Criminal Law & Procedure

Stand Your Ground - Podcast

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

John R. Lott Jr., Gregory O'Meara, Dean A. Reuter

The recent shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida has sparked a national debate over "Stand Your Ground" laws, which give citizens broader leeway to use lethal force when they reasonably believe that someone intends to inflict serious bodily harm or commit homicide. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers will attempt to cut through the heated and often misinformed rhetoric about these laws to address such questions as whether they are necessary, whether they deter crime, and proposed reforms. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers. Featuring Dr. John R. Lott Jr., Author of More Guns, Less Crime and Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth ans Prof. Gregory O'Meara of Marquette University Law School. [Listen now!]

Grand Jury Reform - Podcast

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

Gerald B. Lefcourt, McGregor Scott, Thomas P. Sullivan, Dean A. Reuter

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that in federal criminal cases, "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Critics argue that the grand jury system today has strayed from it's original role as the voice of the community protecting individuals from wrongful indictments and prosecutions. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss the goals of the grand jury system, whether or not those goals are being met, and various proposed reforms on both the state and federal level. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers. Featuring Mr. Gerald Lefcourt of Gerald B. Lefcourt, PC; Mr. McGregor Scott of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; and Mr. Thomas Sullivan of Jenner & Block LLP. [Listen now!]

The Supreme Court and Access to Effective Counsel - Podcast

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

George H. Kendall, Dean Mazzone, Dean A. Reuter

The Supreme Court recently clarified the rights of defendants in criminal cases to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations in two closely related decisions, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. In two other decisions earlier this Term, Maples v. Thomas and Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled on federal court review of state criminal convictions when counsel has been ineffective or abandoned a client in the post-conviction appeals process. All four cases will significantly affect criminal defendants' access to counsel at the front end of the criminal process, during plea bargaining, as well as the back end, during state collateral appeals. After discussing the Court's decisions in these cases, the speakers will take questions from the callers. Featuring Mr. George Kendall of Squire Sanders and Mr. Dean Mazzone of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. [Listen now!]

Can Someone Please Turn on the Lights? Bringing Transparency to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

Michael B. Mukasey, James C. Dunlop

Passed in 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) set out to achieve a laudable goal: to prevent U.S. companies and persons, when conducting business abroad, from corrupting the governments and people they meet. And who can argue with the notion that U.S. companies should not corrupt the governments of countries where they do business or worsen the prospects for citizens of countries whose governments are already corrupt? Unfortunately, that unobjectionable vision has virtually disappeared in a miasma of aggressive prosecutions by the Justice Department—with $2.95 billion in penalties collected since 2009. [Read more!]

GPS Surveillance and the Supreme Court: U.S. v. Jones - Podcast

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Orin S. Kerr, Peter M. Thomson, Dean A. Reuter

In U.S. v. Jones, the government attached a GPS device to a vehicle of a criminal suspect to monitor the vehicle's movement. What effect will the Supreme Court’s ruling have on warrantless searches, warrant-based searches, the right to privacy, and the Fourth Amendment? How helpful is the Court’s opinion for law enforcement and defendants? On this previously recorded conference call, the experts provide their analysis of the case and answer questions from the callers. Featuring Prof. Orin S. Kerr of The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Peter Thomson of Fowler Rodriguez Valdes-Fauli; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups of The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

A Comprehensive Strategy Targeting Recidivist Criminals with Continuous Real-Time GPS Monitoring: Is Reverse Engineering Crime Control Possible?

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Peter M. Thomson

This article examines whether it might be possible to craft a comprehensive strategy designed to dramatically reduce crime by using advances in GPS technology to effectively eliminate the recidivist criminal’s ability to relapse into prior criminal conduct. Such a long-term strategic approach would implicate a number of constitutional and legal issues. However, if the legal hurdles can be overcome, such an innovative crime-reduction strategy might well be successful, particularly if it could integrate a number of other time-tested crime reduction strategies that criminal justice advocates have successfully employed. These strategies would support long-term, active GPS monitoring, and would include: crime scene correlation, active supervision, and community-oriented behavioral modification techniques such as restorative justice, a powerful program requiring criminals to interact with their victims and immediate social communities. [Read now!]

