Thursday, December 6, 2007
From Yementimes.com: While
U.S. military in Guantanamo released hundreds of different
nationalities recently, American lawyers representing Yemeni detainees
at the remote Cuban island claim that the Yemeni government does not do
enough to release its citizens.
“We lawyers have not been given a seat at the negotiating table, so all we can do is speculate. There have been many public statements from the U.S. to the effect that Yemen and a handful of other countries are not willing to negotiate in good faith for the return of their countrymen. As I have frequently stated, if President Saleh really wants to bring the Yemeni men back home, he has to do more than have his spokesmen make empty public statements about "demanding" repatriations. Other countries -- like Bahrain, for example -- have successfully negotiated with the Americans for their citizens’ return. The plain fact is that President Saleh's government has so far failed to deliver. We measure success by results, not by the volume of public statements.” stated Northern Illinois University CrimProf Marc Falkoff, who represents sixteen Yemeni men who have been detained at Guantánamo (Gitmo) for nearly six years.
Yemen less proactive than other countries
Falkoff revealed that more than 770 men from dozens of countries have been detained at Gitmo since 2002, but more than 400 of them have subsequently been released. Saudi Arabia, for example, has had 100 of its 130 citizens returned from the prison camp. He elaborated, “Yemen is now the country with the largest number of prisoners at Gitmo and only 12 of its 110 citizens – including 1 of my clients – have been released in the last 6 years. A thirteenth Yemeni came home in a body bag, having died under suspicious circumstances in the prison. Even more frustrating, a number of the Yemeni detainees – including 2 of my clients – were designated years ago by the military as eligible to return to Yemen, yet they are still in prison on the remote Cuban island.” Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
It is the modern equivalent of a Puritan stockade, where the guilty are exposed and the rest of society is reminded of what can happen when you break the law.
The anti-drunken-driving campaign is the work of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
Some are opposed to this type of campaign, but Thomas believes that because DUI is a crime routinely committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens, the fear of shame could prevent people from getting behind the wheel when they have had too much to drink.
Florida State University College of Law CrimProf Dan Markel thinks the tactic reflects poorly on society.
"The very goal of shaming," Markel wrote in the New Republic, "is the dehumanization of another person before, and with the participation of, the public. Before we permit democratic institutions to subject an offender to ridicule, scorn and humiliation, we have to ask whether this kind of punishment comports with evolving standards of decency and the dignity of humankind. The answer is clearly no."
In an interview, Markel also questioned whether the campaign will make a person less likely to drive drunk.
"The problem is that when people drink, they are probably not in the mode of thinking about what the possible punishment is," Markel said. "And if they did, then they probably wouldn't be driving."
Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thomas M. Cooley Law School Innocence Project Co-Director Marla Mitchell-Cichon recently wrote an opinion piece for the Lansing State Journal concerning false confession. Here is an excerpt:
When will we learn that innocent individuals can and do confess to crimes they do not commit? Sometimes they even plead guilty.
While we might find ourselves saying, "never," when imagining ourselves in such a situation, the truth is confessions and guilty pleas come from the mouths of the innocent. Of the 208 DNA exonerations nationally, more than 25 percent of the cases involved false confessions or guilty pleas.
Michigan should have learned this lesson in 2002 when Detroit native Eddie Joe Lloyd was found innocent and exonerated of the 1984 rape and murder of 16-year-old Michelle Jackson.
Lloyd was in a mental institution at the time of the investigation of the Jackson case. He contacted police because he wanted to help solve the crime. After three police interviews, Lloyd confessed to the crime. According to the police, Lloyd provided details of the crime that only the perpetrator could have known.
Hauntingly we have heard the same claims in the Claude McCollum case in Lansing. McCollum's "sleepwalking" confession also contained specific details of the crime. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The University of Southern California Gould School of Law seeks applicants for a faculty position in the Post-Conviction Justice Project Clinic to begin Fall 2008.
The Law School has a long tradition of clinical education and is committed to expanding its live-client clinical curriculum. The primary responsibility of this position is further developing and teaching in the Post-Conviction Justice Project, an existing live-client clinical course. The person hired for this position will co-teach this course with another clinical professor. Clinical faculty members at USC typically also teach a doctrinal or simulation-based lawyering skills course in addition to their clinic.
