Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens speaks with UF Law professors Kenneth Nunn, John Stinneford and Danaya Wright during the Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture Series held in the Marcia Whitney Schott Courtyard on Tuesday. (Photo by Elise Giordano)

At 92, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has a lifetime of experience and legal wisdom to impart, which he readily did Tuesday at UF Law. Stevens was welcomed for the second time in five years as the Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecturer. Stevens spoke at the inaugural Criser Lecture at UF Law in 2008.

The conversation was facilitated by UF Law Professors Kenneth Nunn, John Stinneford and Danaya Wright. Stevens addressed a wide variety of topics, including proportionality in sentencing, interpreting history, changing technology, and experiences and court opinions from his years as a justice.

“Justice Stevens not only appears to have encyclopedic memory of his decisions during his term on the court, but he remembers his reasons for reaching the conclusions he did and also the countervailing arguments that might have led him to decide differently,” Stinneford said. “As someone who can’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning, I found this very impressive.”

One of the cases Stevens addressed in particular was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. – a case Stevens said he believed to be a routine case in 1984 when he wrote the majority opinion. In the years since, it has become one of the most cited cases in administrative law.

“You don’t – at the time you’re working on a case – always appreciate what its long-run impact will be,” Stevens said.

Stinneford said “this is a nice reminder that we should take even the mundane events of our lives seriously, as they may turn out to have a bigger impact on our lives than we realize at the time.”

Stevens also addressed his legacy as a Supreme Court justice when Nunn suggested that his opinions throughout the years seemed to grow more liberal.

“To tell you the truth, I think I’m a good deal more conservative than people often assume because I feel very strongly that judges should not be deciding certain issues,” he said. “I’m sure I must have changed to a certain extent but I don’t think I’ve changed a tenth as much as the court in general has changed.”

He said each Supreme Court appointment beginning with his own was more conservative than his or her predecessor.

Wright said of spending time with Stevens before and after the lecture that he was delightful, modest and interesting.

“He told stories of his days before the court and he remembered almost all the cases we talked about quite well,” she said. “I did manage to dredge up a case he had only signed onto the majority opinion on, and he didn’t remember it very well.”

Stevens also imparted some advice for current law students, including the benefits of attaining a clerkship.

“I think it’s really excellent experience, and that’s at all levels, not necessarily appellate court but trial courts too,” he said. “You learn a great deal about how litigation actually works by being in the inside of the process for a year or so.”

In closing, Stevens emphasized the importance of studying hard, and ultimately having a good reputation as a practicing lawyer.

“It’s very simple and you’ve heard it over and over again: One, study hard and take your work seriously,” he said, “and remember that the most important asset that you’re going to have when you get out in practice is to have everybody in the profession know that your word is good, because that is a critical part of the profession – the integrity of the lawyer – and that’s something you must always keep in mind.”

The Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture Series was created in early 2007 by Lewis Schott (B.A. 1943, LL.B. 1946) of Palm Beach, Fla., as a tribute to his fellow UF Law alumnus, former UF President Marshall Criser (JD 51). The goal of the speaker series is to host prestigious national and international speakers every year on topics of particular interest to law students. Past speakers have included Justice Clarence Thomas and former ABA President Stephen N. Zack (JD 71).

To view more images, view our photo gallery on Facebook.

Students tickets are available in Student Affairs and faculty and staff may pick up tickets from Doris Perron in the dean’s suite. In the event of rain, Stevens’ talk will be moved to the Chesterfield Smith Ceremonial Classroom, HOL 180, and the first 180 people who pick up tickets will be allowed into the classroom to watch the discussion. The event will also be available as a live webcast here: http://video.ufl.edu/service2/public/pub_showMain.php?id=41294. The advocacy center will be made available for the streamed event.

No book bags or other large bags will be allowed through the security point. No re-entry into the courtyard will be permitted.

The conversation is expected to cover issues, including proportionality in sentencing, the justice’s proposal for an amendment of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, and the justice’s criminal law jurisprudence. The discussion will be facilitated by a panel of UF Law faculty members and will be held in the Marcia Whitney Schott Courtyard from 12:30 – 1:45 p.m.