Honest Services Fraud After Skilling v. United States

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Steven Wisotsky

The mail fraud statute of 1872 may be regarded as the progenitor of what we now call white collar crimes. Originating with the Postmaster General’s concern that the mail system was being used to facilitate fraudulent schemes, the mail fraud statute has evolved into a powerful prosecutorial weapon. The core prohibition in the statute, first amended in 1909, punishes “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Not only does the statute reach far and wide in its own right, it is also a predicate crime for RICO and money laundering prosecutions... [Read more!]

Prisoner Releases and the Role of the Courts - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Berk, Deborah J. Daniels, Sarah V. Hart, Donald Specter, Luther Strange, Edith Brown Clement

The Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted this panel on "Prisoner Releases and the Role of the Courts" on Friday, November 11, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The panel featured Dr. Richard A. Berk of the University of Pennsylvania; Hon. Deborah J. Daniels of Krieg DeVault LLP; Hon. Sarah V. Hart of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office; Mr. Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office; Attorney General Luther Strange of Alabama; and JudgeEdith Brown Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Death Penalty Debate - Podcast

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Cassandra Stubbs, William G. Otis, Dean A. Reuter

Recently, an Ohio jury recommended a death sentence for Mr. Anthony Sowell, who lured 11 women to his property over a two year period, killed them, and secreted the bodies in his house. About three weeks before that, on an island in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 76 unarmed teenagers and children. He will not face the death penalty, however, because Norwegian law limits the punishment for any offense to 21 years. To some, the death penalty seems like the only just punishment for particularly sadistic or merciless murder. To others, problems of expense, delay, uneven application and possible innocence mean the United States should follow what some believe to be the more enlightened sentencing practices of Europe. On this previously recorded conference call, two experts discussed capital punishment and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Cassandra Stubbs of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project; Prof. William Otis of the Georgetown Law Center; and Mr. Dean Reuter of the The Federalist Society as the moderator.

The Evolution of Wiretapping

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Paul Rosenzweig

In 2010, the government of India approached Research In Motion (RIM), the manufacturer of Blackberry devices, with a demand. India wanted to monitor the encrypted e-mails and Blackberry Messages (a form of internet chat) that passed across RIM’s servers between corporate clients. And it wanted help in decrypting the encrypted messages. This was, the Indian government argued, essential to allow it to combat terrorism. And, they added, if you don’t give us this access, then we’ll pull your wireless license and close down Blackberry in India. Faced with the loss of more than one million Indian corporate customers, RIM compromised—it found a way to share with the Indian government where to find the encrypted messages the government wanted—in effect identifying the servers where the information originated—without actually decrypting the messages itself...

Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

The September 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

The June 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Internet Gaming: Is It Too Late to Reboot?

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Mark Brnovich, Thomas F. Gede

As the 111th Congress wound down in December 2010, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was busy circulating legislation that would authorize Internet poker in the United States. Earlier in the year, similar legislation to allow Internet gaming was being advanced by Representative Barney Frank. H.R. 2267 ultimately passed the House Financial Services Committee by a nearly two to one margin with demonstrable bipartisan support. While these most recent efforts to legalize Internet gaming were not successful at reaching a full floor vote in the House, it is a good bet that efforts to expand gambling on the Internet will continue at both the federal and state level...

The Slow, Sad Swoon of the Sentencing Suggestions

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

William G. Otis

The Guidelines are a lost cause. When they became optional after Booker, the Sentencing Commission lost the central purpose for which Congress established it. Yet each year it spends more money making suggestions district courts now follow only little more than half the time. It’s time for the Commission to go, and for Congress to re-write the Sentencing Reform Act...

Honest Services Fraud: What's Left? - Event Audio

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:00:00 EST

John Elwood, Ronald S. Safer, Brian J. Murray, Gil Soffer

Last year, in its "Honest Services Cases" the Supreme Court purported to confine the statute making it a crime to defraud another of "the intangible right to honest services" to the "core offenses" of bribery and kickbacks, discarding conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty as bases for prosecution. Has the Court succeeded? Is "bribery" in public corruption cases still too vague a concept to eliminate prosecutions that risk turning politics into a crime? What are the federalism implications of such prosecutions? Does the honest services statute have any remaining utility in the commercial context? Does it have any utility at all, or do other criminal statutes prohibiting bribery, public program fraud, extortion, and kickbacks fulfill its goals? Panelists included Mr. John Elwood of Vinson & Elkins & former Assistant Solicitor General of the United States; Mr. Ronald Safer of Schiff Hardin LLP and co-counsel in US v. Conrad Black et al.; Mr. Brian Murray of Jones Day and petitioner's counsel in Weyhrauch v. United States; and Mr. Gil Soffer, of Katten Muchin Rosenman & former Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States as the moderator.

