HIV-positive person who did not disclose status convicted of attempted aggravated assault

On 18 September 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in Williams. This is the first case on the issue of criminal liability for HIV exposure decided by the court since its 1998 decision in the Cuerrier case. Williams raised the issue of whether persons with HIV who have unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing their status to a sexual partner who might already have been infected with the virus, can be convicted of aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault. The Supreme Court decided that only a charge of attempted aggravated assault could stand. The decision is also significant because the Supreme Court's comments on two ancillary issues may lead to a significant extension of the criminal law related to HIV transmission or exposure.     

NEXT STEPS IN THE EVOLUTION OF ANTITRUST LAW: WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE ROBERTS COURT

Under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,the Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to cast asidethe Court's prior antitrust decisions. The qualified per serule applicable to tying surely will not survive much longer,but what else might be in store is more speculative. This essayidentifies four decisions relating to competitor collaborationin which the Court's prior application of the per se rule doesnot comport with its modern decisions. In two of the cases,the conduct likely would be found lawful today; while in theother two, the conduct most likely still would be condemnedbut only after an abbreviated application of the rule of reason.This essay also identifies three legal doctrines ready for retirement.They are the absolute requirement of market delineation as apredicate for merger analysis, the outmoded approach to marketdelineation of Brown Shoe, and the unhelpful formulation ofthe monopolization offense in Grinnell.     

Some Contrarian Concerns About Law,Psychology, and Public Policy

I discuss six issues that may cut against the majoritarian grain. They are: (1) The U. S. Supreme Court's view of children; (2) the American Psychological Association's view of people with mental retardation; (3) the dilution of autonomy in favor of beneficence; (4) Tarasoff's undermining of fidelity to therapy clients; (5) the misuse of the PCL-R in death penalty litigation; and (6) the criminal law's rejection of determination.     

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court.

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.     

作为一个偶然地区性事件的正当程序革命

沃伦1953年被任命为美国联邦最高法院大法官是一个普通的政治任命。正当程序革命是一个意外进入的时代。沃伦法院成员都是普通公民,而绝非圣贤。在美国深深的卷入越战的大背景下,美国国内兴起了浩大的民权运动。沃伦法院在刑事领域的正当程序革命和当时的时势互相借力,将六十年代演化为一个革命时代。中国刑事诉讼改革以正当程序革命为精神激励,圣化沃伦革命,意在矫枉过正,但可能带来逆向的反弹。     

Could Wild Horses Drag Access Away From Courtrooms? Expanding First Amendment Rights to New Pastures

More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States created a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. At the time—and in the Supreme Court cases that immediately followed Richmond Newspapers—the assumption was that such a right of access would apply only to judicial proceedings. This article examines a small but significant body of case law that extends the First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings to new venues far removed from courtrooms. Using the 2012 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Leigh v. Salazar as an analytical springboard, this article analyzes how the so-called experience-and-logic test fashioned by the high Court in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court in 1986 is being applied in such cases. Cases like Leigh also provide an excellent opportunity for courts to clarify precisely the nature and extent of the history required to find qualified rights of access given the relatively recent government program to which the plaintiff in that case now seeks access.     

From impartial expert to adversary in the wake of Ake

In deciding Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that, when defendants demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure them access to a competent psychiatrist who will not only examine them but also render other assistance to the defense. There have been 28 known subsequent decisions in which appellate courts have ruled on the validity of Ake-based claims; in only four did the defendant prevail. The case nonetheless raises issues relative to the proper role of the psychiatric expert. The Supreme Court's decisions, although not introducing a new ethical topic, appear to be favoring a more adversarial posture, at least within certain parameters. I suggest that impartiality, independence, and advocacy need not be mutually exclusive concepts and that some of our traditional beliefs about what part we should play in criminal law may have to be modified and expanded.     

