What Is Outrageous Government Conduct? The Washington State Supreme Court Knows It When It Sees It: \u3cem\u3eState v. Lively\u3c/em\u3e

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Lively overturned a criminal conviction because of outrageous government conduct. This decision employed a rarely-used, and even more infrequently successful, defense to achieve an apparently just result. Indeed, courts and scholars disagree on whether the defense, based on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, actually exists and, if it does, how it applies to the facts of a given case. The U.S. Supreme Court has neither expressly and conclusively acknowledged nor disavowed the defense and has never employed it to overturn a criminal conviction. The existence of the outrageous government conduct defense has been acknowledged by most federal and state courts. Two federal circuits, however, have expressly repudiated it. Thus, a conflict in interpreting the U.S. Constitution\u27s Due Process Clause exists, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the only place to resolve it. Part I of this Note will discuss the background of the outrageous government conduct defense; Part II will examine the facts of the Lively case; Part III will analyze the court\u27s decision in Lively; and Part IV will discuss the policy considerations which precipitated the outcome. This Note concludes that the outrageous government conduct defense should continue to be recognized. Courts doing so should employ a totality of circumstances analysis and consider relevant public policy issues to determine whether a defendant\u27s due process rights were violated

What Is Outrageous Government Conduct? The Washington State Supreme Court Knows It When It Sees It: \u3cem\u3eState v. Lively\u3c/em\u3e

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Lively overturned a criminal conviction because of outrageous government conduct. This decision employed a rarely-used, and even more infrequently successful, defense to achieve an apparently just result. Indeed, courts and scholars disagree on whether the defense, based on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, actually exists and, if it does, how it applies to the facts of a given case. The U.S. Supreme Court has neither expressly and conclusively acknowledged nor disavowed the defense and has never employed it to overturn a criminal conviction. The existence of the outrageous government conduct defense has been acknowledged by most federal and state courts. Two federal circuits, however, have expressly repudiated it. Thus, a conflict in interpreting the U.S. Constitution\u27s Due Process Clause exists, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the only place to resolve it. Part I of this Note will discuss the background of the outrageous government conduct defense; Part II will examine the facts of the Lively case; Part III will analyze the court\u27s decision in Lively; and Part IV will discuss the policy considerations which precipitated the outcome. This Note concludes that the outrageous government conduct defense should continue to be recognized. Courts doing so should employ a totality of circumstances analysis and consider relevant public policy issues to determine whether a defendant\u27s due process rights were violated

Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail : NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial

Background Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. Methods A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. Results Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). Conclusion After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving