Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of LawNot a member yet
17912 research outputs found
Sort by
Redmon featured in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
No full textClinical Assistant Professor & Prosecutorial Justice Program Director Melissa D. Redmon was featured in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations cases and jury selection. The article titled Fani Willis’ marquee cases against Donald Trump and Young Thug are thrown into chaos was written by Bill Rankin and Tamar Hallerman and was published 7/20/24. The article was republished by other media outlets
E. Burch presents at Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy
No full textCallaway Chair Elizabeth Chamblee Burch presented Deal making and the Ethically Slippery Slope in the Quest for Global Peace at the 30th Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy hosted at DePaul University College of Law during June
Hetherington featured in The Independent
No full textClinical Associate Professor & Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation Clinic Director Emma M. Hetherington was featured in The Independent regarding sex trafficking allegations at an Atlanta hotel. The article titled Revealed: The shocking scale of sex trafficking allegations at one of America’s largest hotel chains was written by Richard Hall and Alicja Hagopian and was published 7/2/24. The article was republished by other media outlets including Bloomberg Law and Yahoo! News
The U.N. Framework Tax Convention: Can It Bridge the North-South Divide?
Get PDFThe United Nations recently concluded the second session of negotiations on terms of reference for a framework convention on international tax cooperation. The framework convention presents an opportunity to multilaterally address pressing global tax issues. Its goal is to “strengthen international tax cooperation and make it fully inclusive and more effective.” The extensively negotiated terms of reference make several substantive commitments, including the fair allocation of taxing rights; tax evasion and avoidance by high-net worth individuals; sustainable development; mutual administrative assistance in tax matters; tax-related illicit financial flows; and prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The ongoing multilateral effort brings the promise of a more equitable international tax regime. However, support for the U.N.’s work and the substantive issues identified has been sharply divided along global north-south lines. A successful U.N. process will need to acquire legitimacy from both the developed superpowers and the developing countries that have historically been excluded from international tax policymaking decisions. The article explains the key issues being addressed in the U.N. framework convention on international tax cooperation, including the global north-south divide and its role in the multilateral process
The Right to Trial by Jury Shall Remain Inviolate: Jury Trials in Civil Actions in Georgia’s Courts
Get PDFTrials, though rare, “shape almost every aspect of procedure,” and the jury trial is a distinctive feature of civil litigation in the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ‘preserves’ the right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Even though this amendment does not apply to the states, courts in the states “honor the right to the extent it is created in their constitutions or local statutes.”The Georgia Constitution provides that “[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and Georgia’s appellate courts have shown great interest in the right to a civil jury since the late 1840s. The Georgia Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to the state’s courts, and it has recognized that the state judiciary’s interpretations of the Georgia Constitution’s jury trial provision are not bound by the federal judiciary’s interpretations of the Seventh Amendment. Notwithstanding the independence of these judicial systems, determining whether a party has a right to a jury trial under their respective constitutions is often a challenging issue for their courts.This issue is often resolved easily because most civil claims in the federal courts and in Georgia’s courts fit within established patterns and there is abundant precedent. However, history matters; when the Seventh Amendment and Georgia’s right to jury trial provision were adopted in the late 18th Century jury trials were available in the common law courts but not in equity, and the boundary between the respective domains of the common law and equity has never been hard and fast. This helps explain why the right to a civil jury trial issue has been litigated many times before the United States Supreme Court, and some of these cases were especially challenging. The same holds true in Georgia’s courts where the scope of the right to a civil jury trial has been litigated many times since the late 1840s.This article presents Georgia’s right to jury trial jurisprudence since the establishment of its courts in the 18th Century. It first discusses the challenge of determining how particular claims were tried in England in the late 18th Century, the impact of the merger of law and equity, and then explains why one appellate judge in Georgia referred to the Georgia Constitution of 1777 instead of the Constitution of 1798. Next, this article’s analysis of Georgia’s right to jury trial jurisprudence starts with two influential decisions from 1848, and then covers some of the historic distinctions between law and equity, statutory authorizations of jury trials in equity, and how Georgia’s courts have handled right to jury trial demands in connection with claims that were unknown in 1798.This article’s discussion of Georgia’s jurisprudence on the right to a civil jury trial under the Georgia Constitution should be useful for anyone grappling with a right to jury trial issue in one of Georgia’s courts. The issue is still being litigated. For example, the impact of tort reform measures on the right to jury trial has been litigated recently in Georgia’s courts, and there is still uncertainty about whether particular claims are legal or equitable. Moreover, this topic is a very interesting aspect of Georgia’s rich legal history. After all, the civil jury is a venerable democratic institution
The Role of Human Rights Indicators in Assessing Compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Get PDFIn recent years, international human rights treaties have come under attack for failing to fulfill their promise. While it may be true that human rights treaties have not realized their full potential in every case, there is little discussion about how to measure the impact of treaties. This Article explores the ways in which we measure compliance with human rights treaties, focusing on the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD entered into force in 2008. Since then, 188 States Parties have ratified it. In addition, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recently released a set of indicators designed to measure States Parties’ progress towards implementation of the CRPD. These new “CRPD Indicators” are designed to assist States Parties as well as the CRPD Committee and other UN bodies in assessing compliance with the CRPD. This Article is the first to analyze the benefits as well as the limitations of the new CRPD Indicators. This Article begins with an analysis of the CRPD, followed by an analysis of the ways in which the CRPD differs from other human rights treaties, including its reporting and monitoring requirements. The Article then discusses recent research on the role of human rights indicators as a tool to measure treaty compliance, followed by a discussion of the benefits and limitations of the new CRPD Indicators, as examined from a Disability Studies perspective. Assessing the role of the CRPD Indicators from a Disability Studies perspective requires a reframing of the essential role of people with disabilities and their organizations in working towards compliance and implementation of the CRPD. The Article concludes with a cautionary note regarding reliance on the CRPD Indicators as the primary tool to assess compliance with the CRPD. Although the CRPD Indicators are a helpful tool in measuring States’ progress towards compliance, they cannot replace ongoing efforts to mobilize and support disabled people in their fight for full implementation of the CRPD
The Use of Oral Fluid Samples to Test for Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana
Get PDFDriving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) cases pose unique challenges to the criminal justice system. An evidentiary chemical test is a vital piece of evidence in a DUID prosecution because unlike alcohol, drugs do not cause impairment in a uniform fashion. Breath tests cannot detect drugs, and the intrusiveness of blood and urine tests has been the focus of Court cases over the past half-century with decisions in Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota curtailing the government’s ability to obtain this evidence without a warrant.
