Archive Issues, Issues, Volume 42

Volume 42 Issue 2

No Comments

Here’s a look at our latest issue:

1) A Q&A with Keynote Speaker Senator Barbara Mikulski, moderated by Professor Margaret E. Johnson.

A full transcript of Senator Mikulski’s remarks at the 2012 Feminist Legal Theory Conference, Applied Feminism and Democracy, is available here.

2) Reflections on VAWA’S Strange Bedfellows: The Partnership between the Battered Immigrant Women’s Movement and Law Enforcement, by Alizabeth Newman, Clinical Professor at CUNY School of Law.

Professor Newman argues that while legal work and enforcement should be included in the panoply of approaches to eradicating domestic abuse, those approaches will be ineffective and even damaging as the exclusive tactics to the extent that these laws do not reach the root causes of domestic violence and are thus incapable of achieving the primary objective on their own.  This article is intended to contribute to an ongoing dialogue of reflective practitioners and advocates.

3) Beyond a Beautiful Fraud: Using a Human Rights Framework to Realize the Promise of Democracy, by Janel A. George.

Ms. George’s article suggests that the most fitting framework to include the issues of women “historically overlooked by the reproductive rights movement is a human rights framework.”  A full synopsis is available here.

4) Luogo e Spazio, Place and Space: Gender Quotas and Democracy in Italy, by Rachel A. Van Cleave, Dean and Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law.

Dean Van Cleave’s article examines the use of law to exclude women from political space and place in Italy and the impact this has had on women’s citizenship rights as well as the impact on democracy.  A full synopsis is available here.

5) The Case of Two Biological Intended Mothers: Illustrating the Need to Statutorily Define Maternity in Maryland, by Catherine Villareale, Staff Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review. 


March 28th Symposium

No Comments

Please join the University of Baltimore Law Review and our group of distinguished panelists for our upcoming symposium:


Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013
Time: 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM
Location: The University of Baltimore School of Law, Moot Court Room
Moderator: Thiru Vignarajah, Chief – Major Investigations Unit, Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office

Emerging technologies and investigative techniques have spawned a new wave of opportunities for law enforcement as well as constitutional challenges for defense attorneys and prosecutors. Our symposium, “Privacy Rights and Proactive Investigations: Emerging Constitutional Issues in Law Enforcement,” examines growing tensions between constitutional safeguards and effective law enforcement in Maryland and across the nation. The symposium seeks to assemble leading scholars and practitioners to explore, through scholarship and debate, three issues that have once more thrust Maryland to the frontier of law enforcement: the validity of DNA databases, new approaches and the latest thinking on witness identifications, and the use of tracking devices after United States v. Jones.

PANEL 1: Location Tracking after United States v. Jones                           10:00 AM – 11:00 AM

NANCY FORSTER, Former Public Defender for the State of Maryland
JASON MEDINGER, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland                                  ANN O’CONNELL, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice                                NANCY OLIVER, Division Counsel, Department of Justice – ATF

PANEL 2: Innovations in Suspect Identification                                        11:00 AM – 12:00 PM

ANTHONY BATTS, Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department
FREDERICK BEALEFELD, Former Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department
GREGG BERNSTEIN, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City
REBECCA BROWN, Director of State Policy Reform for the Innocence Project
MICHELE NETHERCOTT, Director, University of Baltimore Innocence Project Clinic

PANEL 3: DNA Database Laws and King v. Maryland                                       1:00 PM – 2:00 PM

JESSICA GABEL, Associate Professor, Georgia State University School of Law
STEPHEN B. MERCER, Chief Attorney, Forensics Division, MD Office of the Public Defender
RANA SANTOS, DNA Technicial Leader for the Baltimore Police Department
SCOTT SHELLENBERGER, State’s Attorney for Baltimore County
KATHERINE WINFREE, Chief Deputy Attorney General for Maryland

Co-hosted by: Criminal Law Association

Archive Issues, Issues, Volume 42

Volume 42 Issue 1

No Comments

Here’s a look at Volume 42 Issue 1:

