This Article makes two main contributions to existing literature. First, it asserts that in deciding whether to pursue sexual assault charges, prosecutors should not rely on the convictability standard. Assessing evidentiary sufficiency in sexual assault cases through the lens of a hypothetical jury is misguided because it incorporates a myriad of jurors’ extralegal considerations of victims’ behaviors, consisting of racialized, gendered, class, status and other prejudices and biases against victims.35 Declining to prosecute sexual assault based on the convictability standard not only perpetuates unwarranted misconceptions about certain victims, but also reinforces their marginalization by exacerbating the legal system’s unequal and discriminatory treatment. Instead, this Article proposes the reasonable prosecutor’s evidentiary sufficiency standard under which prosecutors should take into account only legal factors directly relevant to the evidentiary strength of the sexual assault case at issue.36 This proposed standard asks only whether a reasonable jury could convict the defendant based on the admissible evidence, rather than predicting whether jurors would likely do so.

Michal Buchandler-Raphael

Assistant Professor of Law, Widener Commonwealth Law School

Federalism scholars have long been fascinated by the unique relationship between the federal government and states that have  legalized marijuana. And with good reason. For the past fifty  years, Congress has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), deeming the  drug to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical  use. Congress’s aim in establishing Schedule I of the CSA was to  “eliminate the market in Schedule I substances.” Thus, possessing, distributing, and manufacturing marijuana are federally illegal. Congress’s objective notwithstanding, over two-thirds of  the states (and territories) have legalized marijuana for medical or  recreational purposes. And, for the most part, the CSA does not preempt state laws legalizing marijuana. This creates a potentially volatile situation in which the substance is contraband under  federal law but is legal under perfectly valid state laws. 

Scott Bloomberg, Associate Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law.