Paul M. Birch
When Gail Zwirner joined the law library staff in 1998, many of us had already gotten to know her well during her decade across town as a librarian for Hunton & Williams and particularly through her active involvement in the Virginia Association of Law Libraries (“VALL”). This mutual familiarity probably eased her career transition from law firm to law school librarian. At any rate, in her seventeen years at the University of Richmond School of Law, Gail has demonstrated in every way how to excel in academic law librarianship: as an information provider, as a teacher, as an administrator, and as a colleague.
Among the half a dozen librarians who staff our reference desk, Gail has been almost certainly the best versed in Virginia law materials, and she has often been the source of gracious assistance to me in identifying obscure state agency or continuing le- gal education publications. To say even that Gail wrote the book on Virginia legal research would be no exaggeration: she is co- editor of A Guide to Legal Research in Virginia and contributed two chapters to this definitive manual. One of her most lasting services to all who work with Virginia law has been her involvement with VALL’s Ad Hoc Committee for the Creation of an Administrative Code (the “Code”) for Virginia, which spearheaded legislation authorizing the Code’s creation. Subsequently, this committee worked with the Code commission and publisher to bring out its first edition. Anybody who attempted to do administrative research in this commonwealth prior to the Code’s publication will attest to the enormity of this contribution.
Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of the United States describes a woman‘s constitutional right to an elective abortion as a right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability. That description begs a question that may someday be as important in practice as it is in principle: whether the right to an elective abortion includes the right to “terminate” —that is, kill or otherwise ensure the death of—the pre-viable fetus. In today‘s world, the conduct that would squarely present this question—killing a pre-viable fetus although it could have survived an abortion and become a child—cannot occur in practice. The right to elective abortion applies only to fetuses that are not viable, which means, by definition, that they have been determined to have no realistic chance of surviving outside the uterus, even with the help of neonatal intensive care. Today‘s abortion methods almost invariably involve the violent killing of the fetus. But even if abortion providers used fetus-sparing methods rather than fetus-killing ones, aborted fetuses would die within minutes after being removed from their mothers‘ wombs. Consequently, whether or not the woman‘s right to terminate her pregnancy includes a legal entitlement to kill the pre-viable fetus, elective abortion inevitably results in fetal death in practice. For that very reason, the woman has no choice in the matter: should she elect to terminate her pregnancy, the fetus will die even if she wants it to survive.
Continue reading.
__________
* © Copyright 2014. All Rights Reserved. Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law. B.A., St. Johns College, Maryland; J.D., The University of Chicago. Thanks to Deans Brad Saxton and Jennifer Brown for research support, to Choy-Shin Chan and Jonathan Jacobson for valuable research assistance, and to Laurie Feldman, Emmett Feldman Gilles, Nelson R. Lund, participants in faculty workshops at Quinnipiac, and participants in the 2012 University Faculty for Life Conference at Brigham Young Univer-sity Law School, for helpful comments.
John J. Infranca *
Less than one in four income-eligible households receives some form of rental assistance from the federal government.[1] In contrast with other prominent public benefit programs—including Temporary Aid to Needy Families (“TANF”) and unemployment insurance—no time limit is placed on the assistance provided through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) three major sources of rental assistance:[2] public housing, housing choice vouchers, and Section 8 project-based rental assistance.[3] Recipients of federal rental assistance can continue to receive benefits as long as they satisfy eligibility requirements.[4] Two of the most prominent forms of rental assistance—housing choice vouchers and public housing—typically have long waiting lists that are frequently closed to new applicants.[5]
Continue reading.
* Assistant Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. Thanks to Vicki Been, Erin Braatz, Nestor Davidson, Ingrid Gould Ellen, Tim Iglesias, and Patrick Shin for comments and suggestions at various stages. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the NYU Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy’s Fellows Workshop, the 2013 Association for Law, Property and Society Annual Meeting, the Suffolk Law School Junior Faculty Workshop, and the Touro Law Center Faculty Workshop. Michael O’Brien provided helpful research assistance.
