Substellar Objects in Nearby Young Clusters (SONYC) IX: The planetary-mass domain of Chamaeleon-I and updated mass function in Lupus-3

Substellar Objects in Nearby Young Clusters -- SONYC -- is a survey program to investigate the frequency and properties of substellar objects in nearby star-forming regions. We present new spectroscopic follow-up of candidate members in Chamaeleon-I (~2 Myr, 160 pc) and Lupus 3 (~1 Myr, 200 pc), identified in our earlier works. We obtained 34 new spectra (1.5 - 2.4 mum, R~600), and identified two probable members in each of the two regions. These include a new probable brown dwarf in Lupus 3 (NIR spectral type M7.5 and Teff=2800 K), and an L3 (Teff=2200 K) brown dwarf in Cha-I, with the mass below the deuterium-burning limit. Spectroscopic follow-up of our photometric and proper motion candidates in Lupus 3 is almost complete (>90%), and we conclude that there are very few new substellar objects left to be found in this region, down to 0.01 - 0.02 MSun and Av \leq 5. The low-mass portion of the mass function in the two clusters can be expressed in the power-law form dN/dM \propto M^{-\alpha}, with \alpha~0.7, in agreement with surveys in other regions. In Lupus 3 we observe a possible flattening of the power-law IMF in the substellar regime: this region seems to produce fewer brown dwarfs relative to other clusters. The IMF in Cha-I shows a monotonic behavior across the deuterium-burning limit, consistent with the same power law extending down to 4 - 9 Jupiter masses. We estimate that objects below the deuterium-burning limit contribute of the order 5 - 15% to the total number of Cha-I members.Comment: Accepted for publication by Astrophysical Journa

Opening Remarks: The Impact of Economics on Legal Education at the Threshold of the New Millennium

(Excerpt) As the Interim Dean here of St. John\u27s University School of Law, and on behalf of the faculty, the administration and the entire student body, I welcome all of you to our symposium on Legal Education at the Threshold of the New Millennium. As most of you know, the School of Law is celebrating its 75th anniversary in the year 2000. The school was founded in 1925, and for 75 years we have established a reputation and a tradition of excellence that will carry us forward to even greater heights in the new Millennium

The CPLR at Fifty: A View from Academia

(Excerpt) First and foremost, teaching students in an advanced civil procedure course that concentrates on the CPLR helps them prepare for civil litigation in all of the state courts of New York. As we all know, New York has numerous civil courts of original subject matter jurisdiction--a distressing feature for students and litigants alike. What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that the CPLR governs the procedure in all of those courts unless some specific statute says otherwise. Even for students who intend to practice law in other states, an in-depth study of the CPLR will enhance their ability to cope with complicated procedural issues, regardless of the applicable code

The Hearsay Exception for Public Records in Federal Criminal Trials

The hearsay exception for public records was recognized at common law and has been further developed in most jurisdictions by statute. The reliability of public records is said to derive from the presumption of regularity and accuracy that attends the recording of events by public officials. As with the hearsay exception for recordsmade in the regular course of a private business, the reliability of many public records is enhanced by the routine and repetitive circumstancesunder which such records are made. An additional justificationfor the admission of public records is public convenience: If government employees are continually required to testify in court with respect to matters they have witnessed or in which they have participated in the line of duty, the efficiency of public administration will suffer. It has also been observed that a public official\u27s writtenreport of an event may be more reliable than his memory, as revealed through in-court testimony, because of the volume and repetitiousness of his work. As a result, there may be no appreciable benefit to the factfinding process by requiring the courtroom appearance and cross-examination of the public official. Accordingly, public records have generally been held admissible regardless of the public employee\u27s availability to testify. If a report were prepared by government agents in anticiaption of a criminal prosecution, however, the foregoing assumptions concerning the inherent reliability of the report as evidence against the accused are subject to serious dispute because of the adversarial posture of the parties. Moreover, the use of such records in some cases may contravene the defendant\u27s sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. In enacting rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Congress intended to minimize such problems by excluding from the public records exception, in respect to a criminal prosecution, reports of matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel and factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. Courts have not, however, reached a consensus as to the proper scope of the exclusions. In this regard, several significant interrelated issues have arisen. One problem is whether the exclusions should be given literal effect or whether some degree of flexibility may properly be read into the rule to permit admissibility in certain cases. A second problem is whether rule 803(8) exclusively governs the hearsay status of public records or whether admissibility may be premised on other hearsay exceptions. Additional issues include whether an objectionable report may be rendered admissible by the courtroom appearance of its author, and whether it may properly serve as the basis of an expert witness\u27 trial testimony. This Article analyzes both the conceptual background and the legislative history of rule 803(8)\u27s exclusions in order to suggest the proper approach to these issues

