. On the morning of trial, the court, counsel, and any witness intermediary will conference to address a vulnerable witness’s capabilities and how to get the best evidence from the witness, e.g., by short, non-leading questions, delivered chronologically, in plain English, etc.
We in the United States certainly do not give our judges this sort of control. In fact, it can be a violation of the confrontation clause for a court to interfere in or limit cross-examination. In our adversary system, the judge certainly has a role in protecting a vulnerable witness and helping to elicit truthful and complete testimony, but we leave the process largely in the hands of counsel.
I couldn’t help wondering if the elite status of barristers in England – something we don’t have in the United States – also contributed to the decision to give so much control to the courts. Traditionally, barristers had very little to do with lay clients and worked in what were essentially guilds, accepted fees by way of a pouch in the back of their gowns and were considered to be skilled advocates rather than partisans. To this day, barristers can function as defense counsel and prosecutors in different cases. In that context, it is not surprising that there would be a willingness on the part of barristers to defer the ethically and practically messy process of dealing with vulnerable witnesses to the courts.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
A meeting of attorneys general of the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand raises the complicated but extremely pressing question about how to restrict juror access to the internet. In the United States, proof that a juror sitting on a case has researched that case on the internet is presumptively prejudicial and requires reversal if not rebutted. As yet, however, we are not aware of any US juror being charged with a crime, or with contempt of court, for such behavior. In the United Kingdom, juror misconduct of this kind is usually dealt with as a contempt of court. A New Zealand law commission has proposed to make it a crime for a juror to disobey the standard instructions of a judge and research a case on line. Jurors could be charged and punished for researching details of a case they are trying, sharing details of that research with other jurors, and disclosing details of juror deliberations. The latter charge could finally put an end to jurors seeking publicity – or lucrative media contracts – after verdict.
Owen Bowcott, Attorney Generals to Debate Role of Juries in Internet Age, The Guardian (July 6, 2014).
Chambers v. State, 739 S.E.2d 513, 321 Ga. App. 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Abdi, 45 A.3d 29, 191 Vt. 162 (2012).
United States v. Bristol-Mártir, 570 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009).
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Last week, in Riley v. California, No. 13-132 and 13-212, 2014 BL 175779, 2014 WL 2864483, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4497 (U.S. June 25, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the police may not search a cell phone incident to arrest without a warrant. Two years ago, on April 24, 2012, the Brazilian Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion when it held that Brazilian police do not need a warrant to access the cellphone agenda of an arrested suspect (H.C. 91.867). The case involved a defendant described as a “well-known contract killer,” who was accused of murdering a victim in broad day light in the state of Pará, Brazil in 2004. Upon his arrest, the police checked the agendas of the defendant’s two cellphones, which gave them evidence against the people who supposedly contracted the killing. The supposed contractors argued the unconstitutionality of that evidence as violating their right to not have their communications intercepted without warrant.
The Brazilian court upheld the constitutionality of the search, reasoning that the Brazilian Constitution (C.F.) protects telephone communications (art. 5º, XII) and the contents of a cell phone differently. The Brazilian Constitution states that telephone communications are inviolable, except when authorized by a judge in case of a criminal investigation (art. 5º, XII). Therefore, a warrant would be needed in case of wiretapping. However, the search of the cell phone was not the same as wiretapping. The police simply accessed the phone agenda to discover with whom the defendant had talked before the killing.
The court analogized to the situation in which police officers found a piece of paper with a phone number written on it in the defendant’s shirt pocket. In addition, the court considered the seriousness of the crime and the public’s interest in solving it to outweigh the right to privacy of the defendants. Justice Mendes also pointed to the theory of inevitable discovery, built by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams (1984), which would have been applied to the case, since the seizure of a cellphone is usually followed by access of all of the phone registers, not just the last calls.
The comparison between the two decisions is interesting. First, obviously, the US and Brazilian constitutions are different: the US constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Brazilian Constitution prohibits intercepting communications. Accordingly, the United States and Brazilian courts seem to analyze the scope of privacy protection differently. In addition, this kind of Brazilian Supreme Court decision is not binding on other courts, allowing the Court to focus on the specific facts of the case rather than establishing a general rule.
Factually, too, the cases are different. The Brazilian case involved a search of a cell phone in 2004, at a time when cell phones contained much less personal data than they did at the time of the Riley search. And, to the extent that both courts balance the public’s interest in solving crime against the privacy rights of the defendant, the Brazilian case involved a heinous murder for hire while the Riley case involved narcotics. The Brazilian court focused specifically on the seriousness of the crime.
In either country, predictions are difficult. As technology evolves, so too will the issues surrounding seizure of a variety of items, including laptops and the like. And as we continue to publish personal information extensively in places like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, our reasonable expectations of privacy may change. It will be interesting to see how the jurisprudence follows these developments.