Tickets are required to attend the discussion. Students may pick up tickets in the Office of Student Affairs and faculty and staff may pick up tickets from Doris Perron in the dean’s suite.The events is closed to the general public, but media are welcome to secure credentials by contacting Matt Walker at mlwalker@law.ufl.edu. 

In the event of rain, Stevens’ talk will be moved to the Chesterfield Smith Ceremonial Classroom, HOL 180, and the first 180 people who pick up tickets will be allowed into the classroom to watch the discussion. The event will be webcast live, and the advocacy center will be made available for the streamed event. No book bags or other large bags will be allowed through the security point. No re-entry into the courtyard will be permitted. Students should refer to Dean Rachel Inman’s recent email.

The Marshall M. Criser Distinguished Lecture Series was created in early 2007 by Lewis Schott (B.A. 1943, LL.B. 1946) of Palm Beach, Fla., as a tribute to his fellow UF Law alumnus, former UF President Marshall Criser (JD 51). The goal of the speaker series is to host prestigious national and international speakers every year on topics of particular interest to law students. Past speakers have included Justice Clarence Thomas and former ABA President Stephen Zack (JD 71).

“‘Stand Your Ground’ Under Microscope” (March 21, 2012, WCJB TV-20),

Dekle, along with several UF Law students, contributed to this segment from TV-20 News. Dekle said Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law would be better described as the “get away with murder law,” and that it adds unnecessary layers of litigation and hoops to jump through in order to prosecute somebody.

“Legal experts weigh in on soundness of Lindsey defense strategy” (March 22, 2012, Tampa Bay Times)

The lawyer representing a teenager who shot a St. Petersburg police officer is saying the teenager, Nicholas Lindsey, did in fact kill the office – he just didn’t mean to do it. The defense is focusing on the issue of intent to possibly reduce the teenager’s sentence from life to several decades. Dekle weighed in on the strategy.

From the article:
“It ain’t the only possible strategy,” said University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle. “But it sounds like the only viable strategy.”

“Appeal court ruling in Collier case frees man accused of operating a grow house” (March 25, 2012, Naples Daily News)

Dekle reinforced an appeals court decision, which ruled that although a man who was accused of operating a grow house allowed police into his backyard to speak with him, he didn’t consent for them to further search his yard, which eventually led to the discovery of a grow house.

From the article:
George R. Dekle Jr., professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, agreed search and seizure issues are “heavily driven” by the facts of each case.

“The officers had consent to come onto the property to speak with the defendant,” Dekle said. “When they left his presence and started roaming around the property, they obviously weren’t talking to the defendant and had no right to be where they were when they smelled the marijuana.”

Michelle Jacobs
Professor of Law

“Students react to the death of Trayvon Martin” (March 22, 2012, The Alligator)

Jacobs weighed in on the Trayvon Martin shooting in this article that also addresses some student reactions to the 17-year-old’s death.

From the article:
UF law professor Michelle Jacobs said she’s not surprised Zimmerman hasn’t been charged.

“When a black person gets killed in questionable circumstances by a white person, no one should be surprised that law enforcement was slow to launch an investigation,” she said.

“Inside the Trayvon Martin Tragedy” (March 28, 2012, Legal Talk Network)

Jacobs, along with University of Missouri-Kansas City Criminal Justice Department Chair Kenneth Novak, participated in an in-depth discussion on this podcast about issues surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting, including Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, neighborhood watches and racial profiling.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

“Facebook advises users not to give out passwords to prying employers” (March 28, 2012, The Alligator)

Lidsky addressed the legality of potential employers asking job candidates for the their Facebook login information, following a warning from Facebook about the growing trend.

From the article:
It is legal to ask for Facebook login information, said Lyrissa Lidsky, professor at Levin College of Law.

She said giving the information isn’t the best idea, though.

“The consent is economic coercion, in a sense,” Lidsky said.

It is tough to say no to an interviewer, she said, especially in a tough economy.

“A lot of things we consent to we consent to because of social pressures,” she said.

Joseph Little
Professor Emeritus

“Collier commission aides amassed two months worth of overtime in 2011″ (March 25, 2012, Naples Daily News)

This article looks into Collier County employees who have worked over 40 hours a week and are opting to take comp time rather than the mandated time-and-a-half overtime pay.

From the article:
Joseph Little, a law professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said the state follows the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for county employees.