[1]. Joint Ctr. for Hous. Studies of Harvard Univ., America’s Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs 7 (2013) [hereinafter America’s Rental Housing]; see also Robert C. Ellickson, The False Promise of the Mixed-Income Housing Project, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 983, 1003 (2010) (citing Edgar O. Olsen, Housing Programs for Low-Income Households, in Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States 365, 394 (Robert A. Moffitt ed., 2003)) [hereinafter Olsen, Housing Programs for Low-Income Households] (observing that only 30% of qualified renters with incomes below the poverty level receive any form of federal housing aid); Editorial, The Affordable Housing Crisis, N.Y. Times, Dec. 5, 2012, at A30.
[2]. This article uses the phrase “rental assistance” to refer only to assistance provided through these three programs. The phrase “housing assistance” is used to refer more broadly to all forms of federal support for housing. Of most importance for this article’s analysis, the latter term includes the three rental assistance programs as well as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) and the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (“HMID”).
[3]. See infra Part I.D. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with TANF, imposed a lifetime maximum of sixty months assistance for families receiving TANF. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–193, § 408(a)(7), 110 Stat. 2105, 2137 (1996) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 608(a)(7)(A) (2012)). States may, however, exempt a family from the time limit in cases of hardship, so long as no more than 20% of recipient families receive an exemption. 42 U.S.C. §§ 608(a)(7)(C)(i)–(ii). The unemployment insurance system provides a combination of federal and state benefits that differ by state, but in all states there is some limit on the maximum period of time one is eligible to receive unemployment compensation. See Policy Basics: How Many Weeks of Unemployment Compensation are Available?, Center on Budget & Pol’y Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/files/PolicyBasics_UI_Weeks.pdf (last updated Mar. 2, 2015). In contrast with these programs, the federal Supplemental Security Income Program provides an entitlement benefit—targeted to individuals who are elderly, blind, or disabled and have little income and few assets—to all individuals who qualify and does not impose time limits on receipt. See Ctr. on Budget & Policy Priorities, Introduction to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program 1 (2014), available at http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-10-11socsec.pdf (“SSI has guaranteed a minimum level of income to those who qualify.”). Finally, the largest federal anti-poverty program, the Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”), operates quite distinctly from these benefit programs. Like many tax credits, there is no limit on how many years an individual may receive the EITC. See 26 U.S.C. § 32 (2014).
[4]. Public housing, housing choice vouchers, and Section 8 project-based rental assistance account for approximately 90% of the five million households who receive federal rental assistance. See Ctr. on Budget & Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: Federal Rental Assistance 1–3 (2013) [hereinafter Federal Rental Assistance], available at http://www.cbpp.org/files/Policy Basics-housing-1-25-13RA.pdf.
