Unregulated Corporate Internal Investigations: Achieving Fairness for Corporate Constituents

This article focuses on the relationship between corporations and their employee constituents in the context of corporate internal investigations, an unregulated multi-million dollar business. The classic approach provided in the 1981 Supreme Court opinion, Upjohn v. United States, is contrasted with the reality of modern-day internal investigations that may exploit individuals to achieve a corporate benefit with the government. Attorney-client privilege becomes an issue as corporate constituents perceive that corporate counsel is representing their interests, when in fact these internal investigators are obtaining information for the corporation to barter with the government. Legal precedent and ethics rules provide little relief to these corporate employees. This Article suggests that courts need to move beyond the Upjohn decision and recognize this new landscape. It advocates for corporate fair dealing and provides a multi-faceted approach to achieve this aim. Ultimately this Article considers how best to level the playing field between corporations and their employees in matters related to the corporate internal investigation

Prosecutorial Discretion and Post-Conviction Evidence of Innocence

Traditionally, discussions of prosecutorial discretion focus on charging and plea bargaining decisions. But on occasions when new evidence casts doubt on a convicted defendant’s guilt, questions of prosecutorial discretion take on comparatively greater importance. When there is an inadequate factual basis for criminal charges, a criminal trial will often (though not invariably) act as a corrective. In contrast, the legal process holds out little hope for wrongfully convicted defendants, especially in the absence of help from prosecutors. Commentators have written about psychological reasons why prosecutors might be unduly skeptical of post-conviction challenges, have identified institutional impediments to a fair response, and have proposed structural reform. But comparatively little attention has been given to the fundamental question of what we affirmatively expect prosecutors to do when new evidence comes their way suggesting that a convicted person may be innocent. This article explores that question. It maintains that even when not required to do so by a professional conduct rule, in exercising its discretion after obtaining a conviction, a prosecutor’s office should investigate significant new evidence that suggests that the convicted defendant was innocent. When the office then concludes that the defendant was probably innocent, it should take measures, whether by supporting an application for judicial relief or by supporting a pardon application, to correct the apparent mistake. This article also explores questions regarding what investigative steps must be taken and by whom, drawing on examples of current practices both in the United States and abroad

Should Criminal Justice Reformers Care About Prosecutorial Ethics Rules?

Criminal justice reform groups typically explore multiple avenues for improving the law and legal processes. Among the campaigns are calls for more demanding laws governing prosecutors’ conduct and more effective oversight and enforcement of prosecutors’ compliance with their legal obligations. Yet little advocacy is directed toward ethics rules governing prosecutors and encouraging courts and disciplinary bodies to adopt, interpret, and enforce professional conduct rules so as to demand more of them. This article considers the reasons for such limited focus upon ethics rules and suggests the ways in which current rules regarding prosecutors\u27 disclosure obligations and post-conviction ones can be effective avenues to enhance prosecutorial practices

Psychiatric characterization of children with genetic causes of hyperandrogenism

Objective: Very little is known about the mental health status in children with genetic causes of hyperandrogenism. This study sought to characterize psychiatric morbidity in this group. Design/methods: Children (8-18 years) with the diagnosis of classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) or familial male precocious puberty (FMPP) underwent a semi-structured psychiatric interview, the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version. According to sex and the literature, incidence of identified psychopathology was compared between the two endocrinological groups. We evaluated 72 patients: 54 CAH (21 females) and 18 FMPP. Results: Twenty-four (44.4%) CAH patients and 10 (55.6%) FMPP patients met the criteria for at least one lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was present in 18.2% of CAH males, 44.4% of FMPP males, and one case (4.8%) in CAH females. A high rate of anxiety disorders was also found in all the three groups (17-21%). Relative to females with CAH, the FMPP patients exhibited higher rates of ADHD. Age at diagnosis and the treatment modalities were not associated with psychopathology. Rates of psychiatric disorder, specifically ADHD and anxiety disorders, were higher than in the general population. Conclusion: Although anxiety disorders may occur at an increased rate in children with chronic illness, androgens may contribute to higher risk for psychopathology in pediatric patients with genetic cause of excess androgen. Early diagnosis and treatment of childhood hyperandrogenism is essential for optimal development. The results suggest that assessment for psychiatric disorders should be part of the routine evaluation of these patients