The Post-Conviction Justice Project represents prisoners in a variety of legal matters including habeas petitions in state and federal courts, administrative hearings before the California Board of Parole Hearings, and in cases challenging conditions of confinement. The Project also is considering taking on one or more innocence project cases.
Candidates will be considered for continuous appointment to the Law School's clinical professor track. J.D. Degree and a minimum of five years' relevant practice or comparable clinical teaching experience are required. Teaching experience in a clinical setting is preferred. Applicants must be licensed to practice law in at least one state and be eligible to take the July 2008 California bar if not already admitted to practice in California.
To apply, mail by December 14, 2007, a letter describing clinical teaching interests and relevant practice experience, a resume, and the names of three references to Assoc. Dean Greg Keating, USC Law School, 699 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071. The Law School is an equal opportunity employer.
Monday, November 26, 2007
University of Iowa CrimProf Mark Sidel says that a variety of new legal tactics used against human traffickers will help determine whether modern-day slavery can be wiped out in the United States.
"Progress on this front, particularly in the areas of federal and state enforcement, civil remedies for trafficking victims, and the reform of labor law, will go a long way toward determining whether we can in fact make rapid progress in locating, prosecuting and eradicating human trafficking and forced labor in the United States," said CrimProf Sidel, who teaches courses on human trafficking and is writing a book on the issue, spoke on "New Directions in the Struggle against Human Trafficking" earlier this month as the Richard B. Lillich Memorial Lecture at Florida State University.
Between 600,000 and 800,000 persons are victims of human trafficking worldwide each year. They are taken against their will and forced to work in the sex industry or at jobs that pay little or no wages. The U.S. State Department estimates between 14,500 and 17,500 of those victims are trafficked into and within the United States, where they are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion -- all for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced labor.
In his lecture, Sidel said that new "expressive" state laws have been adopted by more than 30 states seeking to combat human trafficking by criminalizing sex trafficking, labor trafficking or both. The laws may provide protection to trafficking victims while they attempt to prevent future offenses. He said that because most of the laws are new, enforcement has barely begun in many states, although the federal government has been actively prosecuting trafficking since the mid-1990s.
Sidel said that in 2006 Iowa enacted a trafficking law, spearheaded by then-State Senator Maggie Tinsman and supported by a statewide coalition of anti-trafficking activists and a student group at the University of Iowa. In addition, an anti-trafficking legal movement is growing that allows private lawsuits by trafficking victims to be brought against their traffickers, providing victims the ability to sue their traffickers for civil compensation, he said.
Sidel also said that American labor law needs to address human trafficking more comprehensively and forced labor far more often than at present, adding that the root cause of human trafficking needs to be researched more fully by policy researchers and scholars. [Mark Godsey]
Sunday, November 18, 2007
From NYTimes.com: As news of Barry Bond’s indictment on federal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice spread, handicapping a likely trial and predicting possible strategies immediately became popular throughout the nation’s law schools.
The majority opinion, several professors said in telephone interviews, was that the government had to keep Bonds from seeking refuge in semantics, as President Bill Clinton did with his famous defense, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Bonds, baseball’s career home run leader, was indicted Thursday on four felony counts of lying to a federal grand jury in 2003 and one count of obstruction of justice. During an investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Op Bonds testified that he never knowingly took steroids or other illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
“I think the biggest challenge the prosecution will face is making the clarity of the questions that they asked stick,” said Fordham University CrimProf James A. Cohen. “If you don’t ask clear questions, it becomes much harder to prove that the answers are false.”
Golden Gate University CrimProf Peter Keane said: “Someone can always explain, ‘Well, I really didn’t mean that, or my memory was wrong in that situation, or I was confused or I had other kinds of problems in regard to the questions.’ If you can raise a reasonable doubt, then the jury can’t convict you.”