[5]. See, e.g., Olsen, Housing Programs for Low-Income Households, supra note 1, at 394 (“There are long waiting lists to get into subsidized housing in all localities, and the length of the waiting list understates excess demand in many localities because housing authorities often close their waiting lists when they get sufficiently long.”); Mid-Am. Inst. on Poverty of Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, Not Even a Place in Line 2007: Public Housing & Housing Choice Voucher Capacity and Waiting Lists in Illinois 2 (2007), available at http://www.wowonline.org/ourprograms /fess/stateresources/documents/NotEvenaPlaceinLineIL.pdf (reporting that, as of 2006, the waiting lists at forty-two of seventy-five Public Housing Authorities (“PHAs”) in Illinois that provided housing vouchers were closed to new applications); Lolly Bowean, As CHA Saved, Residents Waited; Report: Millions in Housing Funds Stashed in Bank, Chi. Trib., July 30, 2014, at C1 (discussing report that the Chicago Housing Authority held reserve funds of over $400 million while voucher and public housing waiting list of more than 40,000 families remained closed for over five years); Mireya Navarro, On Public Housing Wait List, Position Unknown, N.Y. Times, July 24, 2013, at A1 (reporting that although 227,000 households are on waiting list for public housing in New York City, only 5400 to 5800 units become available each year); Housing Authority Officials Overloaded with Applications, Fort-Wayne J. Gazette (Mar. 30, 2014), http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140330/NEWS/320142140 (reporting that when the Fort Wayne, Indiana Housing Authority, which provides 200 to 300 new vouchers each year, opened its Housing Choice Voucher waiting list for the first time in four years it received more than 8000 applications in three days). Lengthy waiting lists for housing assistance are not a recent phenomenon. See U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., Waiting in Vain: An Update on America’s Rental Housing Crisis ii–vi (1999) (discussing lengthening waiting times for public housing, particularly in larger PHAs and major cities); William C. Nussbaum, Comment, Public Housing: Choosing Among Families in Need of Housing, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 700, 700 (1983) (“Throughout the country, the number of families seeking public housing vastly exceeds the number of available units.”). However, waiting lists may slightly overstate demand for housing assistance because a household may be on the waiting lists of multiple PHAs. Nat’l Low Income Hous. Coal. Res. Note #04-03, A Look at Waiting Lists: What Can We Learn From the HUD Approved Annual Plans? (2004), available at http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/04-03WaitingLists.pdf.
Brian M. Murray *
Jason Lawson[1] is a twenty-five-year-old African American male with a criminal record.[2] He is currently unemployed despite possessing a high school diploma and an associate’s degree from a local, urban community college, which is more higher education than the vast majority of his neighbors.[3] He plans to earn his bachelor’s degree in the evening once he finds steady employment.
Continue reading.
* Abraham Freedman Fellow and Lecturer-in-Law, Temple University, Beasley School of Law; J.D., 2011, magna cum laude, Notre Dame Law School; B.A., 2008, Philosophy and Political Science, summa cum laude, Villanova University. I would like to express my gratitude for the comments of Professor Rick Greenstein and Professor Jennifer Mason McAward while drafting this article. I also would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to my wife, Katherine, for her unyielding support, my daughter Elizabeth, for her inspiring wonder and curiosity in all things, and my entire family, for their unconditional love, continuous patience, and enduring encouragement.
[1]. The following account is a fictional scenario based on the author’s experience as a practicing attorney in both the criminal defense and employment law contexts.
[2]. Mr. Lawson, as an African American male, is sadly somewhat average when it comes to his criminal record. Statistics indicate that disproportionate shares of African American males have some type of criminal record, whether that means a conviction or an arrest record. See Thomas P. Bonczar, Bureau of Just. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 197976, Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974–2001, 5–6 (Aug. 2003), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/piusp01.pdf. See generally Erica Goode, Many in U.S. Are Arrested by Age 23, Study Finds, N.Y. Times, Dec. 19, 2011, at A16 (noting 30.2% of twenty-three-year-olds surveyed reported having been arrested for “an offense other than a minor traffic violation,” compared to 22% who made a similar report in a 1965 study). This has caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to conclude that some employment practices may have a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos. EEOC Guidance No. 915.002, Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Apr. 25, 2012) [hereinafter EEOC, Guidance], available at http: //www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm.
[3]. Only roughly 20% of African Americans over twenty-five possessed a college degree as of 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012 151 tbl.229 (2012), available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables /12s0229.pdf (statistic under the table titled, “Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1970 to 2010”).
Carl Tobias *
Marriage equality is sweeping the United States. Across 2014, numerous federal circuit and district court judges throughout America invalidated state constitutional bans or legislative restrictions which proscribe same-sex marriage. Accordingly, it was predictable that Judge Wright Allen of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia would rule that Virginia’s prohibitions were unconstitutional and enjoin their enforcement on February 13,[1] even as the jurist stayed her decision.[2] Marriage equality in Virginia comprises a significant legal issue and has telling effects on numerous people, but its status remained less than clear until recently. Marriage equality in the jurisdiction deserves analysis, which this piece undertakes.
