7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Police Chases and PIT Maneuvers: Examining the Role of Officer Conduct in Pursuit-Related Felony Murder Convictions
Get PDFThe United States Supreme Court has described a police officer\u27s decision to terminate a high-speed car chase by making physical contact with the fleeing vehicle as a choice between two evils. Indeed, while many speed-related deaths occur on Georgia\u27s roadways without the involvement of law enforcement, deaths also transpire when officers choose to make such contact through Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) maneuvers.
In 2015, a Georgia jury found a driver guilty of committing felony murder—a conviction which carries with it a life sentence. The victim, a passenger in the driver\u27s speeding car, died after a law enforcement officer performed a PIT maneuver, causing the driver to lose control. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court held that evidence calling into question the officer\u27s judgment in performing the PIT maneuver was not relevant to the driver’s felony murder conviction because the manner in which the driver was operating the vehicle rendered a collision foreseeable. However, both Georgia and federal law codify a robust—if not necessarily straightforward—framework for determining an officer\u27s civil liability for injuries that occur during police pursuits. And Georgia criminal law contains an explicit provision, separate from felony murder, that addresses deaths that arise out of a police pursuit.
This Note proffers several responses to the Georgia Supreme Court\u27s holding that evidence of an officer\u27s judgment is not relevant to a felony murder charge arising out of a PIT maneuver. First, the Georgia legislature may consider implementing an enumerated felony murder scheme, limiting the felonies under which felony murder could be charged and relying on Georgia\u27s vehicular homicide statute to prosecute deaths related to PIT maneuvers. Second, Georgia courts may recognize scenarios factually distinct from Calhoun v. State in which it may be appropriate to consider officer judgment or conduct in performing a PIT maneuver; in such circumstances, courts will find a preexisting framework for determining civil liability in the same context, one which may prove instructive
A(I)ccess to Justice: How AI and Ethics Opinions Approving Limited Scope Representation Support Legal Market Consolidation
Get PDFArtificial Intelligence (AI) is changing our society and bringing the legal profession with it. The use of Generative AI (GenAI) in legal proceedings has received negative publicity from high profile mishaps in court filings. In one case, attorneys used the publicly available online GenAI tool, ChatGPT, to write a legal brief in which ChatGPT proceeded to make up its own citations. Following this, among other instances of the misuse of GenAI, courts have begun to require disclosures and limit the use of GenAI technology. These prohibitions, however, are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the appropriate use of GenAI technology. ChatGPT’s algorithm is not designed for use in legal research and writing. Westlaw Precision and Lexis+ AI, however, are examples of AI tools that are designed for legal research, including citations to actual cases. These tools provide a means of quickening legal research and writing that will lead to reduced costs. While the use of GenAI by self-represented (pro se) litigants may constitute unauthorized practice of law in some jurisdictions, currently available tools, like ChatGPT and Google Bard, are not intended for legal use. Limited scope representation and ghostwriting, however, will allow attorneys to provide legal services at a reduced cost to middle and lower income individuals using GenAI tools. Limited scope representation and ghostwriting allow attorneys to file court documents without making formal notices of appearance. In other words, an attorney provides their services for discrete tasks as opposed to formally representing a client in an entire legal matter. Limited scope representation has been ethically sanctioned by the ABA and many state jurisdictions as a means for access to justice. This Article will discuss how (1) the ethics opinions allowing limited scope representation and legal outsourcing provide the basis for enhanced use of AI technology, (2) publicly available online GenAI chatbots like ChatGPT and Google Bard, not programmed for legal research and writing, are causing problems in the courts, and (3) tailored GenAI for legal drafting, research, and writing will lead to more corporatization and access to justice for not only lower and moderate-income litigants but overall affordable legal services
