STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
The Admissibility of Weapons Not Used in the Crime Charged
No full textIn many prosecutions in which weapons have been used to commit charged offenses, the State seeks to introduce into evidence weapons not actually used in the crime but purportedly related either to the charged crime or to the credibility of a witness. For years, courts have struggled with the issue of whether the State has established the relevancy of a weapon not used in the crime underlying the case at hand as well as whether the admission of a weapon under those circumstances would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant. Case law on the relevancy of weapon evidence presents a myriad of opinions with fine and detailed distinctions in reasoning and conclusions. Not too long ago, Florida\u27s high court weighed in on the issue in a decision that set out the considerations that a trial court must make before admitting weapons not used in the charged crime. This article discusses that opinion and compares past and subsequent cases to its parameters
Why Does Florida Have Public Defender Elections
No full textThe Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that anyone within the borders of the United States who is accused of a crime will have effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed this principle as so fundamental to our society that it is mandated in all criminal trials. The public defender system was implemented by every state to accomplish this noble goal. The state of Florida is different from all other states, with the exception of Nebraska, Tennessee, and parts of California, in its implementations of this mandate. Florida uses an election process to determine who will take the position of public defender in each of its judicial districts. Section II of this article provides a brief overview of the history of the right to assistance by counsel. This background information is crucial in evaluating the arguments in favor and against popular elections for public defenders. Section III of this article discusses why Florida elects its public defenders and the arguments for and against this election system. Determining these reasons is crucial in understanding whether Florida has a system that is in the best interest of the public and strikes a balance with the preservation of our adversarial system. This section also addresses the advantages and downfalls of this election system. Additionally, this section explores some strategies and campaign tactics that previous public defender candidates have used in the past in order to determine whether this system establishes the goals it was set out to meet. Section IV discusses the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel ( OCCCRC ). The Florida legislature has now passed into law essentially a second public defender\u27s office. This has come to light in view of the conflict of interest that sometimes exists when the public defender\u27s office is assigned to two co-defendants. This piece of legislation raises a significant issue because the OCCCRC is appointed by the governor whereas the public defenders are elected. The importance of this issue is a matter of public policy. The office of the public defender is essential to our adversarial system. In order for an indigent individual to have a fair trial, it is imperative that the public defender office be free from any outside influences. The purpose of this article is to explore whether an appointed public defender is less capable of guaranteeing the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution\u27s promise of effective assistance of counsel when compared to an elected public defender. This is very important to the public as a whole, especially in the state of Florida. Finally, Section V argues that the Florida Constitution should be amended to provide for the appointment of public defenders
The Cultural Dimension of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
No full textBook: International Law for Common Goods: Normative Perspectives on Human Rights, Culture and Nature (Studies in International Law)
International law has long been dominated by the State. But it has become apparent that this bias is unrealistic and untenable in the contemporary world as the rise of the notion of common goods challenges this dominance. These common goods – typically values (like human rights, rule of law, etc) or common domains (the environment, cultural heritage, space, etc) – speak to an emergent international community beyond the society of States and the attendant rights and obligations of non-State actors.This book details how three key areas of international law – human rights, culture and the environment – are pushing the boundaries in this field. Each category is of current and ongoing significance in legal and public discourse, as illustrated by the Syrian conflict (human rights and international humanitarian law), the destruction of mausoleums and manuscripts in Mali (cultural heritage), and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (the environment). Each exemplifies the need to move beyond a State-focused idea of international law.This timely volume explores how the idea of common goods, in which rights and obligations extend to individuals, groups and the international community, offers one such avenue and reflects on its transformative impact on international law.https://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_book_chapters/1020/thumbnail.jp
Throwing Truckers under the Bus - An Evaluation of the Federal Ban on Hand-Held Mobile Telephone Use by Operators of Commercial Motor Vehicles
No full textTechnology moves faster than law. The past decade has seen a proliferation in the use of hand-held mobile telephones while driving. One commentator has referred to the phenomenon as potentially a new WMD - driving with mobile device. According to the federal government, and many States, the use of hand-held mobile telephones distracts drivers and causes accidents. The use of these devices can take a driver\u27s eyes and mind off the road, and hands off the wheel. Recent laws responding to the danger posed by driving while using a hand-held mobile telephone will alter habits, and shape the development of technology. It is unclear, however, whether these laws will work, and whether they are appropriately tailored and directed. Despite the fact that perhaps 75% of all accidents involving trucks were caused by the negligence of drivers of cars, recent federal regulations have banned certain truck drivers from using hand-held mobile telephones while driving commercial motor vehicles. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration lacks statutory authority to regulate non- CMV drivers. Drivers, and their motor carriers, who violate these regulations are subject to draconian penalties. Drivers and motor carriers should take drastic steps to ensure compliance with the regulations. Section II of this article will discuss the recent federal regulations that prohibit drivers of commercial motor vehicles from using hand-held mobile telephones. Section II will list prohibited and permitted activities. Section II will also list the penalties for violations. Section III will present an evaluation of the regulations. Section IV will offer recommendations to drivers of commercial motor vehicles, and to motor carriers