Continue reading.
* Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law. I wish to thank Peggy Sanner for exceptional ideas, Thomas DiStanislao and Katie Lehnen for valuable research, Leslee Stone for excellent processing, and Russell Williams and the Hunton Williams Summer Endowment Fund for generous, continuing support. Remaining errors are mine.
[1]. Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 483–85 (E.D. Va. 2014); see Robert Barnes, Federal Judge Strikes Down Va. Ban on Gay Marriage, Wash. Post (Feb. 14, 2014), http:// www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-strikes-down-va-ban-on-gay-marriage/201 4/02/13/c65b7674-9528-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html?hpid=z1.
[2]. Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 484 (E.D. Va. 2014).
Benjamin D. Johnson *
In 1973, Jack Nilles, a researcher with the University of Southern California, coined the term “teleworking.”[1] His idea was to create a more flexible communication system for employees, reduce the need for transportation, and ultimately decentralize the traditional workplace.[2] Six years later, Marvin Minsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), first used the term “telepresence.”[3] Minsky sought to create a phenomenon whereby people could use technology to replicate their presence in an environment where they were not physically present.[4]
Continue reading.
* J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of Richmond School of Law. A.B., 2012, University of Georgia. I would like to thank the University of Richmond Law Review editorial staff for their diligent work that made this article possible. I would also like to thank my parents and my sister who each helped to instill in me a love for writing and are a constant source of encouragement in all of my pursuits. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Sarah, whose unwavering love and support keeps me motivated daily.
[1]. Biography of Jack Nilles, JALA Int’l, http://www.jala.com/jnmbio.php (last modified Sept. 26, 2011).
[2]. See Jennifer Mears, Father of Telecommuting Jack Nilles Says Security, Managing Remote Workers Remain Big Hurdles, Network World (May 15, 2007, 1:00 AM), http://www.networkworld.com/article/2299251/computers/father-of-telecommuting-jack-nilles-says-security–managing-remote-workers-remain-big-hurd.html (quoting Jack Nilles’ initial thoughts about telecommuting and his perceptions on how his ideas contrasted with those of the “business world”).
[3]. Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, History of Telepresence, in 3D Videocommunication: Algorithms, Concepts, and Real-Time Systems in Human Centred Communication 7, 7 (Oliver Schreer, Peter Kauff & Thomas Sikora eds., 2005).
[4]. See id. (“[Telepresence] refers to the phenomenon that a human operator develops a sense of being physically present at a remote location through interaction with the system’s human interface, that is, through the user’s actions and the subsequent perceptual feedback he/she receives via the appropriate teleoperation technology.”).
Christopher M. Keegan *
The United States of America is a nuclear nation. Despite individuals and organizations opposed to nuclear energy,[1] the reality is that nuclear power is an integral part of our nation and world.[2] In the United States specifically, nuclear power plays a vital role. Just less than 20% of the electricity produced in the United States comes from nuclear power.[3] Sixty-one commercial nuclear power plants currently operate in thirty states.[4] Furthermore, nuclear power is the most abundant clean energy source, accounting for roughly 60% of the non-fossil fuel electricity generated in the United States.[5] Additionally, the United States Navy is built around nuclear energy. As of 2009, approximately 45% of the Navy’s ships were nuclear powered, with 103 reactors powering eleven aircraft carriers and seventy-one submarines.[6]
Continue reading.
* J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of Richmond School of Law. M.E.M., 2013, Old Dominion University; B.S., 2007, United States Naval Academy. I must express my extreme gratitude to Casey, for years of listening to me talk about nuclear power. Thank you also to the University of Richmond Law Review’s editors and staff whose tireless and thankless work has made this comment possible.
[1]. See generally Karl S. Coplan, The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . . , 35 Ecology L. Currents 17 (2008) (arguing that the benefits of nuclear power are not worth the long term impacts of nuclear energy production).