“Ordinarily, it requires time and one-half for overtime,” he wrote in an email. “It does permit compensatory time for employees of state public agencies.”

Jon Mills
Dean Emeritus; Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility

“Legal questions raised over new practice by employers seeking Facebook access of applicants” (March 23, 2012, WUFT 89.1 FM)

WUFT spoke with Mills in this radio interview about it is increasingly more common for employers to ask for potential employees’ Facebook login information so they can see the applicant’s personal Facebook account. Mills said it is important for individuals to be aware of how much personal information they put online, and said although it is legal in the U.S. it is not allowed in some other countries.

Kenneth Nunn 
Professor of Law

“Racism Is the Problem Here” (March 21, 2012, The New York Times)

Nunn contributed an editorial piece as part of New York Times’ “Room for Debate” column, which was comprised of arguments from experts in various disciplines exploring different angles of the Trayvon Martin shooting case.

From the article: Stand Your Ground statutes may be problematic for a number of reasons. But if we really want to save lives and prevent future miscarriages of justice, we will have to confront the reality of race.

Leonard Riskin
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law

Riskin gave a presentation for students, faculty and alumni of at UCLA School of Law entitled “The ‘Negotiation’ Within: Connecting and Managing Inner and Outer Conflict” in March.

Last semester, he conducted a workshop on “Mindfulness and Conflict for the Chicago Center for Conflict Resolution.”

Katheryn Russell-Brown
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations

“Outrage unites people of all colors, but divide still exists” (March 24, 2012, Orlando Sentinel)

In this article that examines some of the racial issues tied into the Trayvon Martin case, Russell-Brown discussed how people relate to crime victims through race.

From the article:
Katheryn Russell-Brown, director of the University of Florida’s Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations, said it’s natural for people to view crime through the lens of their own race and identify with victims who look most like them.

Whites might not understand the depth of the black community’s outrage over Trayvon Martin’s death any more than blacks understood the national obsession with Natalee Holloway or the disappearance of Jennifer Kesse, or the time, money and attention devoted to the Casey Anthony case.

“It’s who you see as a family member, who you could step into their shoes and it could be you,” Russell-Brown said.

Michael Seigel
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Criminal Justice Center

“UF Professor Breaks Down ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law” (March 21, 2012, GTN News),

In this television interview, Seigel explains Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the ideas behind the law when it was established in 2005. Seigel said the logic behind the law was shaky from the beginning and people didn’t realize how powerful the law could be.

“‘Stand Your Ground Law’ at center of Fla. Shooting” (March 22, 2012, Associated Press)

Seigel commented on the Trayvon Martin shooting, saying that the Sanford police should have done more thorough investigation into the events before deciding not to bring charges to shooter George Zimmerman.

From the article:
“The law has definitely shifted and given a signal to law enforcement to be more careful,” he said. “But in a case where the self-defense claim is weak, you would think they would do their job.”

“Federal Prosecutors Won’t Retry Polk Bribery Case” (March 25, 2012, The Ledger)

A bribery case will not be pursued again by federal prosecutors after the case fell apart because of a wording error in the grand jury’s indictment. The indictment references “Polk County” but should have referenced the “Polk County School Board,” as employing a man accused of accepting bribes from a construction company.

From the article:
Seigel described the indictment’s wording as “a serious oversight” and a “major catastrophe” for federal prosecutors.

“There is no way to really sugarcoat it,” Seigel said. “It’s a major error on behalf of the prosecution. They did not do their homework.”

The indictment’s poor wording wasn’t a small error and touches on an important constitutional right, he said.

The Fifth Amendment includes the right that defendants know clearly and specifically what allegations they are facing, he said.

“Experts: Hazing case could be tough” (March 17, 2012, St. Augustine Record)

This article looks at challenges prosecutors are facing in the hazing death of Florida A&M student Robert Champion last November. Dekle discussed how some witnesses might be uncooperative and difficult to work with in a case like this.

From the article:
There could be potentially dozens of versions of what happened on the bus. Some witnesses will likely be reluctant to cooperate because they don’t want to be implicated or because they feel sympathy for, or an alliance with, the individuals who are considered most culpable, said professor Bob Dekle, who teaches legal skills at the University of Florida’s law school in Gainesville.

