Same Crime, but Not the Same Time

Same Crime, but Not the Same Time 

                                                      Nicole Smith*

The last couple of years have provided many clear examples that racism is still very prominent in the United States: multiple high-profile police killings of young black men, the racially-motivated shooting of nine African Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, and the ongoing debate over the removal of the Confederate flag. Janie Velencia, Majority of White People Say There’s Racism Everywhere, but Not Around Them, Huffington Post (Sep. 9, 2015), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-people-racism-poll_us_55a91a4fe4b0c5f0322d17f2. The last year has also shed light on the tendency for convicted whites to receive more lenient sentences than minorities who commit the same crimes. While recent cases such as the Brock Turner case sparked public outcry, this is not a new issue.
Continue reading “Same Crime, but Not the Same Time”

“Actually, Eye Didn’t See a Thing!”: How Jury Instructions in New Jersey May Affect the Jury’s Ability to Effectively Weigh Eyewitness Identification

“Actually, Eye Didn’t See a Thing!”: How Jury Instructions in New Jersey May Affect the Jury’s Ability to Effectively Weigh Eyewitness Identification

Beatrice Campbell*

One of the most essential pieces in identifying whether a crime has taken place is if someone witnessed that crime take place. It has long been held that eyewitness identification is an integral part of the process of prosecuting an accused, and it is often given great deference when considering whether the defendant is guilty. Over the past three decades, however, the research behind the malleability of memory has become more prevalent in the scientific community, and many researchers have made efforts to inform courts of the inaccuracies of eyewitness identifications, thus prompting the Supreme Court to create a test that establishes when to admit eyewitness identification. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114–15 (1977). While the state of New Jersey has adopted that test as a guideline as to when to admit eyewitness identifications, it did not prevent researchers from “cast[ing] doubt on some commonly held views relating to memory” and “call[ing] into question the vitality of the current legal framework for analyzing the reliability of eyewitness identifications.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 217 (2011); see also State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223, 235–37 (1988).

Continue reading ““Actually, Eye Didn’t See a Thing!”: How Jury Instructions in New Jersey May Affect the Jury’s Ability to Effectively Weigh Eyewitness Identification”

No More Road Rage: Who is Liable When an Automated Vehicle Causes an Accident?

No More Road Rage: Who is Liable When an Automated Vehicle Causes an Accident?

Joshua Gorsky*

     I.     Introduction

When I, Robot premiered in 2004, audiences were riveted by a self-driving Audi that transported Will Smith’s character to his desired locations.  I, Robot (20th Century Fox 2004).  What seemed like science fiction in 2004 is now a reality.  Automated vehicles have been roaming the streets for at least the last seven years.  Associated Press, Google Founder Defends Accident Records of Self-Driving Cars, L.A. Times (June 3, 2015, 2:48 PM), http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-cars-20150603-story.html.  Google claims that its self-driving cars have logged more than 1.7 million miles since their creation.  Id.  Tesla, BMW, Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz have joined Google in the self-driving vehicle market by releasing semi-autonomous cars that are already available for purchase.  Don Sherman, Semi-Autonomous Cars Compared! Tesla Model S vs. BMW 750i, Infiniti Q50S, and Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, Car and Driver (Feb. 2016), http://www.caranddriver.com/features/semi-autonomous-cars-compared-tesla-vs-bmw-mercedes-and-infiniti-feature.

Continue reading “No More Road Rage: Who is Liable When an Automated Vehicle Causes an Accident?”

Cracking Down on Fracking: What’s Next for Maryland?

Cracking Down on Fracking: What’s Next for Maryland?

Megan Micco*

Amid the intense debates over issues such as climate change, greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources, one particular environmental issue is poised to shape the future of Maryland and its precious natural resources for the foreseeable future. Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is rapidly drilling its way into national news headlines, as well as into state policy, particularly in New York and Texas. See infra Part II. In Maryland, the fracking debate is well underway due to the presence of highly coveted Marcellus shale formations in the western part of the state. Md. Code Regs. 01.01.2011.11 (2011), http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Land/mining/marcellus/Documents/01.01.2011.11.pdf. However, what Maryland does with those shale formations has yet to be decided. Id. (“Applications have been filed for permits to produce gas from the Marcellus shale in Maryland using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, but no permits have yet been issued[.]”). Will Maryland crack down on fracking?

Continue reading “Cracking Down on Fracking: What’s Next for Maryland?”

Preventing Undue Burden on a Woman’s Right to Abortion: The Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision that Echoes Legal Theories in Roe v. Wade

Preventing Undue Burden on a Woman’s Right to Abortion: The Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision that Echoes Legal Theories in Roe v. Wade

Eboni Mosley*

“Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right.”

– Faye Wattleton (first African-American and youngest person to be elected president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America)

On June 26, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of Texas House Bill 2 because both unjustifiably made it more difficult for women within that state to get an abortion. Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2300 (2016); see also H.B. 2, 83d Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. (Tex. 2013). The first provision provides: “A physician performing or inducing an abortion . . . must, on the date the abortion is performed or induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that . . . is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.” Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct at 2300; H.B. 2 § 2 (codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.0031). The second provision provides: “[T]he minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards adopted under [the Texas Health and Safety Code section] for ambulatory surgical centers.” Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct at 2300; H.B. 2 § 8 (codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.010(a)). In brief, the first provision makes it more challenging for doctors to qualify to perform abortions. The second provision, essentially, regulates abortion clinics as strictly as hospitals. Hellerstedt serves as a pivotal reminder to state legislatures that women’s access to abortion services cannot be unjustifiably restricted.

Continue reading “Preventing Undue Burden on a Woman’s Right to Abortion: The Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision that Echoes Legal Theories in Roe v. Wade”