American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

........................................................................................................................................ iii! Lay Summary............................................................................................................................... iv! Preface.............................................................................................................................................v! Table of

/pdf/overlapping-criminal-offences-and-gendered-violence-what-is-53dxixu999.pdf

Overlapping criminal offences and gendered violence : what is overlap and when is it part of the problem of overcriminalisation?

Although there are many texts on the law of evidence, surprisingly few are devoted specifically to the comparative and international aspects of the subject. The traditional view that the law of evidence belongs within the common law tradition has obscured the reality that a genuinely cosmopolitan law of evidence is being developed in criminal cases across the common law and civil law traditions. By considering the extent to which a coherent body of common evidentiary standards is being developed in both domestic and international jurisprudence, John Jackson and Sarah Summers chart this development with particular reference to the jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial that has emerged from the European Court of Human Rights and to the attempts in the new international criminal tribunals to fashion agreed approaches towards the regulation of evidence.

The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions

The number of academic writings on international criminal procedure is growing rapidly. Nevertheless, the investigation phase has so far received less attention than the trial phase itself. The importance of investigative actions for the further proceedings is not yet reflected to the full extent in academic writings on international criminal proceedings. This book seeks to cover this gap. Its aim is to examine the existing law and practice of the different international(ised) criminal courts and tribunals with regard to the conduct of investigations in order to identify any (emerging) rules of international criminal procedure. More precisely, it enquires whether, notwithstanding their nature of ‘self-contained regimes’, these institutions have adopted certain common rules. Additionally, it aims to examine the fairness of the law and practice of the different international(ised) criminal courts and tribunals with regard to the conduct of investigations.

/pdf/the-investigation-phase-in-international-criminal-procedure-230okpucxe.pdf

The Investigation Phase in International Criminal Procedure: In Search of Common Rules

........................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ vi List of tables and figures ............................................................................................................. xi Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xi

/pdf/the-legitimacy-of-global-legal-governance-institutional-4mwwg1c7ww.pdf

The Legitimacy of Global Legal Governance: Institutional Power and Human Rights Bias in International Criminal Justice

Little scholarly attention has been devoted to the federal death penalty, and the time is ripe for focus on the topic. Federal criminal statutes carrying possible death penalties have been on the books since the First Congress in 1790. In 1988 a single federal death penalty crime was authorized (for Continuing Criminal Enterprises ["CCE"]), and in 1994 Congress extended a potential death penalty to over 40 existing or new federal crimes. As of January 1, 1999, one hundred and thirty-five defendants had been authorized for federal capital prosecutions, and twenty people were under a federal sentence of death. This 161-page article surveys the history of the federal death penalty and describes the two current federal death penalty statutes and the structures they create; and it provides a detailed description of the U.S. Department of Justice's administration of the federal death penalty. Of greatest interest to administrative lawyers is the latter, in particular its analysis of the operation of the Department's Capital Cases Review Committee, established by Attorney General Reno in 1995. The author served on this Committee during 1996-97, and much of the descriptive and statistical material has not previously been published. He addresses its success in promoting "consistency and fairness," the continuing problem of regional disuniformity, the persistence of racial disparity in the administration of capital punishment despite self-conscious efforts to remove all race identifiers from the review process, and the intractable problem of manipulable written criteria. So long as eligibility for death turns on written statutory factors, he argues, the facts of murder cases can be manipulated by talented writing attorneys to produce a death sentence recommendation, or not, in virtually any murder case.

The Federal Death Penalty: History and Some Thoughts About the Department of Justice's Role

/pdf/myths-and-principles-of-federalization-1nnl39034s.pdf

Myths and Principles of Federalization

Although it is a relatively recent phenomenon, prosecutors today often take an active advisory or directive role in criminal investigations. The recent Starr investigation of President Clinton vividly brought this fact to general public attention: Judge Starr's prosecutors were criticized for allegedly overstepping some undefined investigative bounds. Yet the complained-of techniques are, in fact, not uncommon in complex or high-profile prosecutorial investigations. What seems to underlie public criticism of the Starr investigation is actually some unwritten conception of fairness or "proportionality" in criminal investigations, not specific ethical rules. Ethical limits on prosecutorial conduct in the investigative stage are, indeed, undefined. Existing ethical authorities say virtually nothing about a prosecutor's investigatory role. Only one ABA Model Rule, 3.8, addresses prosecutors specifically, and except for a provision limiting subpoenas directed to lawyers (which looks more like lawyer self-protection than high-minded ethicism), Rule 3.8 says nothing about prosecutors as investigators. Even the more detailed ABA "Prosecution Function" standards say little about the investigatory role. This article suggests that it is time for ethicists to examine whether specific ethical rules should be promulgated to guide ethical prosecutorial conduct in the investigative stage. To stimulate debate, the Article proposes specific language for such a rule, which would require advance proportionality analysis, as well as supervisory review, for unusual investigative steps (or for all investigatory steps in unusual or high-profile matters). The rule would also counsel prosecutors to consciously engage in proportionality analysis for all investigative steps (even routine measures taken in routine cases), and require retrospective supervisory review. Finally, the article posits that there should be an ethical duty to "seek supervision," and a duty for prosecutors' offices to provide ethics training for its attorneys on an ongoing basis.

Proportionality as an Ethical Precept for Prosecutors in Their Investigative Role

3D printing is technology that allows three-dimensional physical objects to be created by using a relatively small and inexpensive machine that looks much like a desktop paper printer. 3D printers have already been used to create guns and shotgun cartridges (but not ammunition), and the prospect that criminals will be able to “print” operational weapons at home has regulators in a tizzy. Some argue that 3D printing should be highly regulated to avoid such dangers. In this Essay invoking Bewitched as the theoretical example of instantaneous 3D printing, Professor Little argues that gun control advocates should focus primarily on regulating criminal use of guns, and not on the technology used to manufacture them. Paper printers can be used to create instruments of fraud, but we do not ban paper printing at home. New technology has always stimulated fears. But criminal law properly focuses on the products of technology and their criminal uses. We should celebrate technological innovation and attempt to regulate its misuse without inhibiting creative development.

/pdf/guns-don-t-kill-people-3d-printing-does-why-the-technology-4n00rmp5sj.pdf

Rory K. Little

Papers

The Federal Death Penalty: History and Some Thoughts About the Department of Justice's Role

Myths and Principles of Federalization

Proportionality as an Ethical Precept for Prosecutors in Their Investigative Role

Guns Don't Kill People, 3D Printing Does? Why the Technology is a Distraction from Effective Gun Controls

The Federal Death Penalty: History and Some Thoughts About the Department of Justice's Role