November 2013 | Vol. 82, No. 2

Originalism: A Critical Introduction

by Keith E. Whittington

The Gravitational Force of Originalism

by Randy E. Barnett

Originalism and Constitutional Construction

by Lawrence B. Solum

The New Originalism and the Uses of History

by Jack M. Balkin

Accepting Contested Meanings

by Bernadette Meyler

The Observer Effect: National Security Litigation, Executive Policy Changes, and Judicial Deference

by Ashley S. Deeks

In Bonds We Trustee: A New Contractual Mechanism To Improve Sovereign Bond Restructurings

by Robert Auray

Not Interested? A Trustee Lacks “Party in Interest” Standing To Move for an Extension of the Nondischargeability Bar Date on Behalf of Creditors

by Stephen C. Behymer

Chevron’s Flexible Agency Expertise Model: Applying the Chevron Doctrine to the BIA’s Interpretation of the INA’s Criminal Law–Based Aggravated Felony Provision

by Michael Dorfman-Gonzalez

Waiving Fiduciary Duties in Delaware Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies

by Winnifred A. Lewis

Can Condoms Be Compelling? Examining the State Interest in Confiscating Condoms from Suspected Sex Workers

by Meghan Newcomer

The Early Bird Waits for the Worm: May Federal Judgments Be Registered Prior to Appeal?

by Cristina M. Rincon

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