State Medical Malpractice Screening Panels in Federal Diversity Actions

During the early 1970\u27s, a medical malpractice crisis was perceived in the United States. An increasing number of costly and time-consuming lawsuits alleging medical malpractice against doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers caused malpractice insurers to raise premiums substantially, which in turn threatened to curtail the availability of adequate health care at reasonable cost. State legislatures responded to the crisis with a variety of substantive and procedural measures intended to reduce the number of litigated claims and the size of jury awards. One of the principal steps taken in a majority of states was the creation of extrajudicial panels comprised of some combination of doctors, attorneys, judges, and laymen for the consideration of medical malpractice claims prior to the ordinary trial process. Such panels, variously termed screening, mediation, review, advisory, hearing, or arbitration panels, generally determine in an informal manner whether a plaintiff\u27s claim has merit before it is presented to a jury, thereby facilitating early settlement of meritorious claims and discouraging the prosecution of groundless ones. The desired result is a reduction in the costs, expenses, and consumption of time associated with the litigation of medical malpractice actions in the courts, thus easing the malpractice crisis. Inevitably, some medical malpractice claims find their way into federal district courts pursuant to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. If the federal court is located in a state which requires the screening of such claims, the court must decide whether, and to what extent, the panel procedures must be utilized. The court\u27s decision will be based on the resolution of several issues: Whether the particular claim and litigants fall within the scope of the panel legislation; whether the legislation is constitutional under state and federal principles of equal protection, due process, and the right to jury trial; and whether the legislation is a state law which must be applied in federal court under the Rules of Decision Act as construed by Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny. The constitutionality of screening panels has been upheld by most courts that have considered the issue, and other commentators have treated the subject in depth. This article focuses upon the three unique problems presented by the applicability of screening panel legislation in federal courts: Erie, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the seventh amendment right to jury trial. Section I surveys the principal types of screening panels that have been utilized to date. Section II analyzes the evolution of the standard to be applied under Erie in determining whether state rules having both procedural and substantive attributes must be applied in federal courts. The recommended test is a flexible one, but in accordance with the principles of federalism, it prevents impairment of clearly discernible substantive policies of the states. Section III takes up the question whether Erie requires compliance with screening panel hearings in federal courts under such standard. Section IV examines the trio of authorities-Erie, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the seventh amendment-that must be considered in determining whether panel findings may be admitted into evidence at a subsequent trial in federal court. It is concluded that a proper regard for the principles of federalism requires application of screening panel legislation in federal diversity actions in accordance with state law and that the seventh amendment is not thereby violated

The Hearsay Exception for Public Records in Federal Criminal Trials

The hearsay exception for public records was recognized at common law and has been further developed in most jurisdictions by statute. The reliability of public records is said to derive from the presumption of regularity and accuracy that attends the recording of events by public officials. As with the hearsay exception for recordsmade in the regular course of a private business, the reliability of many public records is enhanced by the routine and repetitive circumstancesunder which such records are made. An additional justificationfor the admission of public records is public convenience: If government employees are continually required to testify in court with respect to matters they have witnessed or in which they have participated in the line of duty, the efficiency of public administration will suffer. It has also been observed that a public official\u27s writtenreport of an event may be more reliable than his memory, as revealed through in-court testimony, because of the volume and repetitiousness of his work. As a result, there may be no appreciable benefit to the factfinding process by requiring the courtroom appearance and cross-examination of the public official. Accordingly, public records have generally been held admissible regardless of the public employee\u27s availability to testify. If a report were prepared by government agents in anticiaption of a criminal prosecution, however, the foregoing assumptions concerning the inherent reliability of the report as evidence against the accused are subject to serious dispute because of the adversarial posture of the parties. Moreover, the use of such records in some cases may contravene the defendant\u27s sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. In enacting rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Congress intended to minimize such problems by excluding from the public records exception, in respect to a criminal prosecution, reports of matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel and factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. Courts have not, however, reached a consensus as to the proper scope of the exclusions. In this regard, several significant interrelated issues have arisen. One problem is whether the exclusions should be given literal effect or whether some degree of flexibility may properly be read into the rule to permit admissibility in certain cases. A second problem is whether rule 803(8) exclusively governs the hearsay status of public records or whether admissibility may be premised on other hearsay exceptions. Additional issues include whether an objectionable report may be rendered admissible by the courtroom appearance of its author, and whether it may properly serve as the basis of an expert witness\u27 trial testimony. This Article analyzes both the conceptual background and the legislative history of rule 803(8)\u27s exclusions in order to suggest the proper approach to these issues

The CPLR at Fifty: A View from Academia

(Excerpt) First and foremost, teaching students in an advanced civil procedure course that concentrates on the CPLR helps them prepare for civil litigation in all of the state courts of New York. As we all know, New York has numerous civil courts of original subject matter jurisdiction--a distressing feature for students and litigants alike. What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that the CPLR governs the procedure in all of those courts unless some specific statute says otherwise. Even for students who intend to practice law in other states, an in-depth study of the CPLR will enhance their ability to cope with complicated procedural issues, regardless of the applicable code

Introduction: Symposium on Legal Education at the Threshold of the New Millennium

(Excerpt) Let me welcome you all to the St. John\u27s Journal of Legal Commentary\u27s symposium on Legal Education at the Threshold of the New Millennium. We have been joined by members of the faculty, distinguished members of the judiciary, welcomed guests and special guests, and, of course, the students themselves. The 75th anniversary of St. John\u27s University School of Law continues. Throughout the Year 2000, we are celebrating our diamond jubilee with academic programs and lectures that reflect the tradition of excellence that St. John\u27s University School of Law has come to stand for. One of our hallmarks, and I think this is clearly a reflection of the influence of the Vincentian fathers who founded our great institution, is a commitment to public service. Our alumni have distinguished themselves at all levels of public service. Alumni who have been governors, legislators, public servants at all levels and of course, judges, and not the least of which, is our own Judge Bellacosa, who will take over the deanship in August

High Multiplicity Scheduling with Switching Costs for few Products

We study a variant of the single machine capacitated lot-sizing problem with sequence-dependent setup costs and product-dependent inventory costs. We are given a single machine and a set of products associated with a constant demand rate, maximum loading rate and holding costs per time unit. Switching production from one product to another incurs sequencing costs based on the two products. In this work, we show that by considering the high multiplicity setting and switching costs, even trivial cases of the corresponding "normal" counterparts become non-trivial in terms of size and complexity. We present solutions for one and two products.Comment: 10 pages (4 appendix), to be published in Operations Research Proceedings 201