[2]. See Alex Funk & Benjamin K. Sovacool, Wasted Opportunities: Resolving the Impasse in United States Nuclear Waste Policy, 34 Energy L.J. 113, 114 (2013) (stating that nuclear power accounts for 13.5% of the world’s electricity).
[3]. Nuclear Explained, U.S. Energy Info. Admin., http://www.eia.gov/energyexplain ed/index.cfm?page=nuclear_home#tab2 (last updated Sept. 8, 2014).
[4]. How Many Nuclear Power Plants Are in the United States, and Where Are They Located?, Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Energy Info. Admin., http://www.eia.gov/ tools/faqs/faq/cfm?id=207&t=3 (last updated Jan. 22, 2015); see also Nuclear Power in the USA, World Nuclear Ass’n, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Count ries-T-Z/USA-Nuclear–Power/ (last updated Feb. 2015).
[5]. See What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source?, U.S. Energy Info. Admin., http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 (last updated June 13, 2014) (stating that 67% of electricity in the United States is generated by fossil fuels and 19% by nuclear; therefore, nuclear energy accounts for 57% of the remaining 33% of energy not generated by fossil fuels).
[6]. U.S. Dep’t of Energy & U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, The United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 1 (2009).
Brockenbrough A. Lamb *
One day in the fall of 2011, a man unrolled a blanket on a sidewalk by Central Park, laid out multiple copies of a book, and started selling them for forty dollars apiece.[1] The man was the notorious appropriation artist Richard Prince, and the books for sale were near-duplicates of an early edition of The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.[2] They were “near-duplicates” for one very obvious reason: on the dustcover, title page, and copyright page, Prince’s name appeared in place of Salinger’s.[3] As it turns out, these books were part of Prince’s latest art project—500 meticulously constructed copies of The Catcher in the Rye using thick, high quality paper meant to mimic the 1951 original, the same cover art as the original, and most astonishingly, the same text as the original (in its entirety).[4]
Continue reading.
* J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of Richmond School of Law. B.A., 2000, Wake Forest University. I would like thank the authors Roland Barthes, Jorge Luis Borges, J.D. Salinger, and Richard Prince for their inestimable contributions to culture. I would also like to thank the staff and editors of the University of Richmond Law Review for their work on this comment. Finally, I am especially thankful for the support and encouragement of three loved ones, who happen to be attorneys: my wife, Elizabeth Anne Ridler Lamb; my father, Robert Henley Lamb; and my sister Hampton Breckinridge Lamb.
[1]. See Kenneth Goldsmith, Richard Prince’s Latest Act of Appropriation: The Catcher in the Rye, Poetry Found. (Apr. 19, 2012), http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/ 2012/04/richard-princes-latest-act-of-appropriation-the-catcher-in-the-rye/.
[2]. Several articles have referred to the Richard Prince versions as duplicates of the first edition (and not only an early edition) of The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger. See, e.g., id.; Thomas Hawk, Richard Prince on Appropriating “The Catcher in the Rye”, Thomas Hawk’s Digital Connection (June 17, 2013, 12:59 PM), http://thomashawk. com/2013/06/richard-prince-on-appropriating-the-catcher-in-the-rye.html. For a variety of bibliographic reasons this is incorrect. For instance, true first editions of The Catcher in the Rye had a photograph of J.D. Salinger on the rear panel of the dust jacket. First Edition Criteria and Points to Identify The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, FEDPO.com, http://www.fedpo.com/BookDetail.php?bk=213 (last visited Apr. 3, 2015). In later printings this feature was dropped. Michael Lieberman, Richard Prince: Book Pirate?, Book Patrol (Apr. 23, 2012), http://bookpatrol.net/richard-prince-book-pirate/. The Prince copies have a blank rear panel. See id. (noting that Prince’s version used the second issue dust jacket which lacks J.D. Salinger’s photo).
