April 2011 | Vol. 79, No. 5

Fiduciaries and Fees: Preliminary Thoughts

by Lynn A. Baker & Charles Silver

Taking the Business Out of Work Product

by Michele DeStefano Beardslee

Two Views of the Class Action

by Alexandra D. Lahav

Arbitration Provisions: Little Darlings and Little Monsters

by Stephen Friedman

Finding the Good in Holmes’s Bad Man

by Marco Jimenez

Extracting Compassion from Confusion: Sentencing Noncitizens After United States v. Booker

by Francesca Brody

The Twombly Standard and Affirmative Defenses: What Is Good for the Goose Is Not Always Good for the Gander

by Anthony Gambol

Which Treaties Reign Supreme? The Dormant Supremacy Clause Effect of Implemented Non-Self-Executing Treaties

by Leonie W. Huang

Walk This Way: Do Public Sidewalks Qualify As Services, Programs, or Activities Under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act?

by Sarah Jones

A Tale of Three Sovereigns: The Nebulous Boundaries of the Federal Government, New York State, and the Seneca Nation of Indians Concerning State Taxation of Indian Reservation Cigarette Sales to Non-Indians

by Amanda M. Murphy

U.S. Energy Sanctions and the Race To Prevent Iran from Acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction

by Quinton Cannon Farrar

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