Democratizing International Arbitration? Mass Claims Proceedings in Abaclat v. Argentina
No full textMass claims have been accepted, in principle, in the landmark 2011 ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Abaclat v. Argentina. Welcoming this development as providing novel access for the common man and woman to international investment arbitration, the author explores related streamlined procedures in domestic and international law -- such as class actions and international mass claims commissions as well as vanguard use of technology and statistical methods -- that allow the processing of a high number of claims arising from common factual and/or legal issues with a view toward elaborating rules and mechanisms tailor-made for the context of international arbitration
Walk & Turn, Finger to Nose, One Leg Stand: Oh My - How Florida Courts Have Defined Field Sobriety Exercises
No full textIf you drink alcohol and get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you dramatically increase your chance of being in a car accident. You also run the risk of being stopped by law enforcement and subjected to arrest and DUI charges. When law enforcement stops a vehicle based on a reasonable suspicion of DUI, probable cause must be established before making an arrest. Field sobriety exercises ( FSEs ) are commonly used police procedures to establish that probable cause. Developing probable cause is of critical importance, not only because it is a prerequisite to a lawful arrest, but also because citizens who operate a motor vehicle in Florida are consenting to a blood, urine, or breath test upon a lawful arrest for DUI. Given that FSEs are an important tool in establishing probable cause for a DUI arrest, many Florida courts recently have faced the issue of what legal standard applies to a request for FSEs. This article presents a compilation of Florida case law addressing the aforementioned issue. Part I discusses the background and dictates of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the definitions of search and seizure. Part II addresses the various theories that courts have established as to what standard is required for field sobriety exercises. Part III concludes with a discussion of which legal standard is correct and urges the Florida Supreme Court to consider and clarify the standard
Defining a Vessel in Admiralty: I Know It When I See It
No full textDefining the term vessel, while seemingly inconsequential at first blush, is an essential preliminary inquiry in almost any maritime law dispute. In Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida. the Supreme Court\u27s latest pronouncement on what it means to be a vessel, the Court inserts a reasonable observer standard and a designed to a practical degree element into the vessel inquiry, which may upset long-settled law in admiralty. Part I explains through various examples why status as a vessel is important in admiralty jurisdiction. Part II discusses the Supreme Court\u27s latest cases defining a vessel including Stewart v. Dutra Construction Company and Lozman. Part III.A analyzes how the Court arrives at the new test under Lozman, specifically how it adds a reasonable observer standard and a designed to a practical degree element to the vessel inquiry. In addition, Part III.B considers whether Lozman categorically denies vessel status to houseboats. Furthermore, Part III.C evaluates the inherent subjectivity that such a test creates since it is unclear how the reasonable observer -whoever she is-will base her determination, especially with the modicum of guidance provided in the designed to a practical degree element of the test. Additionally, Part III.D examines whether the test under Lozman is necessary and argues that it may not be. Lastly, Part III.E reviews the possible effects this new test may have on maritime industries
Handbook on Human Trafficking, Public Health and the Law
No full textThis booklet is the result of the Spring School on Public Health, Human Trafficking and the Law funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) as an ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME, held in March, 2013 in Siena, Italy. The aim of the intensive program was to present and analyze the problem of human trafficking in line with the perspective of the New Haven School in order to recommend concrete solutions. For this purpose, the trafficking of humans has been explored in relation to public health and the European law, in close cooperation with participating students and experts in medicine, social sciences, and law.
An award-winning international medical and scientific publisher, Thieme has demonstrated its commitment to the highest standard of quality in the state-of-the-art content and presentation of all of its products. Thieme\u27s trademark blue and silver covers have become synonymous with excellence in publishing.https://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_books/1009/thumbnail.jp
Front Matter
No full textFront Matter includes Masthead, advisors, and Table of Contents for St. Thomas Law Review Volume 26, Issue 2, Winter 2014
Reconceiving Citizenship: Noncitizen Voting in New York City Municipal Elections as a Case Study in Immigrant Integration and Local Governance
No full textThis paper uses New York City\u27s consideration of an amendment to its charter that would extend voting rights to noncitizens in municipal elections as a case study in immigrant integration and local governance. It argues that New York City\u27s biggest challenge in moving this issue forward is dealing successfully with two related questions: (1) why the New York City Council should be able to decide who the People are without approval from the state government in Albany and (2) whether it should attempt to enact the measure without a referendum. The analysis first examines the role of local government in regulating the lives of immigrants, contrasting enforcement-oriented strategies with those that are more integration-oriented. It then spotlights federal law obstacles to noncitizen suffrage, concluding that while neither federal criminal nor immigration law prevents state or local governments from extending the franchise to noncitizens in state or local matters, federal law imposes impediments that may deter some noncitizens from registering or that could carry serious immigration consequences for those who vote in violation of federal law. The article then focuses on state law obstacles, including New York\u27s constitution, its state election law and its home rule provisions. It contrasts other recent experiences with noncitizen suffrage around the country, looking at both municipal and school board elections. Finally, it provides some thoughts on best practices in moving forward the issue of noncitizen suffrage in New York City and other locales. New York law is ambiguous enough that good arguments can be made for why neither Albany\u27s approval nor a city-wide referendum is required. However, given New York City\u27s historic relationship with Albany and the state legislature\u27s power to preempt local law on election matters, if the city council attempts to expand the franchise to noncitizen voters without a referendum or comparable measure, it could trigger preemptive action in Albany or lengthy, divisive, and costly battles in the courts