Uncertainty and the Search for Truth at Trial: Defining Prosecutorial Objectivity in German Sexual Assault Cases

According to German legal scholar, Claus Roxin, German prosecutors are the most objective civil servants in the world. Roxin \u27s assessment of German prosecution practice reflects the conviction of many German legal scholars that prosecutors in Germany\u27s inquisitorial system function as second judges dedicated to finding the objective truth. In this Article I investigate how prosecutors translate the normative duty of objectivity enshrined in the German penal code into observable practices on the ground I examine prosecutorial decision-making in three sexual assault trials. Sexual assault cases pose unique challenges to prosecutors as well as to the definition of objectivity. Because the crime typically occurs in private, the search for truth often focuses on the testimonies of the victim and the suspect. In cases in which the physical evidence is inconclusive and the defendant claims that the victim consented, the focus of the fact finder\u27s inquiry is often directed at the victim \u27s credibility. Drawing on transcript and interview data, I propose three models of \u27faces of prosecutorial objectivity. Surprisingly, despite the fact that judges structure the presentation of evidence in German trials, prosecutors play a critical role in interpreting the facts presented at trial. In each of the cases examined in this Article, the face of objectivity is constructed through a relational process that unfolds between the presiding judge and the trial prosecutor. Although many legal scholars maintain that penal code sharply circumscribes prosecutorial discretion in major crime cases in Germany, my research demonstrates that a wide variation exists in the way that individual prosecutors interpret their duty to view the evidence objectively

Tough Decisions: Defending the Homeland

Produced by WFYI, in partnership with the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis and the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Tough Decisions: Defending the Homeland takes viewers behind-the-scenes at a groundbreaking simulation of terrorism event. The exercise forces a new generation of global leaders to develop innovative counter-terrorism tactics and strategies in order to disrupt terrorist activities, while restoring public safety and maintaining First Amendment rights. Viewable at https://iu.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/Tough+Decision.mp4/1_slb6dra

Law vs. War: Competing Approaches to Fighting Terrorism

The authors address one of the fundamental assumptions underlying the conduct of the War on Terrorism - the nature of our enemy, whether perpetrators of terrorist activities are criminals or soldiers (combatants). Although the United States recognizes that terrorist acts are certainly illegal, it has chosen to treat perpetrators as combatants; but much of the world, including many of our traditional allies, have opted for a purely legalistic approach. Disagreement about assumptions is not the only basis for divergent policies for confronting terrorism, but certainly explains much of our inability to agree on strategies to overcome what we recognize as a serious common and persistent international problem. Their insights into how our respective cultures and histories influence our definitions, assumptions, and subsequent policy decisions can assist us to respect and learn from competing strategies. They correctly surmise that our current international struggle is too important for us to ignore assumptions underlying our own and competing ideas.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1740/thumbnail.jp

Upward! Higher: How a Law Faculty Stays Ahead of the Curve

Full-time and part-time faculty of the IUMcKinney School ofLaw convened together with campus and university partners from the IUPUI Center for Teaching and Learning and Indiana University e-Learning Design and Services for the second annual "Upward!" teaching symposium at the beginning ofFall Semester 2017. The two-day gathering involved panel discussions on topics including online teaching, online course design, teaching externships, designing lessons for the law school's active learning classrooms, teaching international students, and teaching with an eye to the bar exam. Participants enjoyed afield trip to IUPUI campus offices supporting the university's teaching mission, including the Center for Teaching and Learning and the recording studio. Panelists contributed to this joint publication, which includes sole- or joint- authored submissions by Professors Adams, Baker, Boyne, Huffinan, Ryznar, Shope, and Sullivan; an introduction by Dean Klein and Professor Huffman; and reactions to the primary papers. These submissions reflect a variety ofscholarly methods, drawing from empirical study, anecdotal observation, and theoretical analysis. The written submissions from Upward! combine to relate a story of law school curricular, student body, and course design that responds to the changing needs and realities of the profession and student demand. The Introduction by Dean Klein and Professor Huffinan explains that design is a combination of top- down direction and bottom-up faculty-led innovation. As law schools continue to cope with uncertainties, including a changing regulatory environment, and resource constraints, the McKinney model offers an approach to purposeful change