Bonds’s four perjury counts pertain to his denial of taking steroids and human growth hormone supplied by his trainer, Greg Anderson; his denial that he had received injections or had blood drawn by anyone but physicians; and the timing of those actions. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Friday, November 16, 2007
From the new Brian Leiter study. [Revised] CRIMINAL LAW and PROCEDURE
1. Dan Kahan (Yale University), 1070 citations, age 44.
2. Robert Weisberg (Stanford University), 1060 citations, age 61.
3. George Fletcher (Columbia University), 1040 citations, age 68.
4. William Stuntz (Harvard University), 970 citations, age 49.
5. Stephen Schulhofer (New York University), 870 citations, age 65.
6. Albert Alschuler (Northwestern University), 820 citations, age 67.
7. Michael Tonry (University of Minnesota), 810 citations, age 62.
8. Joshua Dressler (Ohio State University), 790 citations, age 60.
9. Paul Robinson (University of Pennsylvania), 770 citations, age 59.
10. James S. Liebman (Columbia University), 740 citations, age 55.
11. Christopher Slobogin (University of Florida), 680 citations, age 56.
12. Samuel Gross (University of Michigan), 650 citations, age 61.
12. Richard H. McAdams (University of Chicago): 650 citations, age 47.
14. Anthony Amsterdam (New York University), 610 citations, age 72.
15. David A. Harris (University of Pittsburgh), 590 citations, age 50.
16. Yale Kamisar (University of San Diego), 550 citations, age 78.
17. Stephen Saltzburg (George Washington University), 520 citations, age 62.
18. George C. Thomas III (Rutgers University, Newark), 520 citations, age 60.
19. Susan Bandes (DePaul University), 500 citations, age 56.
20. Nancy King (Vanderbilt University), 430 citations, age 49.
Runners-up: Orin Kerr (George Washington University), 410 citations; Stephanos Bibas (University of Pennsylvania), 400 citations; Sara Sun Beale (Duke University), 390 citations; Marc Miller (University of Arizona), 390 citations; Donald Dripps (University of San Diego), 380 citations; Jerold Israel (University of Florida), 380 citations; David Baldus (University of Iowa), 370 citations; Tracey Meares (Yale University), 370 citations; David Sklansky (University of California, Berkeley), 370 citations; Paul Butler (George Washington University), 360 citations; Stephen Garvey (Cornell University), 340 citations; Susan Klein (University of Texas), 340 citations; Bernard Harcourt (University of Chicago), 330 citations.
Other highly-cited scholars who don’t work exclusively in this area: Larry Alexander (University of San Diego), 980 citations; Kent Greenawalt (Columbia University), 960 citations; Michael S. Moore (University of Illinois), 920 citations; Mark Kelman (Stanford University), 730 citations; Gabriel Chin (University of Arizona), 450 citations; Ronald J. Allen (Northwestern University), 400 citations.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
University of Minnesota and now Visiting Harvard Law School Crimprof Professor Kevin Washburn has noted the following update on criminal justice in Indian country:
week the Denver Post ran a series of four articles on criminal justice
in Indian country. It documents serious law enforcement problems in
Indian country, including the significant logistical problems that
arise in these cases in which trial often occur hundreds of miles from
the scene of the crime, the US Attorney scandal (several of the fired
U.S. Attorneys were allegedly fired for pursuing their Indian country
agendas too vigorously), homicides uninvestigated or poorly
investigated, assaults unprosecuted in which the assault suspect later
committed rapes or homicides.
It also mentions the "cavalry effect," the historical dynamic that causes tribal communities to turn against their own crime victims when victims summon federal authorities onto the reservation for investigations. A serious problem highlighted in the series is that, as Congress has doubled the federal budget allocations for Indian country offenses, federal law enforcement agencies have shifted the resources to other priorities. The series also highlights the challenges in determining how to address these difficult problems.
Washburn adds: "I spent many hours on the phone with the Denver Post reporter (Mike Riley) over the course of the past year and he had read most of my work very closely even before our first conversation. The reporter quickly internalized my analysis and then brought his own tremendous insight. I feel like my law scholarship has come alive through real world examples of many of the problems I have raised. I understand that the series will be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism and I hope that it wins. The timing of the story is important because the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is developing legislation that will attempt to address some of these problems."
testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in June,
shortly after the release of an Amnesty International report came out
criticizing the United States for the dysfunctional American criminal
justice system on Indian reservations that has allowed an epidemic of
sexual violence against women.
Amnesty Report. . . Denver Post Articles. . . [Mark Godsey]
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Quinney College of Law CrimProf Paul Cassell served on the U.S. District Court in Utah from 2002 through 2007. Before serving on the bench, Judge Cassell was the Farr Professor of Law at the College of Law and established himself as the nation’s leading expert in victim’s rights. He is also a leader in sentencing guideline reform.