“Reluctant witnesses can sometimes be difficult to handle and difficult to get to court and difficult to answer questions on the witness stand,” said Dekle, a retired assistant state attorney. “Just because a crime has occurred, that doesn’t mean you can prove it — and being able to prove it depends in large measure on witnesses.”

Berta Hernandez-Truyol 
Levin Mabie & Levin Professor of Law

“Gainesville city officials take stand against Arizona illegal immigration law” (March 20, 2012, The Alligator)

This article reports hat Gainesville has joined a legal brief to oppose an Arizona immigration law that gives police officers the right to stop or arrest anyone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant.

From the article:
The federal government, not individual states, has the right to pass immigration laws, said Berta Hernandez-Truyol, a UF law professor and expert in human rights law. However, states can pass laws that deal indirectly with immigration.

Briefs like this one are filed by parties that are not involved in the case but would like to express their support for one side, she said.

“This clearly signals that Gainesville believes we should treat people fairly and not single out a certain population,” Hernandez-Truyol said.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

“Professor discusses potential impact of media coverage before Trayvon Martin trial” (March 20, 2012, WUFT, 89.1)

This radio segment points out that as news unfolds in the Trayvon Martin case, many news outlets have been issuing corrections to stories that included incorrect information. Lidsky discusses how prior knowledge of a case may or may not impact a jury’s decision in a case, and said the call for further investigation is warranted.

From the interview:
“There definitely are procedures in place to try to make sure that errors in pretrial publicity don’t prejudice the outcome of criminal trials.”

Joseph Little
Professor Emeritus

“Tuition rate setting debate goes to higher court” (March 16, 2012, WUFT, 89.1)

This radio segment looks at questions and background surrounding the ongoing debate about who should set tuition rates at state universities, a case which the Florida Supreme Court recently decided to hear. Little explained that the basis of the debate is whether the Board of Governors or Legislature should set tuition rates. After the Board was granted control, an appellate court then ruled that the Legislature should have that power. Little said this next decision should settle it once and for all.

Kenneth Nunn 
Professor of Law

“Trayvon Martin: Sanford officials, Rep. Corrine Brown, meet with Justice officials in Washington” (March 20, 2012, Orlando Sentinel),

In this article, which recounts the latest news in the Trayvon Martin case, Nunn addressed the likelihood of the Justice Department charging shooter George Zimmerman with any civil rights violations.

From the article:
Kenneth Nunn, a civil rights expert on the faculty at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, said Tuesday that the Department of Justice seldom charges people with civil rights violations and that those charges are unlikely in this case, unless investigators come up with compelling new evidence.

They will look for signs that Zimmerman intentionally set out to deprive Trayvon of his right to life, Nunn said.

“You have to show that it’s willful,” said Nunn. “You can’t show that it was negligence or stupidity. You have to show it was intentional.

Also appeared in: http://www.wsbt.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-doj-investigation-20120320,0,4710790,full.story

Michael Seigel
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Criminal Justice Center

On March 2, Seigel gave a lecture entitled “Criminal Evidence Update, State and Federal Courts” at the Topics in Evidence Seminar sponsored by The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee, Code & Rules of Evidence Committee, Criminal Law Section, and Trial Lawyers Section. The lecture took place in Tampa.

“Stand your ground” laws and the Trayvon Martin case” (March 20, 2012, 89.3 KPCC, NPR affiliate in Los Angeles)

Seigel was a guest panelist on this radio program that looked at the Trayvon Martin case and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows a person to use deadly force if he or she feels physically threatened in a public space. Seigel offered some background on the law and how it replaced the previous “Duty to Retreat” law.

From the interview:
“If the judge believes you were defending yourself lawfully, he or she can dismiss the case and not even allow it to go to a jury.”

Michael Allan Wolf
Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law

On March 14, Wolf made a presentation on “How to Make Sea-Level-Rise Adaptation Strategies Takings-Proof” at the Environmental Law Distinguished Lecture 25th Anniversary Symposium at the FSU College of Law.

Panel guests include Professor Kenneth Nunn, Professor George Dekle, Legal Skills Professor Seth E. Miller, Esq. – Innocence Project of Florida, and Executive Director Professor Seigel.

It will be moderated by Rachel Inman, associate dean for student affairs.

