Author: Chris Gant, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review The adage borrowed from baseball, “three strikes and you’re out,” is used in law in different contexts. Many states have enacted “three-strikes” laws to punish repeat offenders: under these laws, a criminal receives a much longer sentence on his third conviction.[1] Another example is found... Continue Reading →
Warrantless Searches for Probationers: The Reasonableness of SCOTUS’s Balancing Test
Author: Collin L. Ryan, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review When convicted felons are released on probation, may officers conduct a warrantless search of their homes without violating any constitutional rights protected under the Fourth Amendment? The Supreme Court, by conducting a balancing test, holds that officers may do so when they have a... Continue Reading →
The Legality of Preventing Future Crime: Johnson v. United States
Author: Chris Gant, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review “Minority Report” is a futuristic science fiction film in which crime is thwarted before it takes place.[1] In the film, a specialized police department, “Precrime,” apprehends would-be murderers before the murder is committed. Clairvoyant “Precogs” indicate that someone will commit a murder and Precrime apprehends... Continue Reading →
Should There Be a Scienter Requirement for Designer Drugs?
Author: Chris Gant, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Advancements in chemistry and technology have lead to unprecedented innovation in the drug market. Some criminal-minded people have circumvented federal drug laws by creating so-called “designer drugs” like bath salts. The law’s treatment of those manufacturing and distributing designer drugs has led to a contentious... Continue Reading →
The Formal Notice Requirement Behind Rule 11 Sanctions: Why an Informal Threat Should Not Be Treated as a Binding Promise
Author: Collin L. Ryan, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Talk is cheap, put your money where your mouth is, et cetera—all idioms that reflect a common underlying theme that in order for one’s statements to be taken seriously, one must take a formal action threatening stern consequences. Anything less, and others will think... Continue Reading →
Constructive Discharge: Drawing the Line
Author: Matt Huffman, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review In Green v. Donahoe,[1] the Tenth Circuit considered when the limitations period starts for a constructive discharge claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court held that the forty-five day clock starts ticking on the date of the employer’s alleged discriminatory... Continue Reading →
Specialty License Plates as Government Speech: How the Supreme Court Is Likely to Resolve a Five-Way Circuit Split
Author: Rebecca Dussich, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Currently, all fifty states in the U.S. require vehicles to be registered and fitted with a unique license plate. Historically, these plates were generic and distinguishable only by the series of letters and numbers used to identify the owner of the vehicle. However, with time,... Continue Reading →
Are Magistrate Judges’ “Additional Duties” Stinking Up the Courtroom?
Author: Chris Gant, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review On July 14, 2014, the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Harden held that the Federal Magistrates Act (FMA) does not permit magistrate judges to accept guilty pleas, even if both the prosecution and defense consent.[1] The decision severely limits a district court’s ability to... Continue Reading →
True Threats and the First Amendment: Objective vs. Subjective Standards of Intent to Be Revisited in Elonis v. United States
Author: Rebecca Dussich, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an appeal of the Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Elonis.[1] Anthony D. Elonis was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), a federal statute that prohibits making “any threat to injure the person of another”... Continue Reading →
Confusion in Lock-Up: Irrevocable Agreements and Section 11 Claims
Author: Dan Stroh, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari in Moores v. Hildes, which involved the interpretation of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.[1] Section 11 protects investors by requiring disclosures regarding the purchase of securities and imposing liability on... Continue Reading →