In this episode, Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law at the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, discusses her article, "First Amendment Categories of Harm," which will be published in the Indiana Law Journal. Barclay begins by explaining how and why theories of harm can affect the legitimacy of government action. She describes how courts have historically thought about categories of harm in relation to religious liberties and exemptions, and identifies several different theories of harm that legal scholars have recently proposed in that context. She explains why those theories may produce undesirable outcomes, and provides a taxonomy of harms that reflects how courts have weighed competing harms in context. And she reflects on how that taxonomy can help clarify the normative values at stake and encourage compromise. Barclay is on Twitter at @shbarclay.

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, Ann M. Lipton, the Michael Fleishman Associate Professor in Corporate Law & Entrepreneurship at Tulane University Law School discusses her article Not Everything Is About Investors: The Case For Mandatory Stakeholder Disclosure. Lipton makes the case for a stakeholder-focused disclosure system to bring information of public concern to the public. She explains how our investor-focused disclosure system under the securities laws is not well-suited to meet the public’s need for information. Lipton's scholarship is available on SSRN, and she is on Twitter at @AnnMLipton.

This episode was hosted by Benjamin Edwards, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law. Edwards is on Twitter at @BenPEdwards.

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

In this episode, Cynthia Godsoe, Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her 2017 article "Recasting Vagueness: The Case of Teen Sex Statutes," which was published in the Washington and Lee Law Review. Prof. Godsoe begins by orienting the listener to the concept of “vaguenets,” broadly written laws punishing common and largely harmless conduct. She then discusses the history and structure of juvenile courts in the United States and how they establish a system parallel to the adult criminal justice system that is, arguably, even more punitive. Professor Godsoe then discusses how employment of the vagueness doctrine can not only limit “vaguenets” such as teen sex statutes, but also be used to institute wider criminal justice reform. She concludes by giving a preview of her next related project, examining vagueness in the context of the child welfare and dependency system, to be co-authored with Carissa Hessick. Professor Godsoe is on Twitter at @cynthia_godsoe.

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

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

In this episode, Mala Chatterjee, a JD/PhD student in philosophy at New York University, fellow at the NYU Law School Engelberg Center for Innovation, Law, and Policy, and visiting fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project, discusses her article "Minds, Machines, and the Law: The Case of Volition in Copyright Law," which she co-authored with Jeanne Fromer of NYU Law, and which will be published in the Columbia Law Review. Chatterjee begins by explaining why mental states and the concept of volition matter in the law. She describes the role of volition in copyright law, and how the presence of absence of volition may affect the culpability of an action under copyright law. She outlines how philosophers of mind distinguish between conscious and functional mental states, and how thinking about mental states functionally may affect our understanding of how to treat the actions of machines under copyright law. And she reflects on how thinking about mental states and volition from a functional perspective may affect how we think about legal doctrine more generally. Chatterjee is on Twitter at @nirrvala.

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, Andy Grewal, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law, discusses his article "The President's Tax Returns." Grewal begins by describing his scholarship on Congress's authority to review individual tax return, and his conclusion that Congress should be able to review tax returns only when it has a legitimate legislative purpose. He describes the efforts of House Democrats to obtain President Trump's tax returns, and evaluates their claims in relation to both their statutory authority and the legitimacy of their stated purposes. He reviews the history of disclosure of tax returns and the IRS's formal treatment of the President's tax return. He considers potential obstacles to forcing President Trump to release his tax returns. And he reflects on the appropriateness of legislative requests to review individual tax returns. Grewal is on Twitter at @AndyGrewal.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, 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, Stephanie Plamondon Bair, Associate Professor of Law at the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, discusses her new article Impoverished IP. She argues that recent debates about using intellectual property systems, especially patent and copyright, as a means for economically empowering those in poverty miss an important mark. In her article, Professor Bair discusses findings from psychology and neuroscience about the cognitive burdens that poverty imposes on decision making and creativity. She concludes that these burdens are an underappreciated obstacle to meaningful participation in the creative process, and identifies policy interventions that more directly promote values of distributive justice. Professor Bair’s article is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor in the School of Law and Associate Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at the Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.

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

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

William Palmer (1824-56) was an English doctor found guilty of murder in one of the most notorious cases of the 19th century. Palmer was also known as the "Prince of Poisoners," and was called "the greatest villain that ever stood in the Old Bailey" by Charles Dickens. In 1856, Palmer was convicted of murdering his friend John Cook by strychnine poisoning in 1855. He was also suspect of poisoning his brother, his mother-in-law, and four of his children. Palmer's trial was a great spectacle that was covered by all of the newspapers of the day. He was represented by Mr. Serjeant William Shee and prosecuted by Alexander Cockburn and John Walter Huddleston, before Judge John Campbell, 1st Baron Campbell. After his conviction, Palmer was executed by hanging on June 14, 1856 at Stafford Prison. Scholars dispute whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Palmer and whether the court's summation was prejudicial.

In 1958, Folkways Records released this dramatization of the trial as a 2xLP set. The trial transcript was edited and abridged by Bernard Rosenberg of the New York Bar. Rosenberg's script was adapted and directed by Wallace House, and performed by Eric House, Wendy Carter, Kenneth Buckridge, and Wallace House. Here is the tracklist:

The Prosecution

A1The Attorney General, Ishmael Fisher

A2Elizabeth Mills

A3William Henry Jones, Charles Newton

A4William Vernon Stevens, Dr. John Thomas Harland, Charles John Devonshire

B1John Boycott, John Myatt

B2Samuel Cheshire, Captain John Haines Hatton, George Bates

B3Thomas Blizzard Curling - Surgeon

B4Dr. Robert Todd, Sir Benjamin Brodie

B5Caroline Hockson, Francis Taylor - Surgeon

B6Dr. Alfred Taylor, Professor Robert Christison, Thomas Pratt - Solicitor, Thomas Smedon Strawbridge

The Defense

C1Defense Attorney

C2Thomas Nunneley - Surgeon

C3Dr. Francis Wrightson, Richard Partridge - Surgeon

C4Dr. George Robinson

C5George Myatt

The Summation

D1Attorney General

The Charge To The Jury

D2Lord Campbell

The Sentence

D3Lord Campbell

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

In this episode, Michael Nesbitt, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law, discusses his article "An Empirical Study of Terrorism Charges and Terrorism Trials in Canada between September 2001 and September 2018," which will be published by Criminal Law Quarterly. Nesbitt begins by describing how Canada first adopted terrorism offenses in the wake of September 11, based on laws adopted in other common law countries. He explains how he created a comprehensive dataset of all the terrorism offenses charged or tried in Canada, and describes the observations and conclusions he drew from that dataset. Among other things, he observes that it suggest that the RCMP tasked with anti-terrorism have focused on Islamist terrorism to the exclusion of white nationalist terrorism. Nesbitt is on Twitter at @MichaelJNesbitt.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, 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, Lawprofblawg, an anonymous social media personality and law professor, discusses the article "Law Reviews, Citation Counts, and Twitter (Oh My!): Behind the Curtains of the Law Professor’s Search for Meaning," which was co-authored with Darren Bush and published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. LPB begins by describing the symposium on legal scholarship in the age of social media for which this article was written. LPB continues by observing how the hierarchies of legal academy perpetuate privilege across a range of spectrums, including race, gender, and class. And LPB reflects on how we might be able to mitigate some of those hierarchies and promote a fairer and more egalitarian scholarly community. Lawprofblawg is on Twitter at @lawprofblawg.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, 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.