1) A Critique of Best Practices in Legal Education: Five Things All Law Professors Should Know, by Michael T. Gibson, Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law

Professor Gibson has written a critique of four of the central claims in Best Practices in Legal Education, a 2007 publication that he argues can increase the rigors of legal teaching but “barely touches” current empirical research on legal education and teaching in general.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

2) The Romantic Corporation: Trademark, Trust, and Tyranny, by Malla Pollack, Associate Professor of Law at the Florida Coastal School of Law

Professor Pollack has written a piece which casts doubt on the historical notion that “the welfare of large corporations is central to the United States’ national interest.” The piece discusses and illustrates several ways corporate personhood is used to “manipulate” the public.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

3) The “Walkaway Shop”: Long-Term Union Avoidance And Management Decisions to Open New Facilities As Lawful Conduct under the National Labor Relations Act, by Garrett Wozniak, Comments Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

This Comment develops a framework for determining when management decisions to create new work should be considered unlawful under the NLRA in light of Boeing’s decision to open a South Carolina plant in 2011. The Comment explains why Boeing did not transfer work from one facility to another and suggests that a management decision to create new work should not be considered violative of the NLRA unless the decision is made with the purpose of discouraging union activity. The piece argues that union avoidance should not be per se unlawful and proposes that management conduct be analyzed under a modified version of the test for partial closings.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

4) Estate Planning for the Posthumously Conceived Child: A Blueprint for the Sperm Donor, by Brooke Shemer, Staff Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

Given the ability to preserve frozen sperm for at least ten years and the growing use of reproductive technology, an increasing number of children are being conceived from their father’s banked sperm after that parent’s death. Whether these posthumously conceived children may inherit through the deceased father’s estate implicates numerous concerns for legislators, families, and estate planners. Under the proposed solution, Maryland donors would complete a consent form at the time of the donation, creating a signed, written, and witnessed record that expresses the unequivocal intent for the posthumous reproduction to occur and the desire to financially provide for the child. Further, the donor would be required to engage in estate planning during his lifetime to ensure a source of funds for the child’s inheritance.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

As always our most recent issues are available on the University of Baltimore School of Law’s website.

Articles, Online Series

Comparative Negligence with Joint & Several Liability: The Best of Both Worlds

No Comments

Robert H. Lande, Venable Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and James MacAlister, an alumnus of both the School of Law and the Law Review, have co-authored a piece that examines Maryland’s current contributory negligence standard, and suggests it be replaced by a comparative negligence standard that retains joint and several liability. The authors show this new approach would be a vast improvement that would bring Maryland into the mainstream of 21st Century Torts jurisprudence.

Robert H. Lande & James MacAlister, Comparative Negligence with Joint & Several Liability: The Best of Both Worlds, 42 U. Balt. L. Rev. Online 1 (2012).


Supreme Court to Review King Case

1 Comment

On Friday, November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court announced that it would review Maryland v. King next year, and in the process rule on the constitutionality of the state’s controversial DNA collection law, which allowed police to obtain a DNA sample from arrestees suspected of violent crimes or burglary for comparison against the state’s database before they are found guilty of the underlying crime.  When Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested on assault charges in 2009, he information gleaned by the comparison was used to convict King of a 2003 rape, and the state’s Office of the Public Defender appealed the conviction on the grounds that extracting the DNA sample from an arrestee was a violation of Fourth Amendment protections. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that obtainment of DNA evidence for the purpose of a speculative search of crime data for comparison did in fact violate King’s right to freedom from unreasonable and unwarranted search.

The Supreme Court signaled its intent to review the case when it granted the state of Maryland a stay in July, and the King decision promises to be a landmark ruling which will draw the boundaries of law enforcement’s authority to collect scientific evidence from arrestees. The implications of the King decision case will be highlighted in our March symposium and Volume 42, Issue 3, as we await word from the Court.