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model

Herbert Packer's The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968) has spawned decades of commentary. This essay argues that Packer's two‐model conceptualization of the criminal process is best understood within his professional milieu of doctrinal legal scholarship and the political context of the Warren Court revolution. Within this context, the essay suggests a distinction between two due process visions: formalism and fairness. This distinction is useful for illuminating debates and decisions on criminal procedure matters in the Supreme Court such as Terry v. Ohio (1968) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) . I conclude by encouraging sensitivity to legal and historical context in future commentary on Packer's framework.     

Merging law and ethics: Discourse legal theory and freedom of expression in Hurley

This article, analyzing and building on the work of Jürgen Habermas, demonstrates how discourse legal theory disavows a separation between law and ethics. The article suggests that discourse theory puts forward a more political theory of law that promotes the normative goal of creating a more just society through discursive practices. A critique of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurley v. Irish‐American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston shows how the Court overvalued the private function of speech and undervalued its public, discursive function. The article argues that discourse theory provides a more protective access standard for disempowered groups, especially when public fora are used for the expression of ideas.     

Social and social scientific perspectives in judicial interpretations of the constitution

It has been traditional to demarcateMuller v. Oregon as the first Supreme Court case to benefit from a social science perspective andBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka as the first case to rely on social science evidence. This article explores the hypothesis that social perspectives have long been a part of the Court's decisionmaking when it has confronted difficult social issues. Two 19th-century race opinions,Dred Scott v. Sandford andPlessy v. Ferguson, are used to support this position. The authors suggest that the social perspectives contained in the other articles in this special issue reflect a long-standing association between social science information and law.We appreciate the suggestions made by Michael J. Saks on an earlier draft of this article.     

Considering the Meaning of Wisconsin Right to Life for the Corporate Free-Speech Movement

The test for determining the “functional equivalency of express advocacy” established by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007 could well signal a propitious turning point for the corporate free-speech movement—efforts to develop First Amendment protection for corporate political media spending. The test creates the potential to undermine the doctrine the Supreme Court of the United States constructed in support of more than a century of legislative judgment seeking to wall off the corrupting force of such spending from candidate elections. This article assesses that potential through analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., in which the Chief Justice established that test. His test attracted sharp criticism from so many other justices that the case may offer less than clear guidance for lower courts on its rationale. But the fact that there can be no confusion as to its holding would seem to offer reason for optimism to corporate interests in similar cases.     

Court finds software patent wilfully infringed but refuses to enjoin the infringement

In the wake of the US Supreme Court's recent decision in eBayv MercExchange, a Texas district court has refused to enjoinMicrosoft's ongoing patent infringement, holding that no presumptionof irreparable injury should be given to the patentee even whenthe patent is upheld by a jury and is found to be wilfully infringed.     

Forensic Science

Scientific evidence is often more reliable than other types of evidence commonly used in criminal trials – i.e., eyewitness identifications, confessions, and informant testimony. Nevertheless, despite its obvious value, forensic science has not always merited the term "science." Three developments in the 1990s focused attention on its shortcomings: the advent of DNA profiling, the Supreme Court's "junk science" decision, and a number of wellpublicized crime laboratory scandals. In light of these developments, and in order to take full advantage of the power of forensic science to aid in the search for truth, a number of reforms are needed: Crime laboratories should be accredited, lab procedures should be standardized, and basic research needs to be conducted on many commonly used techniques. Court procedures also require improvement: Defense experts should be more readily available to indigent defendants, and more comprehensive pretrial disclosure of the substance of expert testimony should be provided.     

The dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the Tarasoff duty and the Jaffee footnote

With the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, all U.S. jurisdictions have now adopted some form of evidentiary privilege for confidential statements by patients to psychotherapists for the purpose of seeking treatment. The majority of states, following the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, have also adopted some form of duty by psychotherapists to breach confidentiality and warn potential victims against foreseeable violence by their patients. Largely unresolved is whether there should be a dangerous patient exception to the evidentiary privilege parallel to the Tarasoff exception to confidentiality. This Article argues that exception to the evidentiary privilege should be evaluated separately from the exception to confidentiality. Whether or not a Tarasoff duty to warn existed at an earlier time, exception to the evidentiary privilege should be made only where psychotherapists' testimony is necessary to prevent future harm to patients or identified potential victims. Applying this standard, the dangerous patient exception generally would not apply in criminal actions against patients, but would apply only in proceedings for the purpose of protecting patients or third parties, such as restraining order hearings or proceedings to hospitalize patients.     