It is presented by the Criminal Justice Center, Criminal Law Association, John Marshall Bar Association, Association for Public Interest Law, American Constitution for Law and Policy, Caribbean Law Students Association and the Center for Career Development.

Light refreshments to follow.

Prof. Kenneth Nunn, right, with executive director of the Florida Innocence Comission, Lester Garringer, at an Oct. 4 organizational meeting. (Photo by Joey Springer)

Lester Garringer, executive director of the Florida Innocence Commission, discussed research opportunities with students on Monday, Oct. 4. The Commission was established by order of Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady to conduct a comprehensive study of the causes of wrongful convictions and of measure to prevent such convictions. The Commission is seeking 2L and 3L student volunteers to help research information related to the causes of wrongful convictions.

The Florida Innocence Commission is established to provide a mechanism to recommend to the Supreme Court of Florida solutions to eliminate or significantly reduce the causes for wrongful or erroneous convictions. The Commission brings together prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, legislative representatives, and victim advocates, to work together to identify the common causes of wrongful convictions, and to recommend procedures to decrease the possibility of these convictions in the future.

Garringer promises students “will find the work extremely rewarding.”

“It is not easy, but it is different,” he said.

Students interested in trial work will find the project especially interesting, and he believes the experience will follow them through the rest of their careers.

“We are all really excited to start working on this project,” said Samantha Newman, 3L one of four UF Law students leading the project at the University of Florida. “I think it’s great that Florida is working proactively with regards to the serious problem of wrongful convictions and trying to figure out what the causes are.”

The Florida Innocence Commission is currently funded with a one-time legislative grant of $200,000. The Florida Bar Foundation has provided an additional grant of about $115,000.

For more information on the Innocence Commission, please visit their website.

Attila Andrade Jr.

Visiting ProfessorAndrade has conceived a new formula according to which moral damages and abstract pain can be calculated in law suit cases. His formula is explained in volume II of his book “Comments on Brazil’s New Civil Code” published by Companhia Editora Forense in 2003. His purpose is to avoid judge’s uncertainties and ambiguities in issuing money judgments for these kinds of law suits.

Bob Dekle

Legal Skills Professor“Robbery suspects face life” (Sept. 29, 2010, The News-Press)

Two men connected with the robbery of a McDonald’s restaurant in Fort Myers could face life in prison. The ordeal resulted in the death of one police dog and one robbery suspect. The charges will not be in connection with the dog’s death, however, because the dog’s shooter was already shot and killed by the police.

From the article:
“University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle said even though prosecutors haven’t charged Amaya and Fermin with Rosco’s death, it wasn’t a foreseeable crime and one that was furthered of the armed robbery.”

“‘It is an area of the law where reasonable people can disagree about what is foreseeable,’ Dekle said.”

Teresa Drake

Director, Intimate Partner Violence Assistance Clinic (IPVAC)
Drake lectured at the Advanced Institute for the Prosecution of Domestic Violence, sponsored and produced by the Office of Violence Against Women, Aequitas and The Battered Women’s Justice Project in August in Washington, D.C. Her topic was interviewing victims of domestic violence.

Drake spoke at The Battered Women’s Justice Project conference “Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Children” in Providence, R.I., last month. Her topic was interviewing and preparing children to testify.

Joseph Jackson

Legal Skills ProfessorTV interview (Sept. 24, 2010, WCJB TV-20), link not available at this time

Jackson commented on the recent 3rd District Court of Appeal ruling, which overturned Florida’s ban on gay adoptions. Jackson was the primary author of an amicus brief submitted to the court regarding the case.

Martin J. McMahon Jr.

Stephen C. O’Connell Professor of LawMcMahon presented “Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation” with University of Houston Law Center Professor Ira Shepard at the 45th annual Southern Federal Tax Institute last month in Atlanta.

McMahon presented “Litigating The Application Of Anti-Tax Avoidance Statutes: Learning From The Canada Experience” with the Honorable Patrick Boyle, Richard Sapinski, Nathalie Goyette, and Henry Schneiderman at the Court Procedure and Practice Committee Program, American Bar Association, Tax Section, Fall Meeting, in Toronto last month.

