5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Inadmissibility: Solving Questionable Consent to Juvenile Interrogations
Get PDFAround the country, juveniles are brought in by police officers for the purpose of interrogations. Juveniles have the same constitutionally mandated protections as adults do and so they are read the same Miranda rights as adults are (or alternatively a version tailored specifically for juveniles). However, it is generally understood that, due to ongoing brain development, juveniles merit increased protections relative to adults. Generally, the solution to the problem has been to add an advocate for the child in the interrogation room. Usually, states have accomplished this by mandating parent presence, and some have mandated attorney presence. While these individuals do have the capacity, in theory at least, to protect the child, these measures do not actually protect the constitutional rights that Miranda warnings were designed to serve. Those rights secured by Miranda are autonomy rights or the right to make one’s own decision. Miranda warnings exist to ensure that any waiver of those rights is made knowingly and voluntarily. So, the core matter is to ensure that valid consent is given. When reevaluating the generally recognized ongoing brain development of children, something that people tend to agree upon, it becomes clear that children are not actually capable of providing knowing and voluntary consent to a Miranda waiver. If that is the true problem, then a commensurate solution must be reached. This note proposes that that commensurate solution is one that removes the need for consent in the interrogation room altogether. Further, this note proposes that statutes should be passed in jurisdictions around the country that render juvenile interrogations inadmissible as evidence
Reforming the Law Reform Ecosystem
Get PDFThis Article outlines a series of reforms that would make global law reform efforts more effective and efficient. These efforts currently occur primarily in three multilateral organizations (UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, and the Hague Conference). The member states of these organizations could easily increase coordination—even to the point of de facto consolidation of the organizations’ work—and could increase the attention given to selecting projects and promoting instruments. Additionally, the U.S. government could organize plurilateral law reform efforts outside these organizations and draw on U.S. domestic law reform efforts to identify new topics for work. Finally, non-government actors could themselves coordinate across the multilateral fora and could use the American Law Institute as a model to develop new lawyer-driven (rather than government-driven) law reform organizations at the global level
Same Old Story, New Solution: Force Majeure Deficiencies In The Wake of COVID-19 and An Unorthodox Approach to Drafting It
Get PDFOn January 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first laboratory-confirmed case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on American soil.[1] On March 8, 2021—more than a year later—the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York decided Gap v. Ponte Gadea New York.[2] It ruled, inter alia, that the COVID-19 pandemic, in keeping with the relevant provision’s narrow tailoring, did not amount to a force majeure event and a defense to breach.[3] While seemingly one of the first decisions of its kind in the Southern District, this Note argues that the holding and the general principles it was based upon (i.e., that narrow contract construction invites narrow interpretation) was expected and historically quite familiar. Nevertheless, this Note advocates, in response, for a divergent, albeit unconventional, new approach to the drafting of the force majeure provision. One that not only embraces and accepts the historical shortcomings of the force majeure provision, but uses an ever-present contractual interpretation to its advantage
Deep Dive into Deepfakes—Safeguarding Our Digital Identity
