May 2013 | Vol. 81, No. 6


by Howard M. Erichson & Benjamin C. Zipursky

Adequately Representing Groups

by Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Lawyering for Groups: The Case of American Indian Tribal Attorneys

by Kristen A. Carpenter & Eli Wald

The Governance Problem in Aggregate Litigation

by Samuel Issacharoff

“Helpless” Groups

by Troy A. McKenzie

Ethical Issues in Mass Tort Plaintiffs’ Representation: Beyond the Aggregate Settlement Rule

by Nancy J. Moore

The Geography of Revlon-Land

by Stephen M. Bainbridge

Agencies in Crisis? An Examination of State and Federal Agency Emergency Powers

by Babette E.L. Boliek

Securities Law’s Dirty Little Secret

by Usha Rodrigues

You Must Be This Qualified to Offer an Opinion: Permitting Law Enforcement Officers to Testify as Laypersons Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701

by Kim Channick

Social Impact Bonds and the Private Benefit Doctrine: Will Participation Jeopardize a Nonprofit’s Tax-Exempt Status?

by Peter G. Dagher Jr.

Employer Monitoring of Employee Email: Attorney-Client Privilege Should Attach to Communications That the Client Believed Were Confidential

by Alex DeLisi

The Justiciability of State Consumer Protection Claims in Federal Courts: A Study of Named Plaintiffs who Cease Using the Disputed Product yet Seek Injunctive Relief

by Meaghan Millan

Plea Bargaining in the Dark: The Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Brady Evidence During Plea Bargaining

by Michael Nasser Petegorsky

Anonymity In Cyberspace: Judicial and Legislative Regulations

by Sophia Qasir

Across the Border and Back Again: Immigration Status and the Article 12 “Well-Settled” Defense

by Michael Singer

Actual Innocence in New York: The Curious Case of People v. Hamilton

by Benjamin E. Rosenberg

It is rare for a case from the New York Appellate Division to be as significant as People v. Hamilton.   The case, however, was the first New York appellate court decision to hold that a defendant might vacate his conviction if he could demonstrate that he was “actually innocent” of the crime of which he was charged.   Although the precedential force of the decision is limited to the Second Department, trial courts throughout the state are required to follow Hamilton unless or until the appellate court in their own Department rules on the issue.   Courts throughout the state are thus entertaining numerous “actual innocence” motions inspired by Hamilton.

While courts in some other states, including state appellate courts, have recognized actual innocence claims, whether such claims should be recognized, and if so under what circumstances, is a very live issue in the federal courts and numerous state courts throughout the country.   Examination of Hamilton, therefore, provides a useful way to consider issues that are of surpassing importance in criminal law and that will likely reoccur in cases throughout the country.  As Hamilton goes further than many other courts have in considering the implications of actual innocence claims, consideration of Hamilton may be of considerable value to courts that consider actual innocence claims.  Hamilton is a trailblazer, and its trail will repay careful study.


FISA Surveillance and Aliens

by Amit K. Chhabra