Volume 87, Issue 5
Articles
This Article examines courts' treatment of forfeiture doctrine in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Giles v. California. Prior to Giles, courts in most jurisdictions held hearsay statements admissible whenever a declarant's silence was procured by an accused's wrongdoing. Giles, however, interprets the Confrontation Clause to bar admission of such evidence, unless the prosecution can show that the wrongdoing was specifically motivated by a desire to prevent the declarant's testimony. Professor Lininger considers the likely ramifications of this decision for victims of domestic violence and domestic homicide. He proposes a new judicial framework for approaching forfeiture doctrine as well as a modification of evidentiary rules, which together would permit courts and legislatures to comply with Giles while still protecting victims of domestic violence.
Responses in See Also:
In his Article, Professor Max Minzner advocates for a novel change to the search-warrant acquisition process. When police officers apply for a warrant or conduct a probable-cause search, courts do not consider the individual officers' historical success rates in making such searches. Max Minzner argues that this data, along other data, such as the success rate of an officer's unit, should be considered in courts' probable-cause analyses. Minzner maintains that applying information about the relative success of past searches can help to prevent unfruitful searches and increase the likelihood of discovering admissible evidence.
Book Reviews
Abner Green reviews Martha Nussbaum's recent book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality, and in doing so attempts to illuminate the foundations of religious equality in America. Greene also compares Nussbaum's view of equality in the Religion Clauses to the views presented by Christopher Eisgruber and Lawrence Sager in Religious Freedom and the Constitution, and Brian Barry in Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Greene also considers the broader question of how we grant religious exemptions from otherwise applicable law; he explores how both Nussbaum and Eisgruber and Sager characterize such exemptions.
Notes
Expansive discovery is one of the hallmarks of modern American litigation. But what happens when uncovering important information requires the violation of foreign law? Courts face two important questions: whether to issue discovery orders that could subject litigants to criminal sanctions, and in the case of noncompliance, whether to impose sanctions on such litigants. In this Note, Keith Cohan examines the conflicts that arise and how courts attempt to resolve them, and discusses alternative solutions.
Emily Falconer considers American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, a recent D.C. Circuit decision in which the court agreed that the current design of U.S. currency discriminates against the blind, thus violating the terms of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Falconer argues that there is an even more powerful, constitutional basis for demanding the redesign of U.S. currency. Falconer argues that future litigation over U.S. currency should be resolved under the Due Process Clause.