Criminal Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Tiffany M. Joslyn

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2009 is 848 single-spaced pages in length and contains over two dozen criminal offenses. While some of these offenses are based on existing federal criminal law and simply extend criminal liability to additional types of financial instruments or actors dealing in those instruments, many of these offenses expand the breadth and reach of federal criminal law to criminalize conduct for the first time. Despite the criminal provisions, neither the base text for the final legislation, nor the Act itself, was referred to either chamber's Judiciary Committee. What follows below is a good-faith attempt to identify the criminal offenses and provide basic explanation of the conduct criminalized by each offense.

Expansion of Federal Criminal Power: Too Much or Too Little? - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

John S. Baker, Jr., Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Noah D. Bookbinder, Edwin Meese III, John G. Malcolm

The Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted this panel discussion on "Expansion of Federal Criminal Power: Too Much or Too Little?" at the 2010 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 18, 2010. Panelists included Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., of Louisiana State University Law Center; Prof. Sara Sun Beale of Duke University School of Law; Mr. Bradford A. Berenson of Sidley Austin LLP; Mr. Noah D. Bookbinder of the United States Senate's Committee on the Judiciary; and The Honorable Edwin Meese III, of The Heritage Foundation as the moderator. Prof. John G. Malcolm of Pepperdine University School of Law gave the introduction.

Engage Volume 11, Issue 2, September 2010

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST

The September 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Swinging a Sledge: The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, the Law of Deportations, and Padilla v. Kentucky

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 EST

Joseph Ditkoff
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the effective assistance of legal counsel requires that counsel inform his client whether his guilty plea in a criminal case carries a risk of deportation. The Court’s decision significantly expands the reach of the traditional Sixth Amendment constitutional protection afforded criminal defendants via the long-established rule of Strickland v. Washington, and, concomitantly, significantly alters the landscape of what courts will consider to be adequate representation in criminal proceedings. The precise contours of the right, thus expanded, will be left to the vagaries of the common law in both state and federal court to map out. This short article will discuss Padilla and some of its forebears and foreshadowings. As will be seen, the Supreme Court has again left prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges with a somewhat muddy decision that leaves the hard work for later, and for others...

The Inadequate Jurisprudence of Adequate State Grounds

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 EST

Kent S. Scheidegger, Thomas F. Gede
The United States Supreme Court has inched its way toward clarifying the standards that define whether a state procedural ruling is “adequate” so as to preclude federal court review. Unfortunately, it has failed to adopt a consistent standard, leaving state court rulings subject to “second-guessing” by federal courts. On December 8, 2009, the Court decided Beard v. Kindler, holding narrowly that a state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” simply because the rule is discretionary rather than mandatory. But the Court declined to articulate a clearer understanding of “inadequacy” for such state rules, deferring that step for a case that might be a more suitable “vehicle for providing broad guidance on the adequate state ground doctrine.” In another case presenting an opportunity to refine the standard, Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the Court granted certiorari and had squarely before it the opportunity to clarify the adequate state ground doctrine and adopt a standard of fair notice and reasonable opportunity. On March 31, 2009, however, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Philip Morris as improvidently granted. This paper describes the adequate state ground doctrine as it exists today and offers a clearer standard that, if adopted by the Court, would be consistently workable and understandable by state and federal courts...

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

John R. Lott Jr., Gregory O'Meara

The recent shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida has sparked a national debate over "Stand Your Ground" laws, which give citizens broader leeway to use lethal force when they reasonably believe that a criminal intends to inflict serious bodily harm or commit homicide. This Teleforum will attempt to cut through the heated and often misinformed rhetoric about these laws to address such questions as whether they are necessary, whether they deter crime, and proposed reforms. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers will take questions from callers. Featuring: Dr. John R. Lott Jr., Author of More Guns, Less Crime and Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and Prof. Gregory O'Meara of Marquette University Law School.

