Newbs Lose, Experts Win: Video Games in the Supreme Court

This Article focuses on the role of the lawyers using the framework described by Professor Richard J. Lazarus in his 2008 article, Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar. Lazarus argues the modern Supreme Court bar has come to be dominated by a small number of Supreme Court specialists. Because of their experience and superior knowledge of the Justices and Supreme Court practice, Supreme Court specialists are more likely to obtain outcomes desired by their clients, which are typically large corporations or industry trade associations. Consistent with Lazarus’s finding, this Article shows the video game industry’s representation by a Supreme Court specialist in Brown gave it advantages over California that likely affected the outcome of the case. Part II analyzes whether the counsel in Brown fit within Lazarus’s definition of a Supreme Court specialist. Part III provides background on the Brown case and the cases that came before it. Part IV compares the expert and non-expert representation in Brown by examining the parties’ briefs, the amicus briefs, and the oral argument. Finally, Part V explores whether the case might have come out differently if both sides had been represented by Supreme Court specialists. It concludes that with expert representation, California could have captured the five votes necessary to win, or at least obtained a narrower decision that would have allowed the legislature to try again to craft a law that could survive a constitutional challenge

The Admissibility of Evidence of Animal Abuse in Criminal Trials for Child and Domestic Abuse

Household violence is a serious problem throughout the country. When household \u27violence cases reach the court system they present unique evidentiary problems. Courts have begun to address these evidentiary problems by allowing evidence of prior abuse of other household victims into criminal trials for child and domestic abuse. The courts that have allowed such evidence, and the scholars who support such admissions, do so under auspices of specific propensity evidence to commit a certain type of crime, as opposed to general propensity evidence which is barred from admission by the federal and state rules of evidence. Since studies have linked animal abuse with other forms of domestic abuse, it is a logical extension to consider evidence of animal abuse as specific propensity evidence to commit other forms of domestic abuse. Therefore, evidence of animal abuse should be admissible in criminal trials for child and domestic abuse

Bountiful Voices

Common portrayals of Canada\u27s only openly polygamous community cast it as a space frozen in time, both socially and intellectually. Bountiful, British Columbia is a sixty-five-year-old community comprised of followers of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Many residents espouse plural marriage as a central tenet of their faith, believing that the practice leads not only to a good terrestrial life but, also, to facilitated entry into the celestial kingdom. Visual and written accounts of Bountiful routinely present the women of this community as submissive, silenced, and isolated. Their traditional dress, and the number of children often captured following or clinging to them, suggest conservatism, and possibly also social regression and exploitation. This imagery bolsters current legal approaches to plural marriage in Canada. In particular, the notion that gender inequality and oppression are inherent to polygamy serves to support the criminal prohibition of plural marriage. This article presents a counter-narrative to this common portrayal of the FLDS wife. It draws upon interviews conducted with twenty FLDS women who are, or who at one time were, Bountiful residents. In discussing matters related to family, reproduction, work, education, and their perception of law\u27s approach to polygamy, participants cast Bountiful as a heterogeneous and dynamic social and political space where at least some women are able to wield considerable authority. Their stories are inconsistent with the dominant legal and social narrative about polygamy and its harms for women, and offer an opportunity for developing a more robust and nuanced appreciation of the implications of plural marriage for Bountiful\u27s wives