A Commander’s Power, A Civilian’s Reason: Justice Jackson’s Korematsu Dissent

Barrett examines the dissent opinion of Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson in Korematsu v. United States, which centered on the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Although the dissent has been criticized as incoherent, it contains strong legal implications within its complexity

State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton and State of Ohio v. John W. Terry: The Suppression Hearing and Trial Transcripts

This appendix to Deciding the Stop and Frisk Cases: A Look Inside the Supreme Court’s Conference, 72 St. John’s L. Rev. 749 (1998), includes Biographical Information on the Participants in the Case; and transcripts of the complete pretrial and trial proceedings in the 1964 criminal prosecutions of Richard Chilton and John Terry, arranged by Prof. Barrett to create the organization reflected in the Table of Contents at the beginning of the appendix. Footnotes were added to provide citations and, in a few instances, to clarify the text. Bracketed material was added to correct obvious slips of the tongue or the typing finger. Other basic typographical errors were corrected without indication. Internal quotations during arguments by counsel also were conformed without indication to the original quoted material. The appendix includes: The Pretrial Hearing on Defendants\u27 Motions to Suppress Evidence (9/22/64); Direct Examination of Detective Martin; Chilton\u27s Trial (9/29/64); Terry\u27s Trial (10/2/64); the Court\u27s Finding; and Sentencing of Defendant Terry

Henry T. King, Jr., at Case, and on the Nuremberg Case

Prof. Barrett reflects on his “teacher, colleague and friend for the past eight years,” Henry T. King, Jr. Through work at conferences, with the Robert H. Jackson Center and in many private discussions, Henry King became Prof. Barrett’s Nuremberg colleague in the academic and historical senses of that phrase. Henry also hoped and assumed that his friends at Case Western would, after his death, do right by his memory and convene a memorial event. Henry directed Prof. Barrett to attend on this occasion to speak about him and Case Western, and about him and Nuremberg

Justice Lazansky on “Repose” at Chief Judge Cardozo’s New York Court of Appeals

(Excerpt) In 1948, Edward Lazansky of Brooklyn wrote a long letter to his friend Jacob Billikopf of Philadelphia. It included an amusing story that Lazansky had heard at some point about his friend Benjamin N. Cardozo, who had died ten years earlier. Billikopf liked the story. He retyped it and mailed it to prominent people who had known Cardozo. Lazansky and Billikopf had it right. The story, which generally checks out, should be shared. It gives a glimpse of Cardozo’s talents and virtues, including his judicial sense of humor

Independent Cousel Law Improvements for the Next Five Years

This Article is adapted from remarks made in New Orleans on January 8, 1999, as part of an Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Administrative Law Section panel discussion entitled, Separation of Powers Revisited: Should the Independent Counsel Law Be Renewed? Our topic is Should the Independent Counsel Law Be Renewed? and my answer is, Not exactly. I will not be, in other words, defending the status quo. Indeed, the empty chair you see here on the dais nicely contains the only defender of the status quo of whom I know. What I would like to do is remind us of the original rationale for the Independent Counsel statute, for that rationale is still valid and compelling today. I will then address some ways to improve the statute and some of the reasons why continuing it with modifications is preferable to the path of abandoning it