Grand Jury Reform

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

Gerald B. Lefcourt, McGregor Scott, Thomas P. Sullivan

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that in federal criminal cases, "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Critics argue that the grand jury system today has strayed from it's original role as the voice of the community protecting individuals from wrongful indictments and prosecutions. On this Teleforum call, the speakers will discuss the goals of the grand jury system, whether or not those goals are being met, and various proposed reforms on both the state and federal level. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers will take questions from callers. Featuring Mr. Gerald Lefcourt of Gerald B. Lefcourt, PC; Mr. McGregor Scott of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; and Mr. Thomas Sullivan of Jenner & Block LLP.

The Supreme Court and Access to Effective Counsel

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

George H. Kendall, Dean Mazzone

GPS Surveillance and the Supreme Court: U.S. v. Jones

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Orin S. Kerr, Peter M. Thomson

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Jones, a case in which the Government attached a GPS device to a vehicle to monitor the vehicle's movement. Some critics argue that the question of whether the "search" was reasonable and therefore would require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment was left unanswered by the Court. Considering the rapidly changing technologies available to law enforcement, critics argue that the Court should have been more explicit. What effect will this ruling have on warrantless searches, warrant-based searches, the right to privacy, and the Fourth Amendment? Our speakers will provide expert analysis of the case and answer questions from the callers.

2010 National Lawyers Convention

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Barry E. Carter, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Patrick McSweeney, Antonin Scalia, Dennis G. Jacobs, Marvin Ammori, Paul S. Atkins, John S. Baker, Jr., Randy E. Barnett, Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Lillian R. BeVier, Carl T. Bogus, James Bopp Jr., Steven G. Calabresi, Michael A. Carvin, Ronald A. Cass, Michael Chertoff, Roger Clegg, Robert D. Cooter, R. Ted Cruz, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard A. Epstein, William N. Eskridge, Jr., David French, Charles Fried, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Gerhardt, C. Boyden Gray, Thomas W. Hazlett, Christine Jolls, Douglas T. Kendall, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Edwin Meese III, Thomas W. Merrill, Paul R. Michel, John O. McGinnis, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Michael S. Paulsen, Thomas R. Phillips, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Mark F. Schultz, Bradley A. Smith, Paul M. Smith, Margaret D. Stock, Thomas J. Tauke, Clifford W. Taylor, Mark Tushnet, Eugene Volokh, Howard Waltzman, Ruth J. Wedgwood, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Mitch McConnell, Noah D. Bookbinder, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Brett M. Frischmann, Gigi B. Sohn, Kris W. Kobach, James C. Ho, William H. Pryor Jr., Joel R. Reidenberg, Diane S. Sykes, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Edith H. Jones, Ronald M. Levin, Victoria A. Lipnic, Roger Martella Jr., Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Roger Pilon, Rena I. Steinzor, Sarah B. Teslik, Peter J. Wallison, Arthur E. Wilmarth, John C. Yoo, Michael Barone, Michael S. Lee, Michael J. Madigan, Lanny J. Davis, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Jan Crawford, Carlos T. Bea, Kim Bobo, Shawn H. Chang, Thomas M. Hardiman, Jordan Lorence, Jeffrey P. Mahoney, Robert M. McDowell, Margaret E. McGuinness, Brandon Rees, David B. Sentelle, Jerry E. Smith, David Stras, Jeffrey S. Sutton, C. Gibson Vance, Pete Williams, Michael R. Pence, Daniel E. Lungren, Jeffrey Rosen

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 18 through Saturday, November 20 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

