Law Professors Blog

This is horribly wrong on so many levels.

False reports/accusations of crime in general tend to be low, in the 2-8% range reported here. By this logic, we can dispense with this whole silly and expensive criminal justice system and just convict everyone based on simple accusation. We used to call this sort of thing "lynching", and it is generally considered a good thing that it's become rare.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"[1]

Also note that the "low rate" for false accusations is for cases were the false accusation is proven:

"The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred.
In that case the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assault did not happen."[2][3]

By this standard, cases of rape that are actually proven are also low, depending on where you look in the 7% range of reported[3]. So the "we just don't know" figure is very, very high, we simply do not have strong evidence either way[4]. Other studies have found false report rates much higher [5][6].

The Air Force study[6]
is interesting in that admissions of false accusations increased dramatically when it became known…

A basic understanding of statistics is sufficient to understand how this happens. Authorities have become obsessed with the idea of assembling giant DNA databanks of entire populations and then doing "cold hits" for unsolved crimes against the entire database.

The problem with this is that DNA testing is not 100% accurate, and when you test an entire population you're going to start getting false positives. The larger the population, the more false positives.

But then a jury may be told "there was a 100% DNA match" or that "There is a less than 1 in a billion chance that he is not the killer." And the wrong guy goes to prison.

Check out this other recent cold hit case. They took DNA samples from Occupy Wall Street protesters and then ran them against unsolved crimes files with no connection to the protesters just to see what they could get.

http://www.kens5.com/news/DNA-match-in-cold-case-murder-called-error-162369036.html

So a protestor is arrested and charged for a 2004 murder based on this. Later found to be an error, but getting to that point assumes you can afford a good lawyer. There are lots of people getting charged for unsolved crimes they have no connection to. Not all of them can afford a lawyer and expert witnesses.

New York recently passed a law requiring DNA samples from all persons convicted of any crime, even misdemeanors such as loitering.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148692189/n-y-passes-dna-requirement-for-convicted-criminals

There is a nationwide…

Back in my law school days I was part of our school’s Immigration and Human Rights Clinic that won a $22M judgment under the Alien Tort Statute Act on behalf of Liberian torture victims against “Chuckie” Taylor, son of Liberian President Charles Taylor.[1]

The background is the stuff of movies, Charles Taylor was a high ranking official in Liberia that fled to the US after being accused of embezzlement (principally from US contracts), he was arrested in the US and “escaped” from Federal prison, fled back to Africa where he was armed and funded by Gaddafi, and became President of Liberia after a coup. His campaign slogan was "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him.”

In fact both Charles and Chuckie are depicted in the Movie Lord of War, where Chuckie was the one who asks Nicolas Cage for the Rambo’s golden gun. Their brutality was also depicted in Blood Diamond, in neighboring Sierra Leon where they were behind Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and would cut people’s arms off (long sleeve/short sleeves for above/below the elbow) when they voted in elections, because voters hands/thumbs were inked as evidence of voting.

Chuckie interestingly was actually a born in the US and a private school kid. Then went to Liberia after Charles became President and became head of his anti-terrorists unit called the “demon forces”, the rest is the stuff of nightmares they leave out of the movies.

If you can read between the lines, this stuff goes to the highest…

It could be wise to fire Dodd just to allow the MPAA to continue making contributions without risking interpretation as a quid pro quo.

From the Hobbs Act: "It is important to note, however, that it is irrelevant whether the public official in fact intended to hold up his or her end of the bargain--it is enough that the official had knowledge of the payor's intent to buy official acts."

Supreme Count statement in McCormick v United States (1991): "The receipt of such contributions is also vulnerable under the Act as having been taken under color of official right, but only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act."

Related analysis: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/11/prosecuting_cam.html

See also Chapter 6 of http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&ots=E0G2ihyRu3&dq=Private%20and%20Public%20Corruption&lr&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false

For example, consider Case 4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&ots=E0G2ihyRu3&dq=Private%20and%20Public%20Corruption&lr&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q&f=false) which is very similar to Dodd's, and which Lowenstein argues might be considered bribery under the Hobbs Act, in light of McCormick v United States.

An (opinionated) editorial on the topic: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0606.birnbaum.html

Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.

I disagree with this reasoning.

As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of the land to me. This principle is not only recognized in our courts, but the clarity that it provides around ownership is a major foundation of our economic system. The reason is that before ownership was clarified with this principle, our land was covered by a mess of overlapping and contradictory claims to ownership of the land. But with a clear owner, however established, that owner can now use their ownership as collateral.

For a book-length treatment of that thesis I point you at https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154.

But this decision opens up the legal status of half of Oklahoma for debate, while other tribes around the nation are going to be thinking about which further claims they can now press.

If we continue to open up the course of reversing long-done ills, will we start to ask whether West Virginia should not exist not as an interesting academic question, but as a current legal one? See…

Which is kind of interesting - because farm equipment doesn't have that sort of protection.

Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=1166

Also: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2019/05/product-liability-down-on-the-farm-modifications.html

> When purchased equipment is altered, the manufacturer is generally released from liability unless the manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen that purchasers would alter the equipment in the manner that resulted in injury.

So if you could have modified a tractor in a way that was not obviously bad and the manufacturer didn't try to stop you from doing it, the manufacturer could still be liable.

Is it reasonable to believe that if the purchaser has the ability to modify the software, they will? If so, how does one rewrite the liability laws for farm equipment?

And while physical modifications may reduce manufacturer liability - what about software? And the ability to reset the software so that evidence of the changes are no longer present?

There's a challenge with the law for repair and liability for farm equipment that needs to be reconciled. That liability issue doesn't exist for other domains (modifying a personal computing device). You aren't likely to find a $6M claim against Apple for ripping someone's arm off - that is an issue with farm equipment.