Disappearing Act: Are Free Speech Rights Decreasing?

Abstract forthcoming

Putting it in Neutral: How Sequence, Severity, and Sincerity of Information Presentation Affect Student Opinions

This article presents the findings of a study designed to measure how variations in the way college professors present information can affect students’ interpretation of the information. The topic analyzed involves two competing theories of constitutional interpretation, originalism and living constitutionalism.1 Variations on how the information was presented include the following: 1) informing the student which theory typically aligns with which political party; 2) making salient the student’s political philosophy; 3) including a short argument in favor of the two theories of constitutional interpretation; 4) altering the sequence in which these two arguments appear; and 5) informing the student as to which theory of constitutional interpretation the professor allegedly prefers. These changes resulted in stark differences in which theory of constitutional interpretation the student elected to support. This is consistent with existing literature on cognitive biases, such as anchoring and the serial-position effect

Victim or Complaining Witness: The Difference Between Guilty and Not Guilty

A trial court’s distinction between using the language “victim” and “complaining witness” may seem trivial, but it plays a significant role in the criminal justice system. Defense attorneys argue that using the term victim presupposes what the trial is meant to determine and therefore denies defendants’ constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence. Some defense attorneys have gone so far as to argue that “calling the deceased a victim is just as wrong as calling the defendant a criminal.” Conversely, prosecutors point out that the term victim is frequently used in statutes and that it does not necessarily presuppose criminal activity by the defendant. Furthermore, the alternative term, complaining witness, may lead jurors to associate the accuser’s testimony with trivial, annoying complaints by children or coworkers. These seemingly slight intimations at trial can bias a jury toward a particular conclusion, undermining its autonomy. To further complicate the issue, the term victim is ambiguous in the U.S. legal system. It is defined differently between statutes, and sometimes it is not defined at all. Difficulties arise when determining who qualifies as a victim based on issues of adequacy of injury, causation, imaginary victims, and culpable or consenting victims. This Article reports the findings of a study on the effects of using victim or complaining witness on juror decision-making and concludes with a suggested best practice for addressing the legitimate complaints of both sides of the debate

Precise Punishment: Why Precise Punitive Damage Requests Result in Higher Awards Than Round Requests

Imagine a setting where someone asks two people what the temperature is outside. The first person says it is 80 °F, while the second person says it is 78.7 °F. Research regarding precise versus round cognitive anchoring suggests that the second person is more likely to be believed. This is because it is human nature to assume that if someone gives a precise answer, he must have good reason for doing so. This principle remains constant in a variety of settings, including used car negotiations, eBay transactions, and estimating the field goal percentage of a basketball player. This Article reports the results of a first-of-its-kind study involving over 600 participants designed to measure if this same principle applies to punitive damage requests from plaintiffs’ attorneys. In other words, can a plaintiff’s attorney increase the punitive damages awarded simply by requesting $497,000 instead of$500,000. The stark differences produced from such a subtle and costless change provide a valuable strategy for plaintiffs’ attorneys, a cautionary warning for civil defense attorneys, and constructive insight into the subjective nature of juror decision-making

Unlocking the Beauty From Within Title VII: Arguing for An Expansive Interpretation of Title VII to Protect Against Attractiveness Discrimination

Beauty may only be skin deep, but discrimination against the unattractive runs far deeper. Research emphatically demonstrates that attractiveness discrimination affects nearly every aspect of life, including hiring and promotion decisions. For example, personal injury attorneys utilize economists as expert witnesses for how their clients’ reduced attractiveness will negatively affect their future earnings. Attractiveness discrimination is just as prevalent as discrimination based on ethnicity. Unfortunately, current interpretations of federal antidiscrimination legislation do not offer protections from attractiveness discrimination. This Article offers a comprehensive framework for providing such protections under an expansive interpretation of Title VII

The Icing on the Cake: How Background Factors Affect Law Faculty Predictions in \u3ci\u3eMasterpiece Cakeshop\u3c/i\u3e

In this research, I explore law school faculty perceptions and predictions of the highly publicized Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I created a survey to assess how law faculty members’ prediction of the case may be affected by their area of instruction, background in business, religious involvement, political affiliation, same-sex union celebration participation, exposure to the case, and personal desired outcome for the case. I contacted over 800 law school faculty members, inviting them to participate in the research. The ninety-three completed responses provide insight into how law school faculty demographics may be indicators of their Supreme Court case predictions. Furthermore, different survey links were utilized in order to stratify results based on the additional variable of law school tier. One interesting result was the ability of law faculty to provide a prediction that was opposed to their personal desired outcome