Tooth hop variability in human and nonhuman bone: Effect on the estimation of saw blade TPI

Forensic research has demonstrated that tooth hop (TH) is a valuable measurement from saw-cut bones as it can be used to estimate teeth-per-inch (TPI) of a saw used in postmortem dismemberment cases. However, error rates for TPI estimation are still under development and knowledge of how bone tissue affects TH measurements remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of tissue variability through the use of different taxa on the accuracy and precision of TH measurements in the bone to estimate TPI of the blade. A total of 1766 TH measurements were analyzed from human, pig, and deer long bones cut by two 7 TPI saw blades of different tooth type. Fifty distance-between-teeth measurements before and after sawing were collected directly from each blade for comparison to bone-measured TH to assess potential effects of tooth wear on TH variability. ANOVA and F tests were used to compare mean TH and variance, respectively, by saw-species (i.e., crosscut-deer, rip-deer) and species groups (i.e., all deer, all pig), with significance determined at the p < 0.05 level. TH measurements were converted to usable TPI ranges, which would typically be presented in a forensic report. It is concluded that significant differences in TH (mm) do not necessarily reflect significant differences in associated TPI ranges of suspect blades. Forensic reports should report mean TPI ± 1.5–2.5 TPI while providing a sample size indicating number of TH measured rather than just number of cuts or cut surfaces examined.     

Improving Juvenile Dependency Case Timeliness Through Use of the One Family,One Judge Model

Motivated by the timelines set forth by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, courts are working toward moving cases safely and expeditiously through the juvenile dependency court system. One strategy to improve timeliness is the implementation of a one family, one judge (OFOJ) model. This study examines the effects of OFOJ implementation on timeliness of case processing. Implementation of the OFOJ model showed a trend toward improved timeliness. Post‐OFOJ cases were quicker to reach case closure than pre‐OFOJ cases. Every additional judge on the case increased time to permanency (i.e., case closure) by 31 days, which means children are spending one additional month in care per judge. Resolving cases quicker could improve the courts' ability to meet statutory timelines, and could lead to better outcomes for children and families.     

An Overview of the Courts Catalyzing Change Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study

This paper presents an overview of the Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study. In the fall of 2009, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) began a study to examine the effects associated with judges' use of the Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard. For this study, data were gathered from case file information (both court and agency files) and from courtroom observations of more than 500 children in Los Angeles, California; Omaha, Nebraska; and Portland, Oregon. Data from a baseline sample were collected at each of the three sites, and judicial officers at each site were randomly assigned to either a Benchcard group or a control group. Benchcard implementation appears to be associated with more discussion and higher quality discussion of key dependency topics during preliminary protective hearings. Benchcard implementation also corresponds to increased judicial inquiry and parental engagement. Benchcard use also was associated with more family placements—placement with a charged parent, a non‐charged parent, or a relative—at the initial hearing and even more family placement at adjudication when comparing the same judges before and after Benchcard implementation. Similarly, the percentage of children who were reunified with the charged parent at the initial hearing and the adjudication hearing increased after Benchcard implementation.     

Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate

This article investigates the public debate over proposed U.S. legislation designed to give prosecutors and copyright holders new tools to pursue suspected online copyright violations. We compiled, mapped, and analyzed a set of 9,757 stories published over 16 months relevant to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). This study applies a mixed-methods approach that combines text and link analysis with human coding and informal interviews to map the evolution of the controversy over time and to analyze the mobilization, roles, and interactions of various actors. We find a vibrant, diverse, and decentralized networked public sphere that exhibited broad participation, leveraged topical expertise, and successfully reframed a debate and focused public sentiment to shape national public policy. A network of small-scale commercial tech media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals fulfilled the fourth estate function; traditional media then amplified the work of these actors. The campaign involved substantial experimentation and rapid development of mobilization strategies. We observe an increased public awareness of an agenda originating in the networked public sphere, which emerged successfully despite substantial expenditures attempting to produce a mass media narrative that favored the legislation. Moreover, we witness what we call an attention backbone, in which more trafficked sites amplify less-visible individual voices on specific subjects. The data suggest that, at least in this case, the networked public sphere enabled a dynamic public discourse that involved both individual and organizational participants and offered substantive discussion of complex issues contributing to affirmative political action.     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

On the Legal Effects of Framework Decisions and Decisions: Directly Applicable,Directly Effective,Self‐executing,Supreme?

Abstract:  This article seeks to, first, clarify the meaning and scope of an array of 'legal-effect labels' which are often used interchangeably or in a loose way in the literature and, second, assess to what extent they can be applied to two kinds of very representative third pillar measures: Framework Decisions and Decisions, defined in Article 34(2) TEU. These 'labels' are 'directly applicable', 'directly effective', 'self-executing' and 'supreme'. The main conclusion is that these are interconnected concepts, in that the way in which we define one of them may prejudge the scope and/or the role played by others. This is particularly so in the case of direct effect, expressly excluded in the Treaty definition of Framework Decisions and Decisions. Arguably, our definition of direct effect will determine whether these measures can develop other effects—especially those emanating from the principle of supremacy (should we accept the latter as applicable to the third pillar). Further, the article argues that even if we adopt a narrow reading of direct effect that would allow for a hypothetical application of the principle of primacy to these third pillar measures, there are powerful reasons to reject the judicial extension of the Simmenthal duty to this area within the current framework of the TEU.     

Best Practices for Serving Traumatized Children and Families

This paper highlights the traumatic impact of child abuse and neglect upon children and adolescents who are commonly seen in court systems. In addition to describing prevalence rates of trauma exposure and psychological reactions among traumatized children, it addresses the need for judges and court personnel to work with children and families in a manner that is sensitive to their traumatic experiences and emphasizes the need for these children to receive the very best evidence‐based care available in order to help them more effectively cope and recover from trauma exposure. Cultural issues and model adaptations are covered in relation to the use of evidence‐based practices with children from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Specific recommendations are given to help judges and court personnel become better informed about the use of evidence‐based practices for treating child trauma, enabling them to respond more sensitively and appropriately in these cases.