Cassell’s op-ed, “Repairing a Crack in the System,” appeared in the November 13, 2007 on-line edition of the Washington Post. It argues that the current disparity in federal sentencing guidelines for crack and powder cocaine offenses has produced effects that “have been more harmful than good” and advocates a reduction in recommended sentences for the majority of crack cocaine offenses.
Read Op-Ed. . . [Mark Godsey]
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Stetson University's College of Law CrimProf Robert Batey recently discussed the grand jury testimony's long history of secrecy, which is often difficult to break, with concern to the Fort Myers attorney representing an accused killer wants to know what was said in March when a grand jury didn’t indict his client and what has changed that has led to the recent indictment.
“I’m trying to find out for me whether there were witnesses who gave testimony different than what they gave later on,” said attorney Gary Bass. “In order for Mr. Mendez to get a fair trial.”
Bass is scheduled to argue today before Circuit Judge Thomas Reese why testimony presented to the grand jury should be disclosed. But that position could be a difficult one to argue successfully, given the long history of grand jury secrecy. A quick poll of local defense attorneys revealed that arguing this type of motion successfully is rare.
Mendez is charged with two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of his wife, Whitney Mendez, and his mother-in-law, Lorena Stone, in July 2006. Mendez was arrested in February, but a grand jury in March declined to indict him on first-degree murder charges, saying the evidence was “circumstantial, consisting largely of DNA found at the scene.”
Because of the state's speedy trial law, prosecutors had to charge him by Aug. 1 but said they would only do so if detectives found new evidence. In late July of this year, less than 24 hours before the law would have precluded Mendez from prosecution, State Attorney Steve Russell announced Mendez would be charged with second-degree murder.
A judge, CrimProf Batey said, will have to balance the issues and decide whether a fair trial is impeded by keeping that testimony closed.
can understand the defense’s desire to get this information now,” he
said. “But I can also see the counterargument of the prosecutor given
the secrecy of the grand jury.”
Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Monday, November 12, 2007
American University Washington College of Law will celebrate the publishing of the second edition of Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, written by CrimProf Roy Gutman and David Rieff, and with Legal Editor Ken Anderson. The 2nd Edition book launch will be held Wednesday.
Crimes of War is an
A-to-Z guide of wartime atrocities originally published in 1999. There
have been many developments on the international law front since the
original publication of the book, including the rise of the
International Criminal Court, the emergence of a global “war on terror”
and escalating humanitarian conflicts in Darfur and other regions. This
important book has been updated to reflect these developments.[Mark Godsey]
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The international tribunals formed in response to crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have failed to effectively deter war crimes and punish perpetrators, said Washington and Lee School of Law International CrimProf Mark Drumbl during a talk at the Law School Nov. 1. Drumbl recently penned a book on the subject, “Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law,” which aims to reveal the weaknesses in the current international criminal tribunals and offer more effective strategies to prosecute those who commit mass atrocities such as genocide.
“War crimes target everyone,” Drumbl said. “We are all victims.…We need to set up a system in these states where oppressors bear personal burdens for crimes.”
After the Rwandan genocide and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the United Nations established two international criminal tribunals to prosecute those who participated in genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in each of the conflicts. Drumbl explained that the tribunals had two goals: to hold individuals accountable for participating in mass atrocities, and to deter others from committing similar crimes in the future by demonstrating that they would be prosecuted. Both tribunals are still prosecuting individuals for the crimes.
Drumbl said that in “Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law,” he wanted to explain “how, why, and through what method should we prosecute crime such as genocide.” His book also criticizes the current international criminal tribunals for only having jurisdiction to prosecute individuals rather than governments or organizations. Additionally, Drumbl said that the tribunals fail to deter war crimes because they have been unable to adequately convict and punish criminals. [Mark Godsey]
Monday, November 5, 2007
From argusleader.com: University of South Dakota School of Law CrimProf Chris Hutton discusses the case of the former state Rep. Ted Klaudt with concern to a phony scheme to sell reproductive eggs, foster daughters submitting to breast exams and vaginal stimulation by a former House member, a boyfriend performing an ovary check on his girlfriend while Klaudt watched, and references to thousands of pages of sometimes violent and sexually explicit e-mails and messages, the first three days of the case have been bizarre and disturbing.