[3]. Goldsmith, supra note 1.
[4]. See Hawk, supra note 2.
Steven W. Lippman *
A major issue in today’s corporate landscape is the growth of shareholder litigation. The typical types of claims brought by shareholders are derivative claims and class action claims. Specifically, derivative claims aimed at merger transactions were filed in over 90% of corporate mergers and acquisitions valued at $100 million since 2010.[1] As for securities class action claims—the topic of this comment—there have been an average of 191 filings per year since 1997.[2] Of the 166 securities class action claims in 2013, 84% involved Rule 10b-5 claims.[3] Claims alleging a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 contend that the company made fraudulent misstatements or omissions that violate federal securities laws.[4] The ability to bring class action suits has its foundation in both statutory regimes and common law principles.[5]
Continue reading.
* J.D. Candidate 2016, University of Richmond School of Law. B.B.A., 2012, James Madison University. I am forever grateful for the love and support from my parents and my grandmother, Irene Lippman. I would like to thank the editors and staff of the University of Richmond Law Review for their hard work in making this publication possible.
[1]. Lisa A. Rickard, Delaware Flirts with Encouraging Shareholder Lawsuits, Wall St. J. (Nov. 14, 2014), http://www.wsj.com/articles/lisa-rickard-delaware-flirts-with-encour aging-shareholder-lawsuits-1416005328.
[2]. Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings—2013 Year in Review 1 (2014), available at https://www.cornerstone.com/GetAttachment/d88bd527-25b5-4c54-8d40-2b13da0d0779/Securities-Class-Action-Filings-2013-Year-in-Review.pdf. While there has been a decline in the number of filings in recent years, there was an increase in the number of filings from 2012 to 2013. Id.
[3]. Id. at 1, 7.
[4]. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (2012).
[5]. Class Action: An Overview, Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ class_action (last visited Apr. 3, 2015).
The University of Richmond Law Review had a very successful Allen Chair Symposium this academic year, titled, “Lethal Injection, Politics, and the Future of the Death Penalty.” The Symposium featured a keynote address from Professor Stephen B. Bright, President and Senior Counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights and professor at the Yale School of Law, as well as incredible panels comprised of nationally renowned death penalty scholars, practitioners, doctors, politicians, and journalists. Through the subsequent months of hard work, the Law Review proudly presents the corresponding Allen Chair Issue. This, Volume 49’s third issue, is sure to be a great source for all things related to this controversial and important topic. We encourage all to read these articles and allow them to shed some unique light on the issue of the death penalty in American society and jurisprudence.
Professor Stephen Bright was our keynote speaker at the Allen Chair Symposium. His thought-provoking piece, largely developed from his address, is titled, “The Role of Race, Poverty, Intellectual Disability, and Mental Illness in the Decline of the Death Penalty.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 671 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Bright-493.pdf
Students Sheherezade Malik (Executive Editor, Volume 49) and Paul Holdsworth (Editor-in-Chief, Volume 49) then lay a foundation for the rest of the pieces of the Allen Chair Issue with “A Survey of the History of the Death Penalty in the United States.” This contribution’s citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 693 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/History-493.pdf
THE DEATH PENALTY AND LETHAL INJECTION
Doctor Joel Zivot of the Emory School of Medicine & Emory University Hospital provides an unprecedented analysis of lethal injection from the medical perspective. His contributions to the panel were incredibly insightful, and this piece is sure to be a “game-changer” in legal academia as well. His contribution is titled, “Lethal Injection: States Medicalize Execution.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 711 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Zivot-493.pdf
Professor Eric Berger then offers a compelling reflection on states’ execution procedures and their possible constitutional implications titled, “The Executioners’ Dilemmas.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 731 (2015), and it is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Berger-493.pdf
Distinguished Richmond journalist Frank Green sheds his expertise and reflections on having covered Virginia executions since 1982. His contribution is titled, “Witnessing Executions.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 763 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Green-493.pdf