Insurance Fraud and the Role of the Civil Law

Two UK Supreme Court decisions have considered insurance fraud. The first, Versloot Dredging BV v HDI‐Gerling Industries Versicherung (The DC Merwestone), concerned the use of a fraudulent device being harnessed to support a legitimate claim which, in the view of the majority, was an area of insurance law in need of re‐evaluation. The second, Haywood v Zurich Insurance Co, concerned the use of fraud to increase the settlement paid by the insurer and whether an insurer, which suspects fraud but has nevertheless chosen to settle a claim, is entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit where it subsequently discovers proof that it was in fact fraudulent. This case note examines not only the legal implications of the decisions and their likely impact on industry practice, it also focuses on the broader issue of the proper province of the civil law and whether general deterrence can be justified as a proper objective where the criminal law is deficient in punishing fraud because of its higher standard of proof.     

Liability for sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies

This article focuses on sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies from a legal perspective. The article briefly describes sexual harassment cases that address agency liability decided by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the standards of liability articulated in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), and Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). A more precise understanding of when agencies are liable for the actions of their subordinates is developed through an examination of lower federal court decisions. Trends in the law are identified, as case law is categorized according to harassment by supervisors and co-workers. The article concludes by exploring the policy implications flowing from court decisions and by calling for further research on this troubling aspect of the criminal justice workplace.     

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPREME COURT AS A NATIONAL POLICYMAKER

The most frequent explanations for the endurance of the Supreme Court's policies and of its power as a national policymaker assume public reverence for the Court, widespread support for it as an institution, or broad-based agreement with its policies. Public opinion studies refute most of these assumptions. Our research confirms those studies and shows, in addition, that the Court cannot claim strong support among occasional political activists. It does, however, have a strong constituency among liberal activists and liberal position-holders. We hypothesize, therefore, that the Court's endurance as a national policymaker is explained by special support from one wing of the dominant party coalition that, because of its strategic location in the complex national policy process, is able to obstruct broadly-based attacks on the Court's authority and policy. Such attacks gain force, however, when critical elections alter the dominant party coalition and therefore weaken the hold of the Court's ideological allies. Yet even then—or at least so far—the Court and its policies have prevailed against various court curbing efforts.     

Thirty Years of Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases*

The Supreme Court early took note of extralegal, “social science” materials in Muller v. Oregon (1908), and a half-century later made specific reference to social science authorities in the famous footnote 11 of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Since Brown, much has been written about the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence, but there has been little systematic study of that use. Those writing on the subject commonly focus on areas of law such as jury size, where social science has been used, and have generally assumed that social science information has been utilized in Supreme Court decisions with increasing regularity. Surprisingly little is known, however, about either the justices' baseline use of social science authorities, or many other aspects of their uses of social science information. The focus here is on the citation of social science research evidence in a sample of 240 criminal cases decided during the 30 years between the Supreme Court's 1958 and 1987 Terms. The resulting portrait contributes to a fuller understanding of the justices' use of social science materials, and may ultimately help promote more effective utilization of social science research evidence in Supreme Court decisions.     

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Right to Bargain Collectively: The Implications of the Health Services and Support case in Canada and Beyond

In June 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly overruled20 years of jurisprudence that interpreted the freedom of associationas excluding collective bargaining. This about-face by the SupremeCourt was unexpected. What gave rise to this remarkable decisionand what does it portend for the role of the courts in labourrelations in Canada and beyond? The recent successes beforecourts have led some observers to suggest that it may now bea propitious time for a coordinated and proactive litigationstrategy to vindicate labour's collective rights. This articleoffers some preliminary answers to these broader questions andissues by focussing on the Supreme Court's decision in the HealthServices and Support case.