Klaudt, 49, a Corson County farmer and
rancher, is charged with four counts of second-degree rape involving
two foster daughters. The state corrections department placed the girls
in the home. Klaudt's wife, Connie, held a state license for foster
Klaudt's lawyer, Tim Rensch, told jurors in his opening statement that the case didn't involve forcible rape. Each of the girls was older than 16, South Dakota's age of consent, he said, and no force was used in the egg-donation exams that involved penetration with fingers and instruments.
Chris Hutton of the University of South Dakota School of Law said
it's possible a jury instruction already has been developed to set out
what coercion means in the case. Essentially, "If you have someone who
says the word 'yes,' but it's basically because the person is, even if
not physically being forced, said to be deprived of their will, then
that person might be said to be coerced," Hutton said.
A knife to the throat and sexual intercourse is forced rape, she said. If a person breaks into a home, grabs a mother and tells her to submit or he'll hurt her daughter sleeping in the next room, that's a form of coercion, she said.
"You can also get that from a relationship," Hutton said. "If you have a parent and a child, it could be something like, the parent says to the kid, 'You do this, or you're not going to get any more food. You do this or you're not sleeping in the house anymore, you're going to be sleeping out in the shed.' It's that kind of thing where they don't actually physically harm the person, but because they are in such a powerful position, the kid ... is going to feel coerced." Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Sunday, November 4, 2007
"Execution," a film about the final seven days of a man on death row, will be shown at the University of Oregon School of Law on Thursday, Nov. 8. A panel discussion featuring William Neal “Billy” Moore, who spent 16 years on Georgia’s death row and has a part in the production, will take place after the film. The event will begin at 6:30 p.m. in Room 175, William W. Knight Law Center, 1515 Agate St. The film and the panel discussion are free and open to the public. A reception will follow in Morse Commons.
The movie is a drama about two fictitious documentary filmmakers who memorialized the last week of a condemned man’s life and portrays their efforts to bring the application of the death penalty into public view. Moore, who plays the condemned man, is one of the only men in America released from death row-- even though he was convicted of a capital crime. Moore was freed after members of victim’s family, who forgave him, spoke on his behalf at his parole hearing.
Members of the panel include Moore, his wife, Donna Jo Jacks Moore; "Execution" director Steven Scaffidi; and School of Law Professor Joe Metcalfe. Professor Barbara Aldave will moderate the discussion. Aldave and The National Lawyers Guild are sponsors of the event. [Mark Godsey]
Saturday, November 3, 2007
From hollandsentinel.com: Thomas Cooley Law School CrimProf Rob Bretz recently discussed the 28 year time delay in a murder trial and its effect on witness accuracy in recalling what happened.
CrimProf Bretz said that's the proper strategy for prosecutors to emphasized with jurors that by and large, witnesses are telling the same story and that they only differ on the details. This is because studies show that people who have witnessed the same event will tell different stories years later.
"We tend to distort our memory over time," Bretz said. "It's not intentional. It's just something that happens."
Bretz said that if all the witnesses were telling identical stories, that would be a cause for concern.
"If the details all matched up, I would have problems with that," he said.
Bretz also said that it shouldn't be a problem for jurors either that there was little forensic evidence to offer at trial as long as it is sufficiently explained to them why some evidence, such as DNA, was unavailable. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Thursday, November 1, 2007
From USATODAY.com: The Supreme Court's orders in recent death penalty cases have been brief, cryptic and even contradictory. But after Tuesday night's action stopping a Mississippi prisoner's execution, their consequences seem clear.
Imposition of the death penalty is unlikely to resume until next year, after the justices hear the Kentucky case of Baze v. Rees and rule on the constitutionality of the lethal injections. Most of the 38 states that permit capital punishment use that method.
"The court is sending signals that make it extraordinarily unlikely that there will be any executions before Baze comes out," said Fordham University CrimProf Deborah Denno.
"I think this is unprecedented," added Denno, an expert on lethal injection issues, referring to the court's decision to review a method of execution for the first time in more than a century and the far-reaching consequences of its orders prior to hearing the case.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
At the “Know Your Rights” panel discussion last Wednesday night, students
and community members posed questions about their constitutional rights, and
five experts offered their varied interpretations, including University of Montana
CrimProf Andrew King-Ries.
