Finding Nino: Justice Scalia\u27s Confrontation Clause Legacy from its (Glorious) Beginning to (Bitter) End

Until very recently, Justice Scalia has steered the Court’s modern confrontation jurisprudence. However, as discussed below, his leadership is increasingly threatened by deep divisions on questions of historical accuracy, constitutional interpretation, and the practical realities of twenty-first century criminal prosecutions

Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making

The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014.1 Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly “divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact—such as whether an IUD prevents or terminates a pregnancy—they increasingly employ fact-finding strategies that equate the empirical evidence (they think with their heads) with the unsubstantiated beliefs (they feel with their hearts). Jurisprudential epistemic relativism (or truthiness) often produces the wrong answer to questions of fact. Issues of law and natural science or human behavior shape many Supreme Court cases, including important recent decisions on death by lethal drug cocktail and the psychological benefits of marriage for same-sex families. At the micro level, decisions that contradict the empirical evidence are inaccurate and unfair to the parties. At the macro level, when judges balance substantiated data against truthiness-based claims, courts distort social perceptions by creating a false epistemic relativism that models poor decision-making and yields bad public policy

Consolidation of an Olfactory Memory Trace in the Olfactory Bulb Is Required for Learning-Induced Survival of Adult-Born Neurons and Long-Term Memory

Background: It has recently been proposed that adult-born neurons in the olfactory bulb, whose survival is modulated by learning, support long-term olfactory memory. However, the mechanism used to select which adult-born neurons following learning will participate in the long-term retention of olfactory information is unknown. We addressed this question by investigating the effect of bulbar consolidation of olfactory learning on memory and neurogenesis. Methodology/Principal Findings: Initially, we used a behavioral ecological approach using adult mice to assess the impact of consolidation on neurogenesis. Using learning paradigms in which consolidation time was varied, we showed that a spaced (across days), but not a massed (within day), learning paradigm increased survival of adult-born neurons and allowed long-term retention of the task. Subsequently, we used a pharmacological approach to block consolidation in the olfactory bulb, consisting in intrabulbar infusion of the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin, and found impaired learning and no increase in neurogenesis, while basic olfactory processing and the basal rate of adult-born neuron survival remained unaffected. Taken together these data indicate that survival of adult-born neurons during learning depends on consolidation processes taking place in the olfactory bulb. Conclusion/Significance: We can thus propose a model in which consolidation processes in the olfactory bulb determine both survival of adult-born neurons and long-term olfactory memory. The finding that adult-born neuron survival durin

Creation of a pandemic memory by tracing COVID-19 infections and immunity in Luxembourg (CON-VINCE).

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic swift implementation of research cohorts was key. While many studies focused exclusively on infected individuals, population based cohorts are essential for the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 impact on public health. Here we present the CON-VINCE cohort, estimate the point and period prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, reflect on the spread within the Luxembourgish population, examine immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and ascertain the impact of the pandemic on population psychological wellbeing at a nationwide level. METHODS: A representative sample of the adult Luxembourgish population was enrolled. The cohort was followed-up for twelve months. SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR and serology were conducted at each sampling visit. The surveys included detailed epidemiological, clinical, socio-economic, and psychological data. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred sixty-five individuals were followed over seven visits (April 2020-June 2021) with the final weighted period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection of 15%. The participants had similar risks of being infected regardless of their gender, age, employment status and education level. Vaccination increased the chances of IgG-S positivity in infected individuals. Depression, anxiety, loneliness and stress levels increased at a point of study when there were strict containment measures, returning to baseline afterwards. CONCLUSION: The data collected in CON-VINCE study allowed obtaining insights into the infection spread in Luxembourg, immunity build-up and the impact of the pandemic on psychological wellbeing of the population. Moreover, the study holds great translational potential, as samples stored at the biobank, together with self-reported questionnaire information, can be exploited in further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT04379297, 10 April 2020.3. Good health and well-bein

Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is the leading cause of fatal head injuries in children younger than 2 years. A multidisciplinary team bases this diagnosis on history, physical examination, imaging and laboratory findings. Because the etiology of the injury is multifactorial (shaking, shaking and impact, impact, etc.) the current best and inclusive term is AHT. There is no controversy concerning the medical validity of the existence of AHT, with multiple components including subdural hematoma, intracranial and spinal changes, complex retinal hemorrhages, and rib and other fractures that are inconsistent with the provided mechanism of trauma. The workup must exclude medical diseases that can mimic AHT. However, the courtroom has become a forum for speculative theories that cannot be reconciled with generally accepted medical literature. There is no reliable medical evidence that the following processes are causative in the constellation of injuries of AHT: cerebral sinovenous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischemic injury, lumbar puncture or dysphagic choking/vomiting. There is no substantiation, at a time remote from birth, that an asymptomatic birth-related subdural hemorrhage can result in rebleeding and sudden collapse. Further, a diagnosis of AHT is a medical conclusion, not a legal determination of the intent of the perpetrator or a diagnosis of murder. We hope that this consensus document reduces confusion by recommending to judges and jurors the tools necessary to distinguish genuine evidence-based opinions of the relevant medical community from legal arguments or etiological speculations that are unwarranted by the clinical findings, medical evidence and evidence-based literature

The Supreme Court Screws Up the Science: There Is No Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome “Scientific” Controversy

Even if it is not true that law school is the consolation prize for those whose freshman biology grades make medical school impossible, judges, law professors, and lawyers are not (as a general rule) scientists. But they increasingly shape our understanding of scientific ideas by determining how law interprets and applies scientific information and by ensuring that bad science does not create bad law. As law becomes more science-dependent and expert witnesses play a greater role in a wide range of criminal and civil cases, there has been a concomitant increase in the need to ensure that the expert testimony admitted [at trial] is not just flimsy or interested speculation, but reliable enough to be more helpful than misleading, and one factor that courts have sometimes taken as indicating that proffered scientific testimony may not be reliable is that it is based on litigation-driven science