Referring Discovery Tasks to Special Masters: Is Rule 53 a Source of Authority and Restrictions?

The author concludes that federal judges who want to appoint special masters to perform duties related to civil discovery may not look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for authority to do so. By examining the historical backdrop against which the original rules were written, as well as the minutes of the proceedings of the first Advisory Committee, Brazil demonstrates that neither Rule 53 nor any other rule was designed to grant federal trial courts power to assign pretrial discovery tasks to special masters. In fact, the evidence the author marshalls shows that the original Advisory Committee explicitly rejected the idea that the Federal Rules should authorize even a limited role for special masters in connection with discovery depositions.
Finding no authority for such appointments in the Federal Rules, the author turns to the judiciary's "inherent power." Drawing principles from the seminal Supreme Court opinion in this area, Brazil infers that in some circumstances the courts' inherent authority is a sufficient premise for delegating discovery tasks to special masters. Noting that the reported cases contain no clear guidelines about when or how federal judges should use this authority in making pretrial appointments, Brazil concludes by calling for a new federal rule covering this important subject.     

Prospects for the international migration of U.S. sex offender registration and community notification laws

Sex offender registration and community notification laws have proved enormously popular in the U.S. This is so even though the avowed sexual violence preventive benefits of the laws remain largely untested and unproven; indeed, it remains an open question whether the laws actually have anti-therapeutic and criminogenic effect. This article examines why this data deficit has characterized the social and political evolution of the laws and considers the prospects for their migration to other nations.     

Role of orthopedic implants and bone morphology in the identification of human remains

When conventional methods of identification, such as visual recognition and dental comparison, cannot be used to identify a deceased person, it becomes necessary to consider alternative methods. The presence of an orthopedic implant in a body may assist identification if ante-mortem medical records are available for comparison. Another method of identification involves comparison of ante-mortem and postmortem radiographs. Eight cases are reported from Forensic Science SA where the presence of orthopedic implants and/or ante-mortem radiographs were used to try to establish identification. In six cases, positive identification was established, and in two cases with upper limb orthopedic implants, the bones remained unidentified. Manufacturers were unable to provide any information about the distribution and use of the implants that could be of use with identification, as there are no requirements in Australia for individual medical implants to be tracked. Such a system has the potential to aid postmortem identification if serial codes were etched onto implants that could then be traced to manufacturers, surgeons, and recipients of these devices.