Domain Adaptive Neural Networks for Object Recognition

We propose a simple neural network model to deal with the domain adaptation problem in object recognition. Our model incorporates the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) measure as a regularization in the supervised learning to reduce the distribution mismatch between the source and target domains in the latent space. From experiments, we demonstrate that the MMD regularization is an effective tool to provide good domain adaptation models on both SURF features and raw image pixels of a particular image data set. We also show that our proposed model, preceded by the denoising auto-encoder pretraining, achieves better performance than recent benchmark models on the same data sets. This work represents the first study of MMD measure in the context of neural networks

Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, and the Limits of Bad Faith

Under the law of lost evidence, absent a showing of bad faith, no due process violation occurs when the police lose potentially exculpatory evidence. This is so even though the evidence may be critical to the defense and even though post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated more than 200 individuals. Ironically, the case that developed that rule of law, Arizona v. Youngblood, is founded on the conviction of an innocent man. This Article critically examines Youngblood and provides a conceptual framework for examining the constitutional right of access to evidence. Supreme Court precedent reflects two different, sometimes competing, visions of procedural due process: adjudicative fairness to the accused or an instrumental focus on deterring official misconduct. In Youngblood, instrumentalism trumped adjudicative fairness. Moreover, four compelling developments in the twenty-one years since Youngblood was decided scientific advances, legislative reform, state judicial disapproval, and doctrinal incoherence have eroded its rationale and legitimacy. For all those reasons, Youngblood no longer merits stare decisis effect and should be overruled. In its place, the-Court should apply an approach that takes into account the nature of the government\u27s conduct and the degree of prejudice suffered by the accused. This approach restores balance to the constitutional right of access to evidence; it encompasses a broader vision of due process that promotes adjudicative fairness. In some cases, the loss of potentially exculpatory evidence ought to result in a due process violation, even in the absence of bad faith

Prosecutorial Discretion in the Post-Booker World

This article takes a measured position. On the one hand, Booker has diminshed prosecutorial discretion somewhat. That point, perhaps, is obvious. In theory, the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, and prosecutors have less power to control sentencing. On the other hand, reports of the demise of the prosecutorial discretion have been greatly exaggerated. Post-Booker, prosecutorial discretion remains vast and, indeed, for a number of reasons is still likely to be greater than it was in the pre-Guidelines era. Mush has happened since November 1, 1987, including the passage of mandatory minimum laws and the acculturation of federal judges to the Guidelines, which, in the aggregate, serve to protect or enhance prosecutorial power

Prosecutorial Discretion in the Post-Booker World

This article takes a measured position. On the one hand, Booker has diminshed prosecutorial discretion somewhat. That point, perhaps, is obvious. In theory, the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, and prosecutors have less power to control sentencing. On the other hand, reports of the demise of the prosecutorial discretion have been greatly exaggerated. Post-Booker, prosecutorial discretion remains vast and, indeed, for a number of reasons is still likely to be greater than it was in the pre-Guidelines era. Much has happened since November 1, 1987, including the passage of mandatory minimum laws and the acculturation of federal judges to the Guidelines, which, in the aggregate, serve to protect or enhance prosecutorial power

Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, and the Limits of Bad Faith

Under the law of lost evidence, absent a showing of bad faith, no due process violation occurs when the police lose potentially exculpatory evidence. This is so even though the evidence may be critical to the defense and even though post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated more than 200 individuals. Ironically, the case that developed that rule of law, Arizona v. Youngblood, is founded on the conviction of an innocent man. This Article critically examines Youngblood and provides a conceptual framework for examining the constitutional right of access to evidence. Supreme Court precedent reflects two different, sometimes competing, visions of procedural due process: adjudicative fairness to the accused or an instrumental focus on deterring official misconduct. In Youngblood, instrumentalism trumped adjudicative fairness. Moreover, four compelling developments in the twenty-one years since Youngblood was decided scientific advances, legislative reform, state judicial disapproval, and doctrinal incoherence have eroded its rationale and legitimacy. For all those reasons, Youngblood no longer merits stare decisis effect and should be overruled. In its place, the-Court should apply an approach that takes into account the nature of the government\u27s conduct and the degree of prejudice suffered by the accused. This approach restores balance to the constitutional right of access to evidence; it encompasses a broader vision of due process that promotes adjudicative fairness. In some cases, the loss of potentially exculpatory evidence ought to result in a due process violation, even in the absence of bad faith

Executive Power and the War on Terror

Two important paradigm shifts have occurred in the war on terror. First, the United States has treated terrorism as a military issue, not a law enforcement problem. Second, the United States has centralized its intelligence apparatus under the direction of the newly-created Director of National Intelligence and lowered the wall that separated external security or foreign intelligence activity from internal security or domestic law enforcement. In tandem, these changes are of historic dimension. They also occur against a backdrop in modern times in which the executive branch has steadily accumulated power. In pursuit of the war on terror, we have begun to blur traditional lines meant to protect civil liberty from the danger of excessive executive power: the line between the military and domestic law enforcement on the one hand, and between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence on the other. This blurring of the lines already has led to difficult questions regarding the limits of executive prerogative and will undoubtedly lead to more. The cumulative effect of both paradigm shifts is to enlarge executive authority and to increase the risk of civil liberty abuses

Analysis of multi-sensor data, 12 September - 11 December 1968

Analysis of multi-sensor data obtained by Earth Resources Aircraft Progra