Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of LawNot a member yet
8606 research outputs found
Sort by
Standardizing Exoneration Compensation Statutes
Full text linkWrongful convictions plague the American criminal justice system and leave lasting, unimaginable harm on the innocent. Since 1989 through February 2025, the National Registry of Exonerations reported 3,658 exonerations: a total of 32,750 years behind bars that were lost. An exoneree, once labeled a defendant, becomes a victim. To right this wrong, some states aim to make a wrongfully convicted citizen whole through compensation. However, in examining the evidence of wrongful conviction compensation, a pervasive issue is uncovered in the American compensation system: victims of wrongful incarceration are deeply undercompensated due to statutory drafting. For those states with compensation statutes, variability in recovery ranges broadly from 200,000 per year of wrongful incarceration. This Article provides the foundation to examine avenues for reform of exoneration compensation statutes that address the balance of state cost compared to the price of liberty while urging legislators to reevaluate compensation statutes and suggesting across-the-board changes
“Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, or Account of this Trial Without the Express Written Consent of the Judge is Prohibited”: The First Amendment and Judicial Constraints on Redistributing Courtroom Video
Full text link
Juggling Tires, Teapots, Burning Torches, and Pennies: The Challenge of Defining The “Communities of Interest” Criterion in Municipal Redistricting
Full text link
Introduction
No full textThis unique volume brings together leading academics and researchers from different legal traditions to discuss the work and impact of Hans Kelsen, the most influential legal philosopher with global reach. Using his Pure Theory of Law and his theory of democracy as a lingua franca, the book allows for dialogues between jurisdictions and legal traditions and serves as a point of departure for further research on several themes such as state, international, and non-state law.
The volume covers four themes. The first part focuses on Kelsen\u27s often overlooked assumptions and the resultant conception of law. The second section refers in particular to Kelsen\u27s understanding of legal norms and some of its most salient elements and features such as sanction and validity. The third part explores a variety of questions concerning Kelsen\u27s views on international and non-state law in general and their implications in some jurisdictions. The final section brings Kelsen\u27s legal and political theory together by assessing its relevance to democracy.https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_sections/1477/thumbnail.jp
Racially Disparate and Disproportionate Punishment of Felony Murder: Evidence from New York
Full text linkAmerica’s peculiar institution of felony murder liability has long been criticized as cruel and pointless, particularly as applied to defendants who did not kill. This study of felony murder arrest and disposition in New York reports large racial disparities, particularly for those convicted who did not kill. It is one of the first to examine the behavior punished, revealing that half of those convicted were charged as accomplices, not alleged to have killed. Many of those alleged to have caused death appeared to do so inadvertently. And almost thirty percent of all people convicted of felony murder were teens with diminished culpability. Thus, arguably, disproportionate punishment is the norm. The study also reports substantial racial disparities in arrests and convictions for felony murder, and that these were substantially higher among those convicted as accomplices. Finally, the study reveals hundreds of arrests of almost exclusively Black and Latinx people for the fictitious crime of attempted felony murder. In New York, it seems, the worst of felony murder is reserved for defendants of color
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Smith v. Spizzirri: An Analysis of its Impact on Enforcing International Arbitration Agreements and Awards Falling Under the New York Convention in the United States
Full text linkThis article provides a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. courts’ role in the interpretation, enforcement, and confirmation of international arbitration agreements and awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention. It delves into the intricacies of FAA Chapters 1 and 2, which govern domestic and international arbitration respectively, and their interplay in shaping the arbitration landscape in the United States. Initially, this article addresses the significant circuit split regarding 9 U.S.C. § 3, which required clarification by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri. The Court’s decision provided much-needed clarity on whether a district court must stay a lawsuit pending arbitration or if it can dismiss the case outright when all claims are subject to arbitration. This ruling emphasized the mandatory nature of the stay under Section 3 and reinforced federal policy favoring arbitration, offering a definitive interpretation that impacts both domestic and international arbitration practices. Expanding on this, the article explores how Smith v. Spizzirri impacts arbitration under FAA Chapter 2 and the New York Convention. FAA Chapter 2 implements the New York Convention’s standards for international arbitration agreements, while Chapter 1 provides detailed procedural rules for domestic arbitration. The article examines the integration of these chapters, highlighting how Section 208 of the FAA facilitates the application of Chapter 1’s procedural rules, such as staying proceedings and appointing arbitrators, in international arbitration contexts. The analysis further addresses the role of U.S. courts in confirming and enforcing international arbitral awards under the New York Convention and FAA Chapter 2. It explores the complexities involved, including issues related to parallel proceedings and awards nullified in the primary jurisdiction. Landmark cases such as Bergesen v. Joseph Muller Corp. are discussed to illustrate the application of these frameworks in practice. The article concludes by underscoring the benefits of arbitration, including its neutrality, flexibility, expertise, confidentiality, efficiency, and enforceability. It also reflects on how Smith v. Spizzirri and subsequent rulings have enhanced the consistency and effectiveness of arbitration enforcement, aligning U.S. procedures with global standards. By integrating domestic and international arbitration frameworks, the article highlights the evolving role of U.S. courts in upholding arbitration agreements and ensuring robust enforcement of arbitral awards
