Bret Asbury, Assistant Professor
Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law
Works In Progress Session I, Friday, 9:15-10:15 am

Stop Snitching

Alafair S. Burke, Professor of Law,
Hofstra University School of Law
Work In Progress Session III, Saturday, 10:45-11:45 am

Prosecutorial Agnosticism

Camille M. Davidson, Assistant Professor,
Charlotte School of Law
Works in Progress Session II, Friday, 5:15-6:15 pm

Octomom and Multi-fetal Pregnancies: Is the Insurance Industry a Co-Conspirator?

James Forman, Jr., Professor of Law,
Georgetown University Law Center
Class in Criminal Justice panel, Saturday, 3-4:30 pm

Abstract: Much writing about race and crime either overlooks class entirely or discusses class solely as compounding race-based discrimination for the black poor. But class matters in another way as well, one that has received substantially less attention and is the subject of this Article. The rise of a large African-American middle class, an increasing number of whom occupy positions of power in politics, media and law, has influenced public discourse on crime. One clear example is racial profiling, in which narrative accounts by respectable black men of discrimination at the hands of the police helped to change public attitudes and produce laws and regulations prohibiting profiling. But racial profiling is only the tip of the criminal justice iceberg, a fact that is often overlooked by victims of the practice. Other aspects of the criminal justice system (in particular mass incarceration and prison conditions) have received less attention, in part because they—unlike profiling—remain the province of the poor and undereducated. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that elite blacks are indifferent to or supportive of punitive crime policy aimed at the black poor. The intersection of race and class, therefore, produce a particularly toxic situation for poor African-Americans—they are subject to increasingly punitive criminal laws, they lack the ability to effectively broadcast their pain, and their middle- and upper-class black brethren are unreliable allies (and sometimes even enemies).

Maria Grahn-Farley, Associate Professor of Law,
Albany Law School
Opening Roundtable: Class & Class Struggle, Friday, 11 am-12:15 pm

Abstract: I will argue that it is impossible to address race and class as long as basic issues of social justice is seen as operating within the frame of the liberal paradox. Gunnar Myrdal's, An American Dilemma referenced in Brown v. Board footnote 11 is a illustrative example of the different social outcomes, dependent on if social justice is seen through the lens of a paradox, versus a dilemma. U.S. social theory treats class and race within a liberal paradox, while the welfare state treats race and class as a dilemma. If we see class and race as a dilemma there is a presumption that there is a solution to social injustice. As long as social justice is seen as a paradox, there per definition is no solution, -the choice between the freedom of the individual and the protection of the collective is a perpetual paradox, and with that there is no political accountability to claim.

Jamila Jefferson-Jones, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law,
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Works In Progress Session Two, Friday, 5:15-6:15 pm

A Good Name: Restoring Rights in Reputation to Ex-Offenders

Abstract: The value of reputation is accepted in various areas of the law. For example, in the torts arena, there is a right in reputation that is recognized in slander and libel doctrines; and in the corporate law area, there is the notion of goodwill. Good name, or reputation, therefore, has value that can be likened to that of other pure intangibles. Like the personal property that is returned to a prisoner upon release, in order for ex-offenders to affect successful reentry, this intangible property must also be returned.

In addition to seeking employment, housing, voting and other rights and services for ex-offenders on the one hand, and providing for enhanced public safety through supervision and other measures aimed at reducing recidivism on the other hand, reentry efforts should seek to incorporate reintegrative approaches that remove the stigma of ex-offender status and restore the reputation of the ex-offender in the community. Truly reintegrative ex-offender reentry should encompass a “rebiography right” that promotes the removal of stigma, revival of character, restoration of reputation and, ultimately, the reclamation and resurrection of self. In this manner, rather than merely being released into the mainstream population, ex-offenders become a part of mainstream society. It is, therefore, necessary in advocating for ex-offenders to focus on the concept of "a good name" - one's reputation -- as property and argue that the shame and stigma that attach to offender status must not continue to attach to ex-offender status. Instead, stigma must be formally abolished when one transitions to ex-offender status, thus restoring that (arguably, previously forfeited) property to the ex-offender. Such restoration serves to remove a barrier to reentry, thereby increasing public safety by reducing the ex-offender's chances of recidivism.

This article will examine the balance between a collective interest in public safety and the individual's interest in protecting the value of his name and reputation. In doing so, it will explore whether a “rebiography right,” that includes a right to restored reputation should eclipse an interest in providing access to information regarding the criminal records of ex-offenders.

