7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Puff Puff? I\u27ll Pass: Protecting The Recreational Cannabis Market From Counterfeit Products Under False Advertising Law
Non
It’s Time to Put Character Back into the Character-Evidence Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which governs the admissibility of other-acts evidence, is a mess, and recently-promulgated amendments will not fix it. The amendments fail to address the two major problems underlying Rule 404(b). First, the rule is based on a categorical judgment about the relative probative value and unfair prejudice of other-acts evidence when offered as character evidence; that is, to prove the defendant acted in accordance with his or her character. In numerous cases, however, other-acts evidence is highly probative and the rule’s categorical judgment is decidedly wrong. Not surprisingly, courts often admit such evidence, typically by erroneously denying that the evidence is being offered to prove the defendant acted in accordance with his or her character. The second problem exacerbates the first. Although the rule prohibits only character evidence, no one knows what character means. Neither the case law nor the rules define character in any meaningful way. Consequently, we have a body of case law that authorizes the admission of not only high-probative-value other-acts evidence but also precisely the type of low-probative-value other-acts evidence that Rule 404(b) was designed to exclude
RICO had a Birthday! A Fifty-Year Retrospective of Questions Answered and Open
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) came into
the world in 1970, a time of great social upheaval that was accompanied by
shifting attitudes towards both crime and civil litigation. From the outset, the
statute’s complexity, ambiguity, and uncertain purpose have confounded courts
and commentators. At least some doubts as to the statute’s meaning and
application arise because it has criminal and civil components that subject it
to the twin—yet antithetical—social impulses to be “tough on crime” while
containing a perceived “litigation explosion.” In this Article, I situate RICO
in this larger context and offer that context as a partial explanation of how
RICO’s “meaning” has been shaped. Along the way, I synthesize many years
of my own legal scholarship and litigation experience into a retrospective of
where RICO interpretation and application have been—and where they still
must go