Sometimes What Everybody Thinks They Know Is True

This essay responds to D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002), who question the value of motive evidence in murder cases. They argue that the evidence that a husband had extramarital affairs, that he heavily insured his wife's life, or that he battered his wife is ordinarily of infinitesimal probative value. We disagree. To be sure, it would be foolish to predict solely on the basis of such evidence that a husband will murder his wife. However, when this kind of evidence is combined with other evidence in a realistic murder case, the evidence can be quite probative. We analyze cases in which it is virtually certain that the victim was murdered but unclear who murdered her, and in which it is uncertain whether the husband murdered the wife or she died by accident. We show that in each case motive evidence, such as a history of battering or of infidelity, can substantially increase the odds of the husband's guilt. We also consider the actual case on which Davis and Follette base their paper. We argue that testimony of Davis on the basis of the analysis presented in their paper was properly excluded, for it would have been misleading and unhelpful.     

Supreme Court Elections: How Much They Have Changed,Why They Changed,and What Difference It Makes

This essay draws on four recent studies of elections to state supreme courts in the United States to probe widely perceived changes in the scale and content of electoral campaigns for seats on state supreme courts. 1 Evidence from these studies and other sources indicates that changes have indeed occurred, though they are more limited than most commentaries suggest. These changes stem most directly from trends in state supreme court policy that have attracted interest‐group activity, especially from the business community. Like their extent, the effects of change in supreme court campaigns have been meaningful although exaggerated by many observers. What we have learned about changes in supreme court elections has implications for choices among selection systems, but those implications are mixed and complex.     

Business Adaptation to Regulation: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

There is, predictably, a gap between the normative model and empirical pictures of regulation drawn from many societies. We may get an approximation of the goals of much regulation, but often regulatory policy is not carried out exactly as legislated. Agencies pursue enforcement strategies in light of their priorities and resources. They engage in soft law enforcement and bargain with the targets of regulation. Regulated businesses have many tactics available to blunt or evade regulation. We can fashion plausible normative arguments both for and against these common empirical pictures. To a great extent, however, these normative positions rest on unexamined empirical assumptions. Future research might profitably focus on the roles played by those individuals who act for business associations and cope with regulation. Attention should be paid particularly to the roles played by business lawyers in such coping. James Gould Cozzens' novel , Guard of Honor, suggests how lawyers comply narrowly, evade, cover up and otherwise divert the impact of regulation, all in the service of what they see as the greater good. Cozzens' story suggests important empirical and normative questions for future consideration.     

What We Know About Aggression

Research on aggressive behavior has woven a complex tapestry representing a range of phenomena within typologies of aggression. This issue of Peace Review presents essays on some currently concerning aspects of aggression. Here we sketch the historical origins of some of the threads of this tapestry in ourselves and other animals as background for the essays that follow.     

Assessing Danger: What Judges Need To Know

Every day, judges are faced with decisions regarding intimate partner violence (IPV) victims' requests for protection orders, custody arrangements, and visitation schedules. To make informed decisions, judges must understand victims' risk for future violence. This mixed method study explores the extent to which protection order petitions (n=169) communicate victims' current danger and future risk of violence. Methods included interviews coupled with an archival review of court petitions. Findings suggest judges are inadequately prepared to render decisions to improve victim safety in the absence of standardized risk assessments. The Danger Assessment provides an evidence-based solution to routinize intake interviews with victims petitioning the court.     

Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know

Civil plaintiffs frequently seek monetary compensation for their psychological injuries. Despite the increased study of psychological injury within the legal system, there has been little empirical examination of how psychological injury evidence impacts legal decisions. To illuminate what is known (and not known) on this topic, this paper reviews legal and empirical research regarding how legal decision makers (judges and jurors) perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil judgments. A few themes emerged from this review: (1) Courts generally devalue psychological injury, often making it difficult for plaintiffs to pursue and succeed on these claims; (2) these difficulties are a likely byproduct of legal decision-makers’ misperceptions of mental illness; and (3) despite a recent surge in empirical research on how jurors perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil decisions, many unexplored areas remain. Specific recommendations for legal policy and suggestions for future research are highlighted throughout this review.     

