Wheels for My Wheels: Chicago Disability Groups Raise the Bar for Ridesharing Companies

 Wheels for My Wheels: Chicago Disability Groups Raise the Bar for Ridesharing Companies

Kelly Goebel*

In October, an Illinois disability group—Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago—and three disabled individuals affiliated with the group filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. in federal court.  Timothy Mclaughlin, Chicago Disability Group Sues Uber over Wheelchair Access, Reuters (Oct. 14, 2016, 12:18 AM), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-lawsuit-idUSKCN12D2W6.  The disability group alleges that Uber fails to provide adequate transportation to individuals who require wheelchair access and is asking the court to enforce an order for the multibillion-dollar company to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Id.

Continue reading “Wheels for My Wheels: Chicago Disability Groups Raise the Bar for Ridesharing Companies”

Bias and Secrecy in the Jury Room

Bias and Secrecy in the Jury Room

Jillian Smith*

The demand for secrecy in jury deliberations has been held as a standard of the utmost importance for centuries:

Early notions that the jury should deliberate in secret were linked to the conception of the jury as an enigmatic, divinely inspired body. . . . [A]ny inquiry into the work of the jury would have been as “impious” as questioning the judgments of God. The jury, like the ordeals of water and fire that it replaced, was supposed to reach a verdict mysteriously.

Alison Markovitz, Jury Secrecy During Deliberations, 110 Yale L. J. 1493, 1505 (2001). In United States v. Thomas, the court asserted that “[t]he jury as we know it is supposed to reach its decisions in the mystery and security of secrecy; objections to the secrecy of jury deliberations are nothing less than objections to the jury system itself.” 116 F.3d 606, 619 (2nd Cir. 1997).

Continue reading “Bias and Secrecy in the Jury Room”

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?”