{ Spot Image }

Articles

The National Law Journal
April 2014

The National Law Journal
April 2014

Corporate LiveWire
February 2014

Corporate LiveWire
January 2014

The Bencher - The Magazine of the American Inns of Court
January 2014

Today's General Counsel
Fall 2013

The Circuit Rider
December 2012

The Circuit Rider
December 2012

The Circuit Rider
December 2012

Legal OnRamp
April 2012

Executive Counsel
February 2012

New York Law Journal
October 18, 2010

Legal OnRamp
March 2010

13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 577
2009

The forfeiture exception to the confrontation right allows the admission of a witness’s prior testimony where the defendant wrongfully procures the witness’s absence from trial. But did the common-law forfeiture exception justify admitting any statements previously made by the witness? Or did it justify admitting only the witness’s prior cross-examined testimony(thus denying the defendant only the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial)?

Hedgeweek.com
October 9, 2008

As the global financial crisis continues to unfold, governments will have a fundamental decision to make regarding how to address enforcement issues. There will be no shortage of those at whom fingers may be pointed. The central question will be: Should these people be prosecuted criminally, or are the regulatory process and civil litigation better suited to dealing with these issues?

New York Law Journal Magazine
May 2008

A friend of mine asked me to meet his daughter who was about to start her second year of law school. Ostensibly, the meeting was for me to offer some guidance on what path she might follow in the law. However, it quickly became apparent that the real reason for the meeting was for her to try to get a leg up on the recruiting process at my firm and overcome her good, but not spectacular, grades that fell outside the range we normally looked for at her school.

72 Brooklyn Law Review 493
2007

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of an absent witness’s “testimonial” statements against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable to testify in person and the accused had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. That holding was based in part on a claim that, at the time of the framing, those two conditions governed admissibility of pretrial examinations taken under the Marian bail and committal statutes. In a recent article, Professor Thomas Davies argues that Crawford’s historical claim is mistaken, and that a Marian examination was admissible if the witness became unavailable, regardless of whether there had been an opportunity for cross-examination. This Article responds.

New York Law Journal
July 23, 2007

Trial by jury. It is the right of every American accused of a crime but one that is rarely exercised in white-collar cases. Last year, over 87 percent of defendants charged with federal fraud offenses pled guilty. Maybe the ultimate outcome for defendants facing criminal charges would be better if that changed.