Hosted by Brett Schandelson, a third-year law student and American Civil Liberties Union board member, the open forum was an opportunity for students to discuss the law with legal professionals, and learn more about their rights on and off campus. The event was organized by the Associated Students of the University of Montana, the law school's chapter of the ACLU and a Missoula community-based group called Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Human Rights Magazine, the ABA's Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, devotes the entire Spring Issue to the Death Penalty. The Issue's Human Rights Hero is NYU Law CrimProf Anthony G. Amsterdam for his preeminent work over the last four decades, both in leading and shaping litigation efforts and in calling attention to the fundamental lack of due process in this country’s implementation of capital punishment.
Amsterdam is the lawyer most responsible for the litigation strategy that resulted in the United States being free from executions from 1967 to 1977. The high point of these efforts was his victory in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court case that had the effect of overturning all existing death sentences in this country in 1972.
After the Court upheld in 1976 some new death penalty statutes enacted in Furman’s wake, most notably in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Amsterdam—who had argued Furman,Gregg, and many other capital cases—remained extremely active behind the scenes. In the ensuing three decades, he has helped formulate litigation strategies and has guided lawyers appearing in death penalty cases before the Supreme Court and other courts around the country to shape their briefs and oral arguments.
Just a few of
the huge number of outstanding lawyers with whom he has worked are
Sandra Babcock, John Blume, Jack Boger, Michele Brace, Stephen Bright,
Richard Burr, James Ellis, Deborah Fins, Ruth Friedman, Henderson Hill,
George Kendall, James Marcus, James Liebman, Michael Laurence, Mark
Olive, Rob Owen, Bryan Stevenson, Christina Swarns, and Denise Young.
Amsterdam’s mentees have forced the Supreme Court to focus on such
crucial issues as pervasive ineffective assistance of counsel, systemic
racial disparities in capital cases, and the imposition of the death
penalty on juveniles and on people with mental retardation or severe
mental illness. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
non-profit Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) has
selected a group of law professors for the CALI Criminal Procedure
Fellowship. The fellowship will produce computer-based legal education
materials in Criminal Procedure. From a talented and diverse group of
law professor applicants, CALI selected these five:
CALI selected these five:
- Edwin J. Butterfoss Hamline University School of Law
- Steven L. Chanenson Villanova University School of Law
- Tom Lininger University of Oregon School of Law
- Raneta Lawson Mack, Creighton University School of Law
- David M. Siegel New England School of Law
“We are excited to have such an accomplished group of scholars participating in this project. The resulting 25 lessons from this team will capture their passion and expertise in Criminal Procedure and give students additional ways to learn this complicated subject,” said Deb Quentel, CALI Director of Curriculum Development.
The CALI Fellowships Project is a multi-year applied research effort. Resulting materials are peer-reviewed by the CALI Editorial Board and published to law schools as part of the CALI Library of Materials. The goal of the project is to create a high-quality pool of electronic teaching materials for faculty to supplement their courses, locally customize for specific instructional goals, and explore computer-mediated/distance learning. Started in 1999, previous fellowships have produced materials in Criminal Law, Property, Torts, Business Organizations, Legal Research, Remedies, Trademark, Copyrights, and Family Law. [Mark Godsey]
Working on a project involving women & crime,
self-defense and/or the role of emotions in Criminal Law? CrimProf Leslie Garfield of Pace Law School looking
for co-panelists for a panel tentatively entitled, "Crime, Emotions and
the Law," to be held at the the Law & Society Annual Meeting to be
held in Montreal, Canada, May 29-June 1, 2008.
CrimProf Garfield is interested in hearing from anyone who is writing in any of these areas (or related areas) who would like to present at the conference. CrimProf Garfield will organize into panels as many people as respond to this call for presenters. Scholars of all levels of seniority and projects at all stages of development are welcome.
There is no publication requirement (or pre-arranged article placement) associated with the conference. Panel participants are expected to exchange drafts of their papers at least one month prior to the conference. Panel participants (or their home institutions, if possible) pay their own way, because this is not an externally-funded conference.
If your scholarly interests are connected even generally to the proposed panel, and you would be interested in participating at the Law & Society 2008 meeting, please contact CrimProf Garfield at firstname.lastname@example.org by November 15, 2007 . At this point, all we need is the intended participant's name, institutional affiliation, and contact information; the paper's working title; and a 3-4 sentence description of the paper's general subject. [Mark Godsey]