Unintended Consequences of the Scientific Evidence Requirement

Symposium: Toward A Model Death Penalty Code: The Massachusetts Governor\u27s Council Report

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives and Effective Representation in Capital Cases Essay.

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses how, despite Karl’s attempts, the trial court prevented him from providing his own Human Story. Essentially, Part IV strives to demonstrate how persuasive the Kill Story can be if the defendant is not allowed to tell his story, particularly if denied the right to speak. This Essay seeks to reveal the necessity of providing both competing narratives. Otherwise, as Karl’s case shows, the Kill Story will inevitably prevail. Karl Hammond’s case demonstrates how an attorney has an extremely high burden to investigate, place before the jury, and argue the Human Story in a capital case. Furthermore, Karl’s case exemplifies how judges have an equally high burden to facilitate both narratives during each phase of a capital trial. Every important player within the system of justice in Karl’s drama—who should have ensured justice would be served—ultimately failed Karl, who, through no fault of his own, was effectively silenced. As a result, without the Human Story, the Kill Story triumphed

Stop Thinking and Start Doing: Three-Year Accelerator-to-Practice Program as a Market-Based Solution for Legal Education

Law school applications are the lowest they‘ve been in thirty years. Law school enrollment is down significantly from last year, and analysts see the trend continuing for the 2014–2015 academic year. The lack of current job opportunities and the potential for massive student loan payments has scared away prospective students from entering the legal profession. Commentators continue to suggest that obtaining a legal education might no longer be worth the investment. This Essay disagrees. Too many people suffer unnecessary harms due to a lack of affordable legal services. Continued progress in achieving necessary access to legal assistance relies on a constant influx of new, talented, and energetic lawyers. Providing the best training possible to each new generation of lawyers is essential for the continued development of individual liberties and the equitable treatment of all in our society. Many thinkers throughout legal academia are responding to these concerns by carefully considering what steps will actually help students, institutions, and the overall system of justice. Too many respond to current concerns about legal education with what we believe is the primary fallacy of legal educators today: namely, that the mission of law schools is to prepare students to think like lawyers. This Essay argues that the central function of law school is to prepare students to be lawyers, and to do what lawyers do. Although these two aims might seem similar, they are actually representative of the wide gulf between two distinct concepts: that of law school as a liberal arts education in law and that of law school as a professional education for lawyers. These goals are not mutually exclusive, but the former concept has dominated legal study development. Decisions regarding curriculum, faculty appointments, standards for promotion and tenure, and pay incentives have solidified legal academia‘s preference for the theoretical over the experiential approach to learning