McMahon also presented “How Canada’s Experience with the General Anti-Abuse Rule Might Inform US How to Live with the Codified Economic Substance Doctrine” with the Honorable Donald Bowman, former Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada at the Joint Meeting of Partnerships & LLCs and Real Estate Committees, American Bar Association, Tax Section, Fall Meeting in Toronto last month.

Diane Mazur

Professor
“Gay activists look to the courts to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’” (Sept. 22, 2010, The Washington Post)

While the debate over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy continued to unfold in Federal courts, Mazur discussed arguments in favor of repealing the law.

From the article:
“Gay rights groups said the government has no obligation to appeal. Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that is devoted to repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ cited a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas sodomy law because it restricted a person’s right to sexual privacy.”

“‘Judge Phillips recognized that “don’t ask, don’t tell” can no longer be justified under current constitutional doctrine, and President Obama is not required to argue otherwise,’ Mazur said. ‘He need not defend laws that are based on old, discredited constitutional assumptions.’”

“Witt decision offers preview of post-’don’t’ ask, don’t tell’ world” (Sept. 27, 2010, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News)

Mazur commented on the recent U.S. District Court ruling in Washington in favor of Air Force Major Margaret Witt regarding the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

From the article:
“Diane Mazur, Palm Center legal co-director and University of Florida law professor, also responded to Judge Leighton’s written opinion in Witt.”

“‘Witt and Log Cabin were the first challenges requiring the government to produce evidence that “don’t ask, don’t tell” improved military readiness, and in both cases the government was unable to do so,’ Mazur said. ‘The government pointed to an earlier case upholding the policy, Cook v. Gates, but there the court barred the plaintiffs from introducing evidence that “don’t ask, don’t tell” harms the military and excused the government from producing any evidence at all. Once the policy is put to a test of fact, it fails.’”

Kenneth Nunn

Professor“Panel hears from the wrongly convicted” (Oct. 1, 2010, The Florida Bar News)”

As a member of the new Innocence Commission in Florida – which examines the causes behind wrongful convictions to avoid future wrongful convictions – Nunn weighed in on a debate over the wording of the commission’s mission statement. The phrase in question was: “exoneration cases in Florida based on DNA testing.” The sentence was eventually removed altogether.

From the article:
“University of Florida College of Law Professor Kenneth Nunn added: ‘We are not saying these are individuals who are angels of the Lord, shall we say. But we are saying they are entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence that all American citizens are entitled to,’ because they have not been proven guilty. Exoneration, Nunn said, ‘is the correct legal term for the status of affairs we are talking about.’”

“Professor Nunn offered a friendly amendment to replace ‘exoneration’ with ‘cases in Florida where convictions have been reversed based on DNA testing.’”

Elizabeth Rowe

Associate ProfessorRowe’s article “Contributory Negligence, Technology, and Trade Secrets,” originally published in the George Mason Law Review in 2009, has been republished in the Defense Law Journal.

“UF takes on high schools to protect logo” (Sept. 21, 2010, The Gainesville Sun)

In an effort to protect its logo and identity, the University of Florida and the licensing company that represents the school is cracking down on several schools around the country who are using similar logos as the Gators.

From the article:
“Under trademark law, universities essentially have a legal obligation to police the use of their marks, said Elizabeth Rowe, associate professor of law and director of the program in intellectual property law at UF. Failing to do so could mean giving up the right to stop unauthorized uses, she said.”

“The issue is becoming more significant as college football becomes increasingly lucrative, she said. But she said the issue is somewhat different when dealing with high schools that might send students to the universities.”

“‘With sports you have the argument, “We’re using the mark to support you,”‘ she said.”

Michael Seigel

ProfessorUpon invitation by Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Patrick Leahy, Seigel testified as an expert witness last week in Washington, D.C. regarding honest services mail and wire fraud in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skilling v. United States.

Seigel presented a lecture titled, “Ethical Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse (Non)Rape Case,” to the faculty of the Saint Louis University School of Law on Sept. 16.

Michael Allan Wolf

Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law“Florida voters enter battle on growth” (Sept. 27, 2010, The New York Times)

Wolf commented on the debate in Florida surrounding Amendment 4 on the November ballot, which would allow citizens to vote on state-mandated plans regarding land development and growth in counties and municipalities.