2009 National Lawyers Convention

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Guido Calabresi, Frank H. Easterbrook, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Paul S. Atkins, Randy E. Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, Linda Chavez, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cu�llar, Susan E. Dudley, Miguel Estrada, Richard A. Epstein, Steve Forbes, Maurice R. Greenberg, Michael S. Greve, Oona Hathaway, Peter N. Kirsanow, David G. Leitch, Michael W. McConnell, Burt Neuborne, Jeremy A. Rabkin, A. Raymond Randolph, Theodore M. Shaw, Stephen Bainbridge, Carlos T. Bea, Stephanie R. Breslow, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Alan E. Brownstein, Ronald A. Cass, John C. Eastman, C. Boyden Gray, Lisa Heinzerling, Edith H. Jones, David A. Katz, Brett M. Kavanaugh, F. Scott Kieff, Michael Livermore, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Paul G. Mahoney, Robert D. McTeer, Michael J. Meurer, Geoffrey P. Miller, Alan B. Morrison, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael Paese, Harvey L. Pitt, William H. Pryor Jr., Lucas "Scot" A. Powe Jr., Jamin Ben Raskin, Daniel B. Ravicher, Andrew J. Redleaf, Roberta Romano, David B. Sentelle, Catherine M. Sharkey, Amity Shlaes, Damon A. Silvers, Jerry E. Smith, Gigi B. Sohn, Ilya Somin, Bret Stephens, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Diane S. Sykes, Daniel E. Troy, J.W. Verret, Steven M.H. Wallman, John P. Walters, W. Bradley Wendel, Shirley J. Wilcher, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Stephen F. Williams, Todd J. Zywicki, John A. Allison, John S. Baker, Jr., Jennifer Walker Elrod, Malcolm M. Feeley, Thomas W. Hazlett, Roderick M. Hills Jr., Brian H. Hook, Daryl Joseffer, Annette L. Nazareth, Aryeh Neier, Jed Rubenfeld, Robert P. Young, Jr., David Zaring, Mark R. Levin, Thomas M. Hardiman, John F. Manning, William Black, Cornish F. Hitchcock, Steven J. Law, Harold Meyerson, Alex J. Pollock, Andrew L. Stern, Michael B. Mukasey, David Berenbaum, Robert M. McDowell, Mark F. Schultz, David M. McIntosh, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Seton Motley, Laura M. Olson, Marvin Ammori

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 12 through Saturday, November 14 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "The Federal Government's Economic Role in our Constitutional System." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 12 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

The Obstruction of Justice

Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 EST

George J. Terwilliger III, Jonathan R. Turley, Merrick B. Garland, Michael J. Madigan, Stephen A. Saltzburg Every few months, a highly visible public figure or government official becomes embroiled in a criminal investigation that ultimately includes obstruction of justice charges. Barry Bonds, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), Roger Clemens, Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Computer Associates, the U.S. Attorney firings, the CIA’s destruction of interrogation tapes – all have included a focus on the conduct occurring during the investigation of other, unrelated charges. But what exactly is obstruction of justice, and what role should it play in our justice system? No one can doubt the importance of punishing those who willfully corrupt the administration of justice, lie under oath, tamper with witnesses, or destroy evidence, but critics charge that prosecutors have used “creative interpretations” of obstruction of justice statutes to punish marginal conduct or create criminal liability where none otherwise existed. What is the proper role and scope of the obstruction statutes? Have obstruction of justice prosecutions veered too far from heartland cases? Please join us for an informative workshop addressing these issues. [Register now!]

The False Claims Act

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST

Andrew Grosso, Marcia G. Madsen, Shelley Slade, Jonathan Diesenhaus, R. Christopher Cook Congress is considering several amendments to the False Claims Act which would broaden whistleblower protection and qui tam provisions. Supporters argue that these amendments will lead to better government and a closer monitoring of federal expenditures. Others maintain that the amendments, which make federal employees relators under qui tam, are inadvisable at best and potentially detrimental to business and other concerns.

2007 National Lawyers Convention

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Jamie Gorelick, Gail Heriot, Neal K. Katyal, Alex Kozinski, Andrew C. McCarthy, Michael W. McConnell, Edwin Meese III, Theodore B. Olson, Walter K. Olson, Stephen Reinhardt, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Alan Sekulow, Nadine Strossen, George J. Terwilliger III, David C. Vladeck, Eugene Volokh, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Audi, John S. Baker, Jr., Michael Barone, Bob Barr, Carlos T. Bea, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Janice Rogers Brown, James S. Burling, Steven G. Calabresi, Lawrence W. Casey, Ronald A. Cass, Brett M. Kavanaugh This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society and on November 15-17 we will be celebrating this milestone during our Annual National Lawyers Convention. The theme for this year's convention is "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." In addition to the numerous panels containing noted legal experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, The convention will also feature the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, to be delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. The highlight of the convention will be the 25th Anniversary Gala, attended by many more special guests, which will be held in the Main Hall of Washington, DC's Union Station.
[Register now!]

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply. On June 21, the Federalist Society presented a live audiocast of a panel of experts who discussed these issues and more. [Click here to listen to a replay of this event]