2015 National Lawyers Convention
Criminal justice and policing reform are much in the news lately, sparked by events that garner national media coverage. This panel will assess the need for reform, and the road forward. How do media narratives about policing square with the empirical evidence? What are the most effective methods of policing, and how can they best be promoted? What is the proper way to balance police activity and the crime rate? In the current atmosphere, is legitimate police activity chilled? Must law enforcement officers responding to calls pause to consider their potential personal liability?
Civil Rights: Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
- Mr. Arthur Loevy, Partner, Loevy & Loevy
- Mr. Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute
- Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation
- Mr. Michael P. Tremoglie, Former Philadelphia Police Officer
- Mr. Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
- Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
The Mayflower Hotel Short video featuring John Stinneford explaining the jury selection process
John F. Stinneford November 04, 2015
University of Florida law professor John Stinneford explains the jury selection process, including the Batson v. Kentucky case from 1986 which addressed considering race as a factor during jury selection. Short video featuring Carissa Hessick discussing Lockhart v. United States
Professor Carissa Hessick of the University of Utah discusses the application of the rules of statutory construction to the case Lockhart v. U.S., in which Lockhart pled guilty to receipt of child pornography. The trial court enhanced Lockhart’s sentence because of his prior conviction for the sexual assault of an adult woman. Lockhart objects to the sentencing enhancement, alleging that only prior convictions for crimes involving minors qualify under the relevant statute. In contrast, the government argues that all prior sex offenses constitute prior convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement. International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued ruling in two important immigration cases: Mata v. Lynch and Kerry v. Din.
In Mata v. Lynch, the Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to hear an appeal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to dismissal of Noel Reyes Mata’s request to appeal his deportation to Mexico, holding that the Fifth Circuit erred in declining to take jurisdiction over Mr. Mata’s appeal.
In Kerry v. Din, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that petitioner Fauzia Din was denied constitutional due process protections when her husband, Kanishka Berashk, a resident citizen of Afghanistan and a former civil servant in the Taliban regime, was denied an immigration visa to the United States on the grounds that he was inadmissable under American law that excludes aliens who have engaged in “[t]errorist activities,” and when Mrs. Din and Mr. Berashk were subsequently denied review of their appeal in U.S. District Court. The Court held that the U.S. Government’s long practice of regulating immigration, which has included erecting serious impediments to a person’s ability to bring a spouse into the United States, precludes Mrs. Din’s claim.
Our expert, Chapman University School of Law Prof. John C. Eastman, analyzed these opinions and offered his perspectives of their impact on immigration policy.
Short video with Ilya Shapiro discussing Johnson v. United States
- Prof. John C. Eastman, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Ilya Shapiro April 18, 2015
Senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, Ilya Shapiro explains the confusion concerning what constitutes a violent felony conviction under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In this upcoming Supreme Court case, Petitioner Johnson claims the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague while the government asserts that Johnson’s conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun satisfies the violent felony requirement of the statute.
Ilya Shapiro is co-counsel on the amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Federal Defenders, Families against Mandatory Minimums and the Cato Institute in support of the Petitioner.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.