Move Analysis of Legal Justifications in Constitutional Tribunal Judgments in Poland: What They Share and What They Do Not

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - It appears that we know surprisingly little about how judges frame linguistically the rationale...     

What Clients Know: Client perspectives and legal competence

This article does not have an abstract     

What We Know Now: The Evanston Illinois Field Lineups

A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit secured 100 eyewitness identification reports from Evanston, Illinois, one of three cities of the Illinois Pilot Program. The files provide empirical evidence regarding three methodological aspects of the Program’s comparison of non-blind simultaneous to double-blind sequential lineups. (1) A-priori differences existed between lineup conditions. For example, the simultaneous non-blind lineup condition was more likely to involve witnesses who had already identified the suspect in a previous lineup or who knew the offender (non-stranger identifications), and this condition also entailed shorter delays between event and lineup. (2) Verbatim eyewitness comments were recorded more often in double-blind sequential than in non-blind simultaneous lineup reports (83% vs. 39%). (3) Effective lineup structure was used equally in the two lineup conditions.     

The Soldiers Did Not Know Why They Were Sent to Chechnya

The soldiers did not know why they were sent to Chechnya, believes Vladimir Bauer, chairman of the Committee on the Organization of the Work of the State Duma, who visited Chechnya and Ingushetia at the head of a Duma committee of observers.     

Sexual Trauma and Psychological Injuries: What Experts Need to Know

This article was written to introduce readers to the bodies of work that inform experts who conduct evaluations of plaintiffs or offer generic testimony in cases involving claims of psychological injuries in the aftermath of sexual trauma, including childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and sexual harassment. In addition to summarizing the research literatures on those three areas of maltreatment, it reviews what mental health experts should know about our laws, about professional standards for evaluations, and about other relevant areas of research, such as assessment of posttraumatic stress symptoms, disclosures by young children, “normal” childhood sexual behaviors, “repressed” or “recovered” memories, memory and trauma, memory distortions, and resilience.     

浅析企业内部的商标管理

问:目前,国内公众的知识产权保护意识日益增强,商标对于企业的重要性愈加突出,面对这样的形势,作为企业怎样才能妥善地管理好自己的商标、制定出切实可行的品牌战略、提升自己的品牌价值?答:商标管理是企业对于注册及未注册商标的控制、使用、维护的过程,正确完善的管理可以在很大程度上降低商标在使用过程中的风险,不断增加无形资产的积累,提升品牌价值。从某种意义上讲,企业商标管理是     

企业如何管理无形资产

不管是技术创新型企业,还是技术跟随性企业,都希望自己在无形资产多年的投入能够实现收支平衡或者增值的效果.因此,企业对无形资产进行筹划、控制、配置、运用,使之得到有效保护,充分实现保值和增值效果的管理活动,也就是无形资产管理.     

Insurance Issues for Green Start-ups: What Every Entrepreneur Needs to Know

This article is a case study based upon a business entrepreneur's efforts to obtain specialized insurance coverage for a clean-energy start-up business. The article identifies and discusses some of the potential liabilities of insurance brokers in the event that the insurance coverages they obtain do not adequately protect the interests of the client's business. The article concludes that, at least in New York State, the rule is “Let the buyer beware!” and that a business person cannot safely rely upon advice given by an insurance broker in obtaining complex or specialized insurance coverage.     

Defining “Pollutant”: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

A fundamental question reported in hundreds of court decisions and evaluated every day by claims adjusters is whether a constituent that caused injury and damage is a “pollutant.” If yes, the claim will most often not be covered under general liability, professional, property, umbrella, or other policies because of the applicability of a pollution exclusion. Based upon our review of 200 cases, we determined that in 140, or 70 percent of the time, the constituent was considered a “pollutant” and the insurance claim was denied. In order to have insurance for “irritants” or “pollutants,” an insured must obtain specific pollution coverage.