Get PDFDeepfake technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and with it, the potential to pose a significant threat to the digital community, democratic institutions, and private individuals. With the creation of highly convincing but entirely fabricated audio, video, and images, there is a pressing need for the international community to address the vulnerabilities posed by deepfake technology in the current legal landscape through unambiguous legislation. This Note explores the ethical, legal, and social implications of deepfakes, including issues of privacy, identity theft, and political manipulation. It also reviews existing international legal frameworks, i.e., the Convention on Cybercrime (“Budapest Convention”) and proposes a set of principles that could guide the development of new legislation. This Note concludes that the digital nature of the deepfake threat requires a coordinated international response in the form of international policy development on the creation, distribution, and use of deepfakes. Most significantly, international legislation is essential to provide legal recourse for individuals and safeguard democratic institutions from the harm that deepfakes can cause in the digital age
Class of 1948 - February
No full textAbelow, S. C. Albert, S. B. Baranowitz, L. H. Becker, C. A. Beldock, A. Block, M. Blumen, N. H. Boyar, I. S. Bramwell, H. Burns, E. B. Camp, A. J. Chiert, B. Clifford, J. W. Cords, R. D. Dorfman, S. Feldman, R. Fletcher, F. Freedman, L. Freid, E. L. Garofalo, M. C. Glasser, I. L. Green, M. Haber, B. Haller, M. Hiesiger, A. Jaffe, B. M. Jayne, W. C. Kloss, M. Leonard, M. H. Levitt, S. B. Long, H. W. Lorence, L. H. Loschiavo, A. Lupowitz, S. S. Mayer, A. E. McNamara, D., Jr. Meckler, R. Merker, L. Montelione, L. Owens, T. E. Petersen, G. A., J. R. Reiss, G. Scott, F. L. Shapiro, M. J. Smith, D. P. Solomon, M. Sommer, I. Stern, M. S. Trapnani, J. G. Turrent, J. Walsh, P. B. Weiss, A. Wheller, H. J. Zito, J. A.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1023/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1950 - June, Afternoon Section
No full textBaranello, D. J. Bedford, L. A., Jr. Brodkin, J. Bruckenstein, E. Cannata, M. E. Cohen, B. L. Cohen, L. Dobson, J. F., Jr. Dreyfuss, J. I. Esposito, J. A. Feldman, L. Garten, L. J. Gil, J. L. Gonias, R. Gordon, H. A. Halligan, J. P., Jr. Hammer, L. Heiman, M. A. Kahn, P. Katz, I. M. Kibbe, J. R. Knuthe, M. J. Koch, A. N. Kreindler, R. S. Kurlander, G. Lewis, R. London, O. S. Madison, J. H. McHale, J. J. Minkoff, B. Mopper, K. K. Nagurka, J. Nazzaro, J. C. Neubauer, R. R. Owens, J. P. Passin, A. Rabinowitz, S. Rivkin, L. Rosenberg, S. Rubin, M. J. Sachse, M. S. Scavone, J. R. Schroeder, E. P. Sharretts, A. B. Sharretts, E. P., Jr. Singer, A. H. Smith, J. E. Solomon, S. B. Steinhaus, S. D. Stofan, E. A. Stone, R. Taubenblatt, L. Tieger, L. Tobias, L. A. Vidur, S. Werner, J. White, M. F., Jr.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1030/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1950 - October, Evening Section
No full textAgree, P. Batkin, L. M. Block, L. Blumberg, T. C. Braue, G. J. Breselor, I. Bressler, A. Carroll, W. D. Cember, M. N. Cohen, I. Cohen, N. Decker, A. Farson, D. C. Felton, R. R. Ford, J. P. Grey, W. L. Kaiser, H. P. Kantrowitz, M. Kaufman, S. Laufer, A. Livingston, J. W., Jr. Loeb, W. L. Lupo, J. P. O\u27Brien, J. E., Jr. Oringer, D. G. Poland, H. Quinones, H. L. Raukx, R. B. Richman, I. Ruggiero, J. M. Sanders, A. Schein, E. L. Schleider, M. M. Schwartz, H. P. Seiden, H. Seiden, J. S. Seitman, M. Slavin, L. Traynor, H. P. Warwick, P. E. Weber, J. W. Wechsler, J.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1034/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1953 - June
No full texthttps://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1050/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1954 - February
No full textAbrahams, M. Alfano, B. C. Bernitz, S. Bond, F. M. Broser, A. Brown, E. H. Brown, L. Butleman, B. J. Cohen, S. I. Culhane, T. J. Danto, J. Decter, J. J. Deitel, A. Diangelo, S. B. Dugan, E. Durben, D. Eisler, S. Farber, S. Fields, R. Figueroa, H. D. Forzano, A. J. Fox, J. S. Fox, W. H. Franco, R. L. Friedman, F. Friedman, H. H. Fuchs, D. I. Goldstein, H. E. Gross, J. J. Heller, L. Z. Hoffman, M. J. Kahn, M. B. Kalhofer, E. E. Kanner, L. A. Kaplan, A. S. Karrass, I. H. Klein, M. R. Konigsberg, S. Koppelman, J. Krotki, C. Levine, J. J. Lewis, F. Lipsky, E. J. Matalon, R. A. Menz, N. W. Meyers, A. Miller, P. Z. Needleman, A. Nessel, T. J. Pasco, H. B. Passamonte, A. J. Passer, R. B. Piechota, E. P. Portugaloff, W. Roth, B. S. Rutman, H. L. Rybnick, W. Schachter, S. I. Segan, L. Seliger, I. Shannon, N. Shulman, A. L. Silverman, H. Singer, G. Slade, M. J. Spevack, I. Stein, A. J. Stern, H. C. Tafler, S. Tall, N. Thurer, E. L. Tietz, G. Tompesku, W. Totura, E. Trainor, R. Q. Udolf, R. Wallman, L. Weinberg, M. Weiss, P. A. Weissman, G. M. Weistrop, M. I. West, R. Williams, N. Wolfeld, R. S. Wollman, S. Zarin, M. I. Zingale, J.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1055/thumbnail.jp