From the article:
“‘Most planning advocates would love to have the structure we have in Florida, but most Floridians know that the structure doesn’t work,’ said Michael Allan Wolf, a University of Florida law professor. ‘Amendment 4 suggests that, on the ground, this system is really broken.’”

• Speaking on AG McCollum’s lawsuit challenging the recently passed Patient Protection and Care Affordability Act (April 7, 2010, WOKV Radio)
  McCollum’s suite argues Congress has overstepped it’s authority in mandating states to pay for costs involved with reform and states the tax on individual’s who don’t purchase health coverage is unconstitutional, and are in violation of the 10th amendment and the commerce clause. University of Florida law professor Joe Little said these are questions that need to be asked. “I think it is possible that there could be some portions of it that might be held to be beyond Congress’s power,” Little said that is because the law is so broad. He thinks that most will be ruled within their power. He wouldn’t predict which way the court would rule on McCollum’s specific lawsuit, only predicting is that some suit will end up in Supreme Court.
• “UF experts describe Stevens as centrist, defender of rights” (April 10, 2010, Gainesville Sun)
  UF law professors discuss how Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will be remembered after his retirement. Joe Little, professor emeritus and constitutional law expert at UF’s Levin College of Law, said Stevens’ retirement will inevitably alter the composition of the nation’s highest court. It’s too early to predict exactly how, in Little’s view. By liberal, I mean people who care about the rights of the individual and who try to defend the individual against the state,” Little said. Even though Stevens was appointed by a Republican president, Little added, “he was what we would now call a moderate Republican … something that’s pretty much gone out of existence.” In Little’s view, Stevens’ legacy will be one of “turning away from the extreme lurch to the right on the court during the latter part of his term.” “I think President Obama will be very careful to pick someone who will not slide over into the other camp,” Little said. “It will probably be someone whose views are left of center, but not too far.” Little added, “Whoever he selects, he will want to get the appointment through.”

All of them agreed that there are problems with the death penalty today, though.

“The more we ask questions about the death penalty, the more we begin to see, at least from my perspective, that whether you’re for it or against it, it’s got problems,” Rambo said.

One of the problems agreed on are that the death penalty is arbitrarily imposed. For example, not all states have the death penalty, so a crime could be significantly worse in one state but not have the possibility of capital punishment. Nunn saw this first-hand as a defense attorney in Washington, D.C., which does not have the death penalty.

“I can assure you that the cases that I dealt with were as vile, troubling, vicious and cruel as any case in which the death penalty was imposed,” Nunn said. “None of these people received capital punishment.”

Nunn, who said the death penalty does not work and is arbitrarily imposed, spoke a lot about race’s effect on the death penalty. He raised a comprehensive study done by Iowa professor David Baldus, which has been cited by the Supreme Court. The study, done in Georgia, found that African-Americans were four times more like to be sentenced to death than white criminals when accounting for the crimes. Even more significantly, the color of the victim mattered more in the study. Criminals who murdered white victims were much more likely to get the death penalty. If an African-American killed a white victim, he was 11 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person killing an African-American.

In McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court debated if there was enough evidence of racial bias to stop the death penalty. The justices cited the Baldus study, but in a 5-4 decision voted that the evidence was not sufficient enough to change the death penalty. Justice Scalia, who voted to sustain the death penalty, sent out a memo to his colleagues that was later leaked, Nunn said, arguing that Scalia admitted to racial bias but voted not to change anything for political reasons.

Nunn paraphrased Scalia’s memo: “I don’t think we need to debate on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of racial bias in implementation of the death penalty. I am convinced that there is sufficient evidence of racial bias in the administration of justice and particularly the death penalty in America. However, I’m not going to vote for this because I think that if I do the consequences will be so severe that we will not be able to maintain our criminal justice system in the manner in which we have done so throughout the history of the United States.”

Even Dekle admitted that the death penalty could be better imposed. He spent 32 years as a prosecutor and defense attorney and prosecuted 15 death penalty cases. He has attended two executions of criminals that he prosecuted and has other convictions sitting on death row.

“I will say this: over the 32 years that I practiced criminal law and prosecuted and defended death penalty cases, my views and opinions about the death penalty have evolved and changed, and now at the end of my career, looking at the death penalty and the way that it is being imposed in the United States, I see some problems,” Dekle said.