1412 research outputs found
Sort by
Defending Battered Survivors with Brain Injuries: An Educational Guide for Advocates in North Carolina
No full textIn the 1980s, the concept of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) was introduced into U.S. courtrooms, typically as a defense in homicide cases where survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) killed their abusers. Traditional BWS theories largely center around psychological not physiological impacts of IPV Since then, researchers have begun to recognize the prevalence of brain injuries (BIs) in IPV survivors.
While most BI research centers around male subjects, emerging studies suggest that the effects of BI may be especially severe in women IPV survivors due to anatomical, hormonal, psychological, and socio-economic factors. These developments may support decreased culpability for female survivors involved in the criminal legal system (criminalized survivors). Dissemination of this research to courtroom actors through continuing legal education (CLE) and expert witness evidence may provide for better representation of criminalized survivors and promote more just outcomes
Affirming Independent Judgment: The End of Agency Deference in North Carolina
No full textIn the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required federal courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. While the debate about agency deference in federal litigation generated significant attention in the legal community and from media outlets, the use of agency deference in state courts has received relatively little fanfare. This Article examines how the concept of agency deference entered North Carolina\u27s administrative law jurisprudence and the North Carolina Supreme Court\u27s recent efforts to reject the use of deference in the state\u27s courts. This Article supports the court\u27s project and asserts that agency deference has no place in North Carolina\u27s case law
Rationalizing Rape: How Military Appellate Courts Get to Yes
Full text linkThis study examines how military appellate courts rationalize overturning sexual assault convictions through qualitative analysis of opinions finding factual insufficiency. Drawing from cases between 2017-2020, concerning patterns are identified in judicial reasoning that reflect persistent rape myth acceptance despite decades of statutory reform. The analysis reveals that courts frequently question victim credibility based on delayed reporting, counterintuitive victim behavior, and continued contact with perpetrators - factors that trauma research has shown to be common among sexual assault survivors. Of particular concern is courts\u27 treatment of incapacitation cases, where judges often acknowledge significant victim impairment yet find ways to question consent capacity. The findings suggest that recent statutory changes limiting appellate courts\u27 factual sufficiency review authority may be insufficient to address underlying attitudinal barriers to fair adjudication of sexual assault cases. We propose reforms to judicial selection, education, and oversight processes, while acknowledging significant practical and legal challenges to implementation. The study contributes to growing literature on institutional responses to sexual assault by illuminating how rape myths manifest in appellate reasoning. These findings have important implications for military justice reform and broader understanding of how gender bias influences judicial decision-making. Future research comparing military and civilian appellate approaches could provide valuable insights for both systems
The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them (book review)
No full textTied Together with Covenants: Tying Provisions as the Anti-Hero to FDIC Insurance Limits
Full text link
One Hundred & Thirty-Ninth Spring Commencement (2025)
Full text linkhttps://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/commencement/1102/thumbnail.jp
