Should Prosecutors Be Expected to Rectify Wrongful Convictions?

In 2008, the American Bar Association amended the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address prosecutors’ post-conviction conduct. Model Rules 3.8(g) and (h) establish the remedial steps a prosecutor must take after achieving a criminal conviction when confronted with significant new evidence of an injustice. They require prosecutors to disclose the new exculpatory evidence and to take reasonable steps to initiate an investigation, and if clear and convincing evidence then establishes the convicted defendant’s innocence, the prosecutors’ office must take reasonable steps to rectify the injustice. Since then, 24 state judiciaries have adopted versions of one or both rules. Although prosecutors in those states have not reported problems with the rules, state and federal prosecutors often oppose their adoption in the remaining states, including in Texas where the model provisions have been under consideration for over a year. Prosecutors’ objections generally sound one of three themes. First, some prosecutors contest that they should be responsible for investigating and rectifying wrongful convictions. Second, some assert that because they can be counted on to rectify wrongful convictions, the rules serve no useful purpose but instead simply impugn prosecutors’ ethics. Third, some insist that the rules will unduly burden them—the rules demand too much of prosecutorial time and resources; they are too imprecise; or they will provoke unfounded disciplinary complaints to which prosecutors must respond. After providing background into the rules’ development, this Article examines prosecutors’ objections to adopting Model Rules 3.8(g) and (h) and explains why those objections are unpersuasive

Freedom of Information in the European Union

This thesis is in three parts. The first and second parts analyse the development of the law and policy on freedom of information in the European Economic Community and European Union between 1984 and 2004. These two parts focus on how the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament enacted and implemented the rules on FOI protection, and on the role of the Community court in this field. The third part examines the roles of the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman, which have supplemented the role of the Court in securing this right. As to the objectives of this project: on the one hand, it seeks to understand the degree of legal protection offered to freedom of information in the Union over the last two decades; on the other, it seeks to identify how the current EU FOI regime could be improved. To accomplish these objectives, attention is drawn to the following interrelated issues. First of all, we consider the major controversies surrounding FOI law and policy between 1984 and 2004. In particular, this thesis focuses on the extent to which the 2001 FOI Regulation addresses the pre-existing obstacles to FOI protection. Secondly, the exceptions in Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) of the 2001 Regulation can be categorised as mandatory and discretionary respectively, but the distinction between the two provisions is vague. This indistinct dividing line should be removed to end the misunderstanding that the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament are entitled to refuse requests systematically when invoking the so-called mandatory exceptions. Thirdly, we take into account the principles established by the 2001 Regulation, the EC Treaty, or by the Court to guide the interpretation of the exceptions laid down in the Regulation. Fourthly, we argued that the EU legislator should expressly incorporate the principle of proportionality into the 2001 Regulation. Finally, we analyse recent initiatives to adopt a constitution for Europe. In the light of the "no" votes to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in the referendums in France and the Netherlands in mid 2005, further steps are now required to guarantee freedom of information in the future

JURI SAYS:An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights)

Dynamics of International Human Rights Clinical Education in Japan

articl

Copyright in Legal Documents

Original legal documents and forms have long enjoyed copyright protection. After looking at Commonwealth and U.S. decisions, the author discusses the nature, extent, and desirability of protection. An examination of the technicalities of copyright protection reveals a law drafted in broad generalities and ill-suited to respond adequately to the common practices arising from this class and, by implication, other classes of creative work. The author concludes by suggesting practical ways in which legislators, lawyers, and judges can solve some of the copyright problems generated through the use of legal documents

Caldwell Land and Cattle, LLC v. Johnson Thermal Systems, Inc. Clerk\u27s Record Dckt. 46056

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/8509/thumbnail.jp