Second-year law student, and Editor-in-Chief-elect, Thomas DiStanislao offers a compelling proposal for Virginia to return to the firing squad in lieu of the recent complications with lethal injection. His comment is titled, “A Shot in the Dark: Why Virginia Should Adopt the Firing Squad as Its Primary Method of Execution.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 779 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/DiStanislao-493.pdf
THE SHIFTING POLITICS OF THE DEATH PENALTY
Former Attorney General Mark Earley shifts the Issue’s focus to political and policy analysis. His contribution, titled, “A Pink Cadillac, An IQ of 63, and a Fourteen-Year-Old From South Carolina: Why I Can No Longer Support the Death Penalty” is an interesting reflection about how Mr. Earley’s views and opinions of the death penalty have evolved throughout and following his political career. It can be cited at 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 811 (2015) and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Earley-493.pdf
Professor Corinna Lain, without whose generosity and ideas the Allen Chair Symposium and Issue would not have been possible, offers a piece that highlights and analyzes 2014’s string of botched executions, and their various legal and societal implications. Her contribution is titled, “The Politics of Botched Executions.” The piece’s citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 825 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Lain-493.pdf
Following Professor Lain’s piece, Notre Dame law professor Stephen Smith, urges caution in declaring that the demise of the death penalty has been realized. While many recent developments have certainly called into question the future of America’s death penalty, there is much more to do. Professor Smith’s piece is titled, “Has the ‘Machinery of Death’ Become a Clunker?” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 845 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Smith-493.pdf
THE FUTURE OF THE DEATH PENALTY
Richmond Law’s esteemed professor and former Dean, John G. Douglass, shifts the Issue’s focus to the future of the death penalty. Professor Douglass’ contribution tackles the issue of plea bargaining in Virginia death penalty cases. His essay is titled, “Death As a Bargaining Chip: Plea Bargaining and the Future of Virginia’s Death Penalty.” It can be cited at 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 873 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Douglass-493.pdf
Professor Brandon Garrett, from the University of Virginia School of Law, then offers his contribution by analyzing interrogation policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia and proposing that such policies are in need of a major overhaul. Professor Garret’s piece, “Interrogation Policies” can be cited at 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 895 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Garrett-493.pdf
Next, Richard Dieter, the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, discusses the trajectory of the death penalty in the United States. His piece, appropriately titled, “The Future of the Death Penalty in the United States” can be cited at 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 921 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Dieter-493.pdf
Professor Mary Tate, the Director of the University of Richmond School of Law’s Institute for Actual Innocence, reflects on the inherent arbitrariness of doctrinal developments, public policy, and societal mood in death penalty outcomes. Professor Tate does so through reexamining the case of Tommy David Strickler, an indigent Virginia man executed in 1999. Her piece is titled, “Temporal Abritrariness: A Back to the Future Look at a Twenty-Five-Year-Old Death Penalty Trial.” Its citation is 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 939 (2015), and is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Tate-493.pdf
Student Ann Reid, the Law Review’s Lead Articles Editor-elect, rounds out the Allen Chair 2015 Issue with an innovative proposal of narrowing capital eligibility in the aftermath of 2014’s botched execution and the controversial atmosphere surrounding death penalty sentiment. Her comment, “Making Sure We Are Getting It Right: Repairing ‘The Machinery of Death’ by Narrowing Capital Eligibility” can be cited at 49 U. Rich. L. Rev. 967 (2015). It is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Reid-493.pdf
POSTSCRIPT
In a unique postscript, Leah Stiegler, the Allen Chair Editor for Volume 49, interviewed an inmate on death row in California. This brief exchange serves to provides readers with a glimpse into one death row inmate’s views on the death penalty, lethal injection, and the criminal justice system. It is available at http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Cruz-Update.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Please also read the Acknowledgments from Leah Stiegler, the Allen Chair Editor: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/files/2015/04/Ack.pdf
