USA v. Michael Norwood

USDC for the District of New Jerse

The Implications of Successful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives in the NCAA

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are relatively new aspects of the NCAA, but they are becoming more important than ever. Initially introduced with the passing of Brown v. Board in 1954, DEI initiatives have grown to include legislation and organizations such as the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, and Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW). These represent the first of many steps to build a more welcoming and equitable environment for the NCAA’s stakeholders, especially in regard to racial and gender diversity. Despite all of the aforementioned initiatives, there are still gaps throughout the NCAA. Positions including athletic trainers, athletic directors, and coaches are disproportionately filled by white employees when compared to the participation rates by race/ethnicity of NCAA athletes. This trend continues into NCAA media, where studies prove that women’s sports were inadequately covered across media. While the presence of a racial or gender majority isn’t inherently harmful, the inequities listed have negative effects on the future of NCAA athletics due to their harmful psychological impact on student-athletes, minority employees, and prospective youth athletes. As such, it is important to research and incorporate greater initiatives to implement DEI as a foundation in the NCAA to bridge harmful and exclusive trends in the organization. This paper analyzes the history of DEI and presents inequities within the NCAA while providing possible ways to introduce proper DEI programs to create a more equitable future for collegiate athletics

Fresh Eyes: Young v. State’s New Eyewitness Identification Test and Prospects for Alaska and Beyond

This Note evaluates recent developments in Alaska’s eyewitness identification admissibility doctrine under the 2016 case Young v. Alaska. For the past four decades, federal and most state courts have relied on the Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Manson v. Brathwaite, which identified five admissibility factors—known as the “Biggers factors”—for establishing the reliability of eyewitness identifications made under the influence of unnecessarily suggestive police procedures (“systemic variables”). In recent decades, however, social and psychological science has demonstrated the flaws in the five Biggers factors as reliability indicators and the impact of non-suggestive circumstantial (or “estimator”) variables on eyewitness identification reliability. In Young , Alaska joined New Jersey and Oregon as the third state to break from Brathwaite, employing a new and evolving admissibility test with scientific support, consideration of both systemic and estimator variables, and a call for corresponding jury instructions

Simon v. USA

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani