In this episode, Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Adjunct Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and Assistant Counsel at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, discusses his article "Rethinking the Reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez," which will be published in the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality. Mygatt-Tauber begins by describing the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) that the Fourth Amendment applies extraterritorially only if the defendant has a "substantial connection" to the United States. He observes that Verdugo-Urquidez is inconsistent with Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), and that the "substantial connection" rule is unworkable for both judges and law enforcement officers. He argues in favor of an alternative standard based on who is conducting the search, rather than who is being searched. And he reflects on the broader meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mygatt-Tauber is on Twitter at @AMTAppeals.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Valena Beety (@valenabeetv), Professor of Law at Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and Jennifer Oliva (@jenndoliva), Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, discuss their new article, "Regulating Bite Mark Evidence: Lesbian Vampires and Other Myths of Forensic Odontology," forthcoming in the Washington Law Review. Professors Beety and Oliva begin the discussion explaining the serious flaws of junk sciences such as bite mark evidence. They then discuss a trial in which a lesbian couple were convicted of murder based upon flawed bite mark evidence propounded by a dentist who described, during trial, his improper examination of the murder victim, while explaining bite mark evidence as being half art and half science. The pair also explain how such use of junk science runs afoul of established evidentiary standards under Daubert, and why junk science such as bite mark evidence has been allowed to proliferate in criminal cases rather than in the civil sphere. Professors Beety and Oliva also highlight the inequities that arise in the use of bite mark evidence, especially among LGBTQ defendants. They then offer novel extrajudicial solutions in an effort to prevent the use of such faulty "science" in future. The paper is currently available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Carolyn Shapiro, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses her article "Democracy, Federalism, and the Guarantee Clause," which will be published in the Arizona Law Review. Shapiro begins by describing what the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution is and what it was originally intended to accomplish. She surveys the history of the Guarantee Clause and how its salience has waxed and waned over time. She argues that political "spillovers" of extreme partisanship can endanger democracy. And she argues that Congress and other policymakers can and should use the Guarantee Clause as a tool to curb extreme partisanship in the interest of democratic values. Shapiro is on Twitter at @cshaplaw.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Simon Tam, the founder and bassist for The Slants, an Asian-American dance-rock band, discusses his fight to register his band's name as a trademark with the USPTO, and how he helped changed trademark law. Tam begins by describing the origins and aesthetics of The Slants, including why he chose the band's name. He explains why he filed a trademark registration application, and why he chose to fight the USPTO's denial of his application. And he reflects on why he thinks the Supreme Court (mostly) got it right, when it held in Matal v. Tam (2017) that the Lanham Act's prohibition of the registration of "disparaging" trademarks violated the First Amendment. Tam is on Twitter at @SimonTheTam.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, King and ECC11 discuss religion in relation to the ideas of the Latin King and Queen Nation, specifically in relation to the concept of Icona. They explain the origins of the concept of Icona, with reference to the Communist Manifesto and other historical texts on the history of class struggle.

This episode was hosted by King, who is an incarcerated person. King is on Twitter at @King_ShankRadio.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Robin Effron, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her article "Putting the 'Notice' Back Into Pleading," which will be published in the Cardozo Law Review. Effron begins by explaining what pleading is and what a plaintiff is expected to plead under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to survive a motion to dismiss. She describes the origins of what came to be known as "notice pleading" and how it developed over time. She observes that notice pleading effectively conflates notice and factual sufficiency, and argues that we should conceptualize them separately in order to better understand and realize the purpose of our pleading regime. Effron is on Twitter at @binsky18.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, discusses his draft article "Weaponizing the Ballot." Muller begins by describing the history of tax disclosures by presidents and presidential candidates, as well as the history of ballots and the electoral process. He reflects on state regulation of elections, and the constitutional difference between regulating the process as compared to imposing qualifications on candidates. He argues that imposing tax disclosure requirement for ballot access is unconstitutional, and discusses how this should affect our understanding of ballot access more generally. Muller blogs at Excess of Democracy and is on Twitter at @derektmuller.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Walter I. Gonçalves, Jr., a Federal Public Defender in the District of Arizona, discusses his article "Narrative, Culture, and Individuation: A Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Race-Conscious Approach to Reduce Implicit Bias for Latinxs," which is published in the Seattle Journal for Social Justice. Gonçalves begins by explaining what implicit bias is and how it can affect criminal prosecution and sentencing. He describes a range of different ways in which lawyers and judges can avoid implicit bias and help jurors avoid implicit bias. And he directs special attention to how implicit bias affect latinx criminal defendants. Gonçalves is on Twitter at @wgafpd.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Dylan Gilbert, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, discusses his new white paper, "Making Sense of the Termination Right: How the System Fails Artists and How to Fix It," which he co-authored with Meredith Rose and Alisa Valentin. Gilbert begins by explaining what copyright's termination rule is, how it works, and why it was created. He observes that it is supposed to benefit artists, by enabling them to reclaim their copyrights after a fixed period of time, but that it is often hard for them to assert and beset by uncertainty. He argues that termination should be automatic, happen sooner, and be governed by clear rules. Gilbert is on Twitter at @dgilbert_PK.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.