**This post was co-authored by Rafael Wolff, a Federal Judge in Brazil and an SJD Candidate at Pace University School of Law.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
When the U.K. relinquished control of Hong Kong to China in 1997, China promised to protect the island’s autonomy. Indeed, Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which is based on the common law, grants this special administrative region a high degree of autonomy with respect to local issues. Specifically Article 27 of Hong Kong’s Basic law states that “residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, assembly, of procession and demonstration. . .”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, those freedoms are now under fire as mainland government has chosen to gradually rewrite the rules. On June 10th of this year, the Chinese cabinet issued a white paper that declared that “[the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR is not full autonomy, nor a decentralized power. It is the power to run local affairs as authorized by the central leadership. . .” According to an article in the New York Times, the document also suggested that judicial appointments would now be subjected to a political litmus test which critics suggest will undermine the rule of law.
In response to the white paper, local officials sponsored an unofficial poll to gauge support for changing the process whereby the city-state’s next top political official will be chosen in 2017 to a more democratic process. That poll gained over 800,000 votes over a ten day period.
Still, a public opinion poll released yesterday shows a more ambivalent attitude towards the current relationship with China. While 33% of the respondents viewed the central government’s policies negatively, 31% possessed a positive attitude. Yet the poll revealed a stunning age divide as anti-government attitudes were prevalent among the younger generation as 52% of respondents aged 18 to 29 had a negative view of the central government’s policies.
Earlier today however, “tens of thousands of people converged on Hong Kong’s Victoria Park for an annual protest march” while only a handful of individuals showed up for a pro-China rally. During the march, activists from the League of Social Democrats burned a copy of the white paper and called for the Hong Kong’s Chief Executive to be sacked. It remains to be seen what message the Chinese government will draw from the large size of the demonstration crowd. In 2003, after a crowd of 500,000 turned out to protest a series of anti-subversion laws, the government scrapped the proposed legislation.
It remains to be seen how the Chinese Cabinet will respond to the public demonstrations.
ReferencesMichael Forsythe, “Sparse Turnout at Pro-China Rally in Hong Kong,” The New York Times, July 1, 2014. Available online at: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/sparse-turnout-at-pro-china-rally-in-hong-kong/ James Pomfret and Grace Li, “Passions Run High as Hong Kong Marches for Democracy,” Reuters Online, July 1, 2014. Available online at:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-hongkong-protests-idUSKBN0F632A20140701. Austin Ramzy, “Hong Kong Survey Finds Record Dissatisfaction with Beijing,” The New York Times, July 1, 2014. Available online at: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/hong-kong-survey-finds-record-dissatisfaction-with-beijing/?ref=world
Alan Wong, “Beijing’s ‘White Paper’ Sets Off a Firestorm in Hong Kong,” New York Times, June 11, 2014. Available online at: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-off-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Readers may be interested in what promises to be a fascinating conference taking place in London on July 10-12, the sixth biannual International Legal Ethics Conference VI. Here is the description from the website:
Legal professions around the world are operating in a period of rapid economic, social and technological change. Consumerism, the decline of self-regulation, the intensification of globalisation and the growth of international legal practice, call into question the traditional role of legal professions in society. They also challenge the manifestation of legal professionalism in the organisation, culture and regulation of lawyers. Regulators are reconsidering their functions and approaches in relation to legal education, as seen in the US's ABA Task Force Report and the UK's LETR Report.
The sixth bi-annual conference of the International Legal Ethics Association takes place at a critical time in the evolution of legal ethics. The conference is built around short, paper presentations organised in streams. The streams are:
1. Culture, Technology, Ethics and Society
2. Empirical Approaches to Legal Ethics
3. Philosophy and Legal Ethics
4. Regulation of the Profession(s)
5. Ethics and Legal Education.
The conference is hosted by The City Law School.
This conference has attracted a fabulously impressive list of panelists, many of whom are leaders in the US ethics field. It promises to be a must for comparative ethicists and US ethics professionals.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The UK Court of Appeal modified a lower court ruling that had allowed the defendants in an upcoming terrorism trial to remain anonymous and to hold the trial in secret on the grounds of national security. We reported on that lower court decision last week. The court of appeal has now held that the two measures combined - anonymity and secrecy - were too much and that it was “difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified.” It held that the defendants should be named – and they were (Erol Incidal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar) – and that some of the evidence but not all could be taken in secret. At the risk of setting precedent that could be interpreted as a broad authorization for secrecy in criminal cases, Lord Justice Gross stressed that the case itself “is exceptional.”
The court also held that a small number of journalists from the organizations that had brought the appeal would be allowed to attend all but the most sensitive evidentiary parts of the trial. Interestingly, however, these reporters would not be allowed to take their notes out of the courtroom or to do any reporting on the case until an existing reporting ban on the case is lifted.
Part of the problem with the case is that the proof in support of the government’s request for secrecy has itself been secret, so it is impossible for the public to evaluate the bona fides of the claim that secrecy is necessary. That situation remains. Nevertheless, the court was concerned and seemed to accept the government’s position that if it did not have some secrecy it would have to dismiss the case. We should follow the trial to see how the modified order is implemented, since, despite the court’s concern about the uniqueness of this case, whatever occurs will be novel and precedential, at least for serious terrorism cases.
David Brown,Terror Suspects Named in Secret Trial, The London Times, June 12, 2014. www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4116784.ece