3L publishes two law review articles, awaits book publishing

wsmitty@ufl.edu — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:08:24 +0000

Caroline Joan (Kay) S. Picart (3L) has published two law review articles in April 2012: “A Tango between Copyright and Critical Race Theory: Whiteness as Status Property in Balanchine’s Ballets, Fuller’s Serpentine Dance and Graham’s Modern Dances,” (Yeshiva University) 18Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender 101 (forthcoming, April 2012). Also, “Colloquium Proceedings: Critical Pedagogy, Race/Gender & Intellectual Property 48″California Western Law Review 101 (forthcoming, April 2012). Picart co-edited and co-authored the book Speaking of Monsters: A Teratological Anthology (Palgrave Macmillan), forthcoming in July 2012, and ten encyclopedia entries forGraphic Horror: Movie Monster Memories Ed. John Edgar Browning (Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.), forthcoming in June 2012.

Johnston quoted extensively, favorably in recent California Supreme Court case

wsmitty@ufl.edu — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:05:05 +0000

The following language from a recent California Supreme Court case (People v. Johnson) looks extensively and favorably upon Professor Lea Johnston’s work: “Two thoughtful law review articles have suggested more specific standards … Drawing on ‘social problem-solving theory,’ [the second] article suggests a more technical standard: ‘[P]roblem-solving theory suggests that, to represent oneself at a criminal trial, one should possess foundational abilities to perceive problematic situations, generate alternative courses of action, maintain mental organization, and communicate decisions to a functionary of the court. Within the context of a prosecution, a defendant should also possess the ability to identify a plausible source of the prosecution, an ability to gather information to evaluate the state’s case, a willingness to attend to the prosecution, and an ability to withstand the stress of trial. Finally, for certain key decisions, such as selecting the defense to pursue at trial, a defendant should be capable of justifying a decision with a plausible reason.’ (Johnston, Representational Competence: Defining the Limits of the Right to Self-representation at Trial (2011) 86 Notre Dame L.Rev. 523, 595.) All of these suggested standards are plausible. But we are constrained by the circumstance that what is permissible is only what Edwards permits, not what pre-Faretta California law permitted … At this point, at least, we also think it best not to adopt a more specific standard. The discussion in People v. Burnett, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at page 1327, and the standards suggested in the two law review articles quoted above are helpful to the extent they suggest relevant factors to consider. Experts asked to examine defendants for this purpose, and trial courts called on to make these rulings, may consider these factors in their examinations and rulings. …”

FlaLaw » law review articles

3L publishes two law review articles, awaits book publishing

Johnston quoted extensively, favorably in recent California Supreme Court case