Francine J. Lipman, Professor of Law,
Chapman University School of Law
Works in Progress Session III, Saturday, October 24th, 10:45-11:45 am

Saving Private Ryan's Tax Refund

Eric J. Miller, Associate Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law
Works in Progress Session III, Saturday, 10:45-11:45 am

Policing Professionalism: The Supreme Court's Doctrine of Police Training and Experience

Abstract: Starting in the early 1980's, the Court began to emphasize training and experience as an aspect of police professionalism, and in particular as a component of Fourth Amendment doctrine. Most strikingly, two cases, United States v. Leon, and Hudson v. Michigan, singled out the importance of training as a means of teaching and authorizing police conduct. Herring v. United States tied training and experience to internal discipline as the most constitutionally appropriate means of regulating law enforcement agents. Herring promoted training as an alternative to exclusion as a sanction for police illegality, signaling exclusion's redundancy as a viable sanction. Faced with the urgent necessity of pointing to some non-exclusionary means of regulating the police, training is the most obvious candidate to fill that role.

These cases emphasize training officers in the craft of policing, which is primarily the responsibility of other officers. Craft training occurs mostly in police academies and as part of field training programs. Yet the Court's exclusionary jurisprudence emphasizes doctrinal training in the constitutional law of policing as an alternative to some of regulation of the prosecutor by the courts. Doctrinal training is a perfunctory part of the police academy curriculum, and is most often part of subsequent courses to maintain certification or gain promotion, or as part of the training consequent to testifying at trial. On each occasion, prosecutors (at trial, supplemented by other judicial officers) are the primary doctrinal training providers; just as often, prosecutors (at trial, along with the court or jury) are the primary doctrinal evaluators.

The Court's recent exclusionary jurisprudence thus ignores the central player in police training: the prosecutor. Training the police in doctrine is primarily the responsibility of lawyers, and in particular prosecutors. Not only is the prosecutor the person primarily responsible for doctrinal training, the prosecutor also directly bears the burden of exclusion: she loses cases to the detriment of her career (and her client, the public). The Court's deterrence doctrine, therefore, rests on a fictional account of the relevant incentives, in part because it rests upon a partial account of police training and experience.

Sanford Schram, Professor, Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research,
Bryn Mawr College
Class in Public Policy Panel, Friday, 1:30-3:30 pm

Governing the Poor: The Rise of the Neoliberal Paternalist State

Andre Smith, Assistant Professor of Law,
Florida International University School of Law
Works In Progress Session IV, Saturday, 4:45-5:45 pm

Does it Matter What Slaves Thought? The Curious Nexus Between Scalian Textualism and Pre-Colonial African Tax Experiences

James C. Smith, John Byrd Martin Professor,
University of Georgia School of Law
Class in the City panel, Saturday, 9:15-10:30 am

Abstract: This paper will analyze the current laws and procedures that govern access to U.S. public housing. Applicants for public housing and present residents who live in public housing communities are subject to a host of rules and practices, mandated by federal statutes or regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that prevent certain applicants from obtaining public housing or require the termination of existing tenancies. Such rules and practices are not required for private-sector residential tenancies, and generally are not followed by private-sector landlords. Over the past two decades, Congress and HUD have increased the disparity between public-sector tenants and private-sector tenants by adding new requirements and by making existing requirements more severe. Such rules and practices presently include:

1. Stringent criminal background checks of the applicant and members of the applicant's household, with mandatory exclusion for certain convictions, including controlled substance convictions.
2. Review of the prior history of the applicant and members of the applicant's household to determine if they previously resided in federally-subsidized housing, and if so, whether they left in good standing.
3. A community service obligation, which requires public housing residents who are not employed to participate in either community service or an educational program.
4. Restrictions on the right of a public housing resident to add new members to the resident's household.

Such rules and practices are in addition to income qualifications that residents must meet, which are necessary to ensure that the family is initially eligible to enter public housing and remains eligible to reside there.

Sudha Setty, Assistant Professor of Law,
Western New England College School of Law
Work in Progress Session II, Friday, 5:15-6:15 pm

Special Courts for Terrorists

Abstract: On the campaign trail in 2008, presidential candidate and then-Senator Barack Obama promised to restore America's place in the world by breaking with many of the national security policies put into effect by President George W. Bush. In January 2009, President Obama made numerous changes to United States foreign policy, including signing an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and announcing that the United States would not engage in interrogation techniques that constitute torture. In some aspects of national security law and policy, however, Obama has followed the example of President Bush—for example, in his announcement of the resuscitation of the military commission system started by President Bush to try some detainees in a setting apart from a federal court or a military trial.

Does the reestablishment of a military commissions system restore America's place in the world? This Article places the issue of specialized courts for terrorists in a comparative context, investigating how other nations facing grave national security threats handle the challenge of maintaining due process and a fair trial when it comes to the prosecution of terrorists. By examining the history of specialized terrorism courts in the United Kingdom, Israel and India, we gain insight into the potential benefits and pitfalls of such courts in the United States. This Article concludes that although specialized courts in other nations have provided some benefits in terms of efficiency and providing a short-term sense of security, they have often contravened the rule of law by failing to provide basic levels of due process and equal protection; as such, the use of specialized courts may heighten long-term security risks. I conclude that the United States may reap the greatest overall benefit from taking advantage of flexibility within the ordinary criminal justice system to prosecute suspected terrorists.