The need for a less intrusive alternative is driven by the doubling of DUID cases in some jurisdictions, by marijuana now being legal in forty states, and by the almost fifty million Americans who used marijuana in the last year. Marijuana is detected in half of all DUID cases, and drivers in serious injury or fatal collisions are now more likely to be under the influence of marijuana than alcohol.
Oral fluid tests, such as buccal swabs, have been praised by scientists and law enforcement as a reliable and less intrusive option to obtain warrantless evidentiary samples for DUID. For over fifty years scientific studies have shown the method is reliable. Roadside programs have echoed this for over fifteen years, and the method has been accepted by American courts in other cases for almost a century. Even so, oral fluid was not introduced as evidence in a DUID case until 2015 in People v. Salas. Salas remained the only case to have done so until Alabama began utilizing the technology for evidentiary purposes in 2018.
The future of oral fluid samples as a viable means to test for the presence of drugs in DUID cases is still uncertain as there has yet to be a single case to have been appealed. With the increasing number of DUID cases, the rising number of Americans using marijuana, and with more states beginning programs to use oral fluid, the stage is set for an issue of first impression: Will oral fluid samples survive evidentiary and constitutional challenges and be recognized as a reliable piece of evidence in DUID cases
Answering the Call from Victims of Dating Violence: Georgia’s New Dating Violence Law
Get PDFDating violence is a topic that has garnered increased awareness in recent days, both in the media and in the legal field. Many states have begun to pass legislation in attempt to address this issue and provide relief for victims of dating violence. In the summer of 2021, the state of Georgia passed House Bill 231, what later became known as Georgia’s Dating Violence law. This Article first examines our nation’s history of intimate partner violence to show why dating violence legislation was so desperately needed and how these legislative reforms have attempted to heal a system that for so long has excluded victims of dating relationships. Specifically, this Article examines the history of House Bill 231, which codified Georgia’s dating violence law, and why it took Georgia so much longer than other states to enact such a statute. You will hear from Georgia State Representative Houston Gaines, the author and strong proponent of this bill on how difficult it was to get the bill passed, despite the good that it set out to do for the state’s high rates of violence. Representative Gaines speaks to the culture of the General Assembly, as well as how and why the bill was written as a separate statute section. You will also hear from the Solicitor General of Bibb County, Rebecca Grist, on why she felt the law was needed and the process of working alongside the state legislature to create a bill that helped the largest number of people.
This Article also emphasizes the similarities and differences between Georgia’s law and the laws of other states, specifically addressing the idea that Georgia codified dating violence as its own unique statute, unlike the majority of other states that just added a provision or section to their already codified domestic violence laws. Further, an argument is made about whether Georgia’s method of adding a new code section for dating violence has proven to be greater than its counterparts or whether it has unintended results.
Lastly, this Article will look at the consequences of Georgia’s dating violence law since its enactment in July 2021. First, the law itself will be broken down to its bare bones, explaining each section and its intended effect. This Article delves deeper into the discussion of the temporary protective order section as one of the main objectives of this legislation is to allow victims of relationship violence to achieve relief from their aggressor through a temporary protective order accessible through their local courts. While there has not been a large amount of statistical data collected given such a short time frame since the legislation’s enactment, this Article includes a first-hand account from Superior Court Judge Wade Padgett of the Columbia Judicial Circuit on his experience working with this new law and seeing its results play out daily in his job. Judge Padgett teases out some of the benefits he has experienced since the law’s enactment as they relate to the rates of partner violence. He also mentions some of the law’s drawbacks and how it has resulted in numerous temporary protective orders being issued and dismissed a short while later.
After examining the history of dating violence in this country, whether it be teen dating violence, or simply intimate partner violence, this Article will attempt to make an argument as to whether Georgia’s new dating violence statute has answered the desperate call from the many victims of relationship violence in the state, or if it has fallen short, and if so, some ways to alleviate the shortcomings of the law
Regulating the Domain Called Beauty: LGBTQ Legal Progress Under Cuban Socialism and US Capitalism
No full textBrown bag presentation on a forthcoming work titled, Regulating the Domain Called Beauty: LGBTQ Legal Progress Under Cuban Socialism and US Capitalism by Libby Addler, Professor of Law and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Northeastern University School of Law