Stories That Kill: Masculinity and Capital Prosecutors\u27 Closing Arguments

The American death penalty is a punishment by, for, and about men: Both historically and today, most capital prosecutors are men, most capital defendants are men, and killing itself is strongly coded male. Yet despite—or perhaps because of—the overwhelming maleness of the institution of capital punishment, the subject of masculinity is largely absent from legal discourse about the death penalty. This Article addresses that gap in the legal discourse by applying the insights of masculinities theory, an offshoot of feminist theory, to capital prosecutors’ closing arguments. This Article hypothesizes that capital prosecutors’ masculinity is strongly influenced both by white Southern ideologies around manhood and by the hypermasculinity common within law enforcement. In turn, these ideologies influence capital prosecutors’ sentencing phase closing arguments

Death by Default: State Procedural Default Doctrine in Capital Cases

Before 1991, South Carolina capital defendants benefitted from lenient policies of error preservation. However, in 1991 the South Carolina Supreme Court put an end to these policies and began enforcing default rules that are more draconian than those of any other American jurisdiction with a death penalty. Furthermore, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decisions have made it difficult for trial practitioners to discern the rules under which they must operate. Taken in combination, the strictness of the new procedural policy, the lack of clarity regarding the applicable rules, and the South Carolina Supreme Court’s often ad hoc approach to enforcing the rules severely inhibit consideration of capital defendants’ rights. Moreover, the current situation wastes an enormous amount of time and money. This Article explores the problems with the current situation and proposes a partial solution. Part II of this Article describes South Carolina’s most frequently applied procedural rules. Part III then outlines the history and philosophy underlying procedural requirements at trial. Next, Part IV examines the evolution of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of procedural issues in capital cases and attempts to discern the proper balance between the state’s interest in finality and efficient administration of its criminal laws, and the capital defendant’s interest in receiving a fair trial. Part V then details the court’s current application of the contemporaneous objection rule, using recent case law as a guide. Finally, Part VI advocates the adoption of a plain error rule to address egregious errors in capital cases

Death by Default: State Procedural Default Doctrine in Capital Cases

Before 1991, South Carolina capital defendants benefitted from lenient policies of error preservation. However, in 1991 the South Carolina Supreme Court put an end to these policies and began enforcing default rules that are more draconian than those of any other American jurisdiction with a death penalty. Furthermore, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decisions have made it difficult for trial practitioners to discern the rules under which they must operate. Taken in combination, the strictness of the new procedural policy, the lack of clarity regarding the applicable rules, and the South Carolina Supreme Court’s often ad hoc approach to enforcing the rules severely inhibit consideration of capital defendants’ rights. Moreover, the current situation wastes an enormous amount of time and money. This Article explores the problems with the current situation and proposes a partial solution. Part II of this Article describes South Carolina’s most frequently applied procedural rules. Part III then outlines the history and philosophy underlying procedural requirements at trial. Next, Part IV examines the evolution of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s treatment of procedural issues in capital cases and attempts to discern the proper balance between the state’s interest in finality and efficient administration of its criminal laws, and the capital defendant’s interest in receiving a fair trial. Part V then details the court’s current application of the contemporaneous objection rule, using recent case law as a guide. Finally, Part VI advocates the adoption of a plain error rule to address egregious errors in capital cases

Teaching with Feminist Judgments: A Global Conversation

This conversational-style essay is an exchange among fourteen professors—representing thirteen universities across five countries—with experience teaching with feminist judgments. Feminist judgments are ‘shadow’ court decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective, using only the precedent in effect and the facts known at the time of the original decision. Scholars in Canada, England, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, India, and Mexico have published (or are currently producing) written collections of feminist judgments that demonstrate how feminist perspectives could have changed the legal reasoning or outcome (or both) in important legal cases. This essay begins to explore the vast pedagogical potential of feminist judgments. The contributors to this conversation describe how they use feminist judgments in the classroom; how students have responded to the judgments; how the professors achieve specific learning objectives through teaching with feminist judgments; and how working with feminist judgments—whether studying them, writing them, or both—can help students excavate the multiple social, political, economic, and even personal factors that influence the development of legal rules, structures, and institutions. The primary takeaway of the essay is that feminist judgments are a uniquely enriching pedagogical tool that can broaden the learning experience. Feminist judgments invite future lawyers, and indeed any reader, to re-imagine what the law is, what the law can be, and how to make the law more responsive to the needs of all people

Assessment of bone marrow-derived Cellular Therapy in progressive Multiple Sclerosis (ACTiMuS):study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We have recently completed an evaluation of the safety and feasibility of intravenous delivery of autologous bone marrow in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). The possibility of repair was suggested by improvement in the neurophysiological secondary outcome measure seen in all participants. The current study will examine the efficacy of intravenous delivery of autologous marrow in progressive MS. Laboratory studies performed in parallel with the clinical trial will further investigate the biology of bone marrow-derived stem cell infusion in MS, including mechanisms underlying repair. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stepped wedge design will be employed at a single centre (Bristol, UK). Eighty patients with progressive MS will be recruited; 60 will have secondary progressive disease (SPMS) but a subset (n = 20) will have primary progressive disease (PPMS). Participants will be randomised to either early or late (1 year) intravenous infusion of autologous, unfractionated bone marrow. The placebo intervention is infusion of autologous blood. The primary outcome measure is global evoked potential derived from multimodal evoked potentials. Secondary outcome measures include adverse event reporting, clinical (EDSS and MSFC) and self-assessment (MSIS-29) rating scales, optical coherence tomography (OCT) as well as brain and spine MRI. Participants will be followed up for a further year following the final intervention. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: Assessment of bone marrow-derived Cellular Therapy in progressive Multiple Sclerosis (ACTiMuS) is the first randomised, placebo-controlled trial of non-myeloablative autologous bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy in MS. It will determine whether bone marrow cell therapy can, as was suggested by the phase I safety study, improve conduction in multiple central nervous system pathways affected in progressive MS. Furthermore, laboratory studies performed in parallel with the clinical trial will inform our understanding of the cellular pharmacodynamics of bone marrow infusion in MS patients and the mechanisms underlying cell therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27232902 Registration date 11/09/2012. NCT01815632 Registration date 19/03/201

The RIC Recruitment & Retention Materials Toolkit – a resource for developing community-informed study materials

Clinical trials face many challenges with meeting projected enrollment and retention goals. A study’s recruitment materials and messaging convey necessary key information and therefore serve as a critical first impression with potential participants. Yet study teams often lack the resources and skills needed to develop engaging, culturally tailored, and professional-looking recruitment materials. To address this gap, the Recruitment Innovation Center recently developed a Recruitment & Retention Materials Content and Design Toolkit, which offers research teams guidance, actionable tips, resources, and customizable templates for creating trial-specific study materials. This paper seeks to describe the creation and contents of this new toolkit

Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.

Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 ×  10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice