ohioprelawland

[ohioprelawland]

The Origin of the Legal System

Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

December 6, 2023

The legal system has existed for hundreds of years. The modern legal systems present across the world today originated in ancient societies. Early philosophers are also credited with discovering many of the theories used in modern law as well. Civil law is based on ancient Roman law. Civil law is based on a legal system that focuses on complying with laws. Common law is based on England's monarchy. That legal system is based on precedent. In other words, previous cases determine how new cases are handled. Analyzing these ancient legal systems brings clarity to the foundation that the modern legal system is based upon. [1]

In Mesopotamia, King Hammurabi was the first king of Babylon. He was also responsible for conquering Mesopotamia and creating the first Babylonian Empire. He was known for this ruling style and fair laws. He wanted his people to respect him and his laws. However, he did not want people to respect him out of fear. He wanted there to be a mutual understanding between him and those individuals who follow his laws. He managed his court by outlining laws so that every person was educated on them. His laws are called the Code of Hammurabi. This Code includes a wide array of laws covering everything from family relations to crime and punishment. Under his rule crimes had punishments that were of equal caliber to the action. For example, if a criminal cuts someone’s hand off, as punishment, their hand would also be cut off. This is commonly understood as the “an eye for an eye” method. Hammurabi enforced these laws by treating everyone equally. He did not treat them differently based on income and social status. In addition, each law had a punishment attached to it. Such punishments were carried out consistently and equally. Such practices became the foundation for further legal systems to come. [1]

Similar to Mesopotamia, ancient Greece developed an early legal system. The American legal system has a foundation based on the legal system created in Greece. There was no need for law school because lawyers were not a part of the Greek legal system. Rather than having a lawyer for each side of the case, people argued their own cases. While this is uncommon in modern law, individuals are still able to represent themselves in a legal proceeding. Such practices come directly from the Greek legal system. People of higher class would hire speechwriters, rather than lawyers, to help them create a draft of what to say when arguing their side. There were also no judges in this legal system. Rather, they used very large juries to decide the verdict in a case. In some situations, there would be up to 500 jurors. In addition, early “trials” were not drawn out over days and weeks. They monitored legal proceedings with a timer. This practice was to ensure that each party presented their argument, and the jury came to a verdict by the end of the day. [1]

Ancient Rome was also influential in creating the foundation of many legal systems that are used today. Roman law is based on the Twelve Tablets. These Tablets comprise a set of laws. Some of the laws require an individual to show up to court if they are called. There was also a punishment of death for lying in court. Holding business meetings at night was also prohibited in the Twelve Tablets. This legal system was present for 1,500 years. After that, Emperor Justinian was responsible for creating the Code of Justinian. This code was a major reform in the Byzantine Empire and is the foundation of Civil Law today. [2]

Ancient China is known for having the longest and continuous legal history. Chinese laws were influenced by ancient Confucian codes of conduct. They focused on a person’s individual responsibility to be virtuous without the laws having to dictate their actions. In other words, Chinese law believes that people should act virtuously without being threatened by laws. Although the Xia Dynasty was the first Chinese Dynasty, the first Chinese legal system was not created until the Qin Dynasty was created. This type of system had one ruler, like the president of the United States. This ruler controlled the military as well. This system was used for hundreds of years until the last dynasty was overthrown. After that, the Republic of China was developed. [2]

While many of these ancient legal systems appear to be radical compared to the modern legal system, they were crucial in its development. They created the footwork for the modern legal systems that are still used today.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Tulane University. (2021, February 16). Law in the ancient world. Tulane School of Law. https://online.law.tulane.edu/articles/law-in-the-ancient-world#:~:text=The%20legal%20systems%20in%20place,system%20is%20based%20on%20precedent.

[2] Cartwright, M. (2023, December 4). Corpus juris civilis. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Corpus_Juris_Civilis/

[ohioprelawland]

The Importance of Griswold v. Connecticut

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

November 28, 2023

Griswold v. Connecticut is the landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that states that banned the use of contraceptives violated people’s right to privacy. Connecticut law criminalized the use of birth control and any education that was provided on the use of contraceptives. In 1879 the law stated that any person who uses drugs or medical articles to prevent conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars and imprisoned not less than sixty days. In addition, any person who assists or counsels to commit such offenses may be prosecuted and punished. [1]

Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and Doctor C. Lee Buxton was arrested and found guilty of accessory to providing illegal contraception. They educated a couple on family planning and the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. They were fined 100 dollars each. They both appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. They claimed that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld this deletion and they applied to the U.S. Supreme Court which reviewed the case in 1965. [1]

The Supreme Court made a 7-2 decision which was written by Justice William O. Douglas. The Court ruled that the law violated the supposed right to marital privacy and could not be enforced against married couples. Douglas stated that the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees emanations that give people help by opinion. The doctors in this solution gave their professional opinion when helping the couple in this case. In other words, the rights granted in the Amendments cannot be infringed upon. In addition, the right to privacy is fundamental when relating to married couples and their family planning. Subsequently, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is compelling and necessary to infringe upon that right. Connecticut failed to prove this, and the law was struck down. [1]

Other Justices agreed that marital privacy is fundamental, but they disagreed with Douglas as to where the fundamental right exists in the Constitution. Another Justice argued that the Ninth Amendment allows the court to find the final privacy without having to ground it in a specific Amendment. There were also claims that stated the fundamental right to marital privacy exists because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. [1]

Currently, the use of contraceptives is protected under two major cases. Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird are two cases that impacted the use of contraceptives. Both cases recognize the constitutional right to privacy and that it encompasses the right of married people to obtain contraceptives. Prior to these decisions, many states outlawed contraceptives along with prohibiting clinicians from prescribing or discussing contraceptive methods. After these decisions, many states still banned contraceptive use for single people. [2]

Eisenstadt v. Baird extended the right to privacy surrounding contraceptives to single people as well. The court determined that a Massachusetts law that prohibited birth control for unmarried people was unconstitutional. It was clarified that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided based on a marital right to privacy. A marriage consists of two people and each individual has a right to privacy and therefore a right to contraception. The court held that treating unmarried and married people differently violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the Court explained the rights of an individual to have access to contraceptives must be the same for married and unmarried people. [3]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court made it clear that minors have a constitutional right to contraception as well. Restrictions on contraceptive access short of total prohibition are unconstitutional. The court struck down any provision that made it illegal to distribute contraceptives to a minor. The court explained that limiting the distribution of contraceptives imposes a significant burden on the right of individuals to use contraceptives if they choose to do so. They reaffirmed that minors have contractual rights and that those rights include the use of contraceptives. [3]

______________________________________________________________

[1] McBride, A. (2005). Expanding Civil Rights. Supreme Court History. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html

[2] Felix, M., & Sobel, L. (2023, October 25). The right to contraception: State and federal actions, misinformation, and the courts. KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-right-to-contraception-state-and-federal-actions-misinformation-and-the-courts/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20right%20to%20contraception,married%20people%20to%20obtain%20contraceptives.

[3] The right to contraception: Deeply rooted in our laws and society, but in jeopardy and in need of policymakers’ attention. National Women’s Law Center. (2023, June 26). https://nwlc.org/resource/the-right-to-contraception-deeply-rooted-in-our-laws-and-society-but-in-jeopardy-and-in-need-of-policymakers-attention/

[ohioprelawland]

The Relationship Between the Criminal Justice and Legal Systems

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

November 26, 2023

The criminal justice system is crucial to the legal system. They work together to provide parameters for legal processes such as charging offenders. The evolution of the criminal justice system reflects further development in legal theory. By definition, the criminal justice system prescribes the fate of the criminal who is being charged. This system also provides sanctions to the individual. Similar to the legal system, the criminal justice system seeks to deter, rehabilitate, and incarnate. Understanding the importance of the criminal justice system helps further develop its relationship with the legality of criminal behavior. [1]

The criminal justice system is crucial to legal functions because state constitutions and laws decipher the authority and responsibility for criminal proceedings. State laws also define criminal behavior and groups such as underage acts in juvenile court. In recent years the criminal justice system has been referred to as the criminal legal system. This shift comes from the view that policing, prosecution, courts, and corrections are all linked by one functioning body. In addition, criminology plays an important role in the courtroom when sentencing offenders. [1]

The ideas of punishment, also known as criminal law, and crime, known as criminology, share intellectual qualities. Criminology has influenced the development of criminal law in Western society. For many years, criminology has been identified as an interdisciplinary science. Criminology has inspired researchers in criminal law to look at this field from a more scientific perspective. For example, an American law professor proposed two criminal justice system models. The first is the crime control model. The second is the due process model. These models can be attributed to the shift from repressing criminal behaviors to the openness of researching why criminals commit crimes. [2]

There are many examples of criminology empirical methods being used in criminal law. In general, wisdom in criminal law is that punishment is a philosophical issue, not an empirical issue. However, empirical research is often practiced in criminal law. These research methods have been practiced in criminal law since the 1900s. For example, many of the United States produced statistics on crime and criminal cases. Furthermore, American legal scholar Roscoe Pound explained the significance of social science in law in his publication “Law in Books and Law in Action.” The American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology was created in 1909 to further develop the scientific study of crime and criminal law procedures. At this time, empirical legal researchers focused on studying the criminal justice system and its different versions. This allowed them to compare legal cases with attorneys and public defenders. They also examined the behavior of magistrates and judges. [2]

Later, the focus of this empirical research shifted to crime surveys. The Cleveland Crime Survey included prosecution, police administration, criminal courts, and corrections. The findings of such surveyors were proven to be invaluable because they not only produced measurable statistics on crime but on actors in the legal system as well. In addition, the newfound use of criminology helped create the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and the Society for Empirical Legal Studies in 2004 which hold conferences to this day. [2]

Most notably, the criminal justice system transformed the idea of punishment in the eyes of criminal law. The discovery of rehabilitation ideas in criminals has deeply changed the punishment used in criminal law. Criminal law scholars regard punishment as an effort based on revenge and deterrence. However, criminologists have recently brought new ideas surrounding punishment to the forefront of the legal system. Over time, this idea of rehabilitation has been accepted across legal systems in Western society. The European Convention on Human Rights provides detailed laws and regulations regarding rehabilitation practices in prisons and jails today. In addition, the Rehabilitation of Offender Act of 1974 would never have existed without the newfound interest in criminology when relating to the legal system. [2]

In general, the criminal justice system and criminology have played huge roles in the treatment of offenders in the eyes of the law. Without them, defendants would lack basic rights inside the courtroom and correctional facilities which are granted by the Constitution.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Criminal justice. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_justice#:~:text=In%20this%20context%2C%20criminal%20justice%20is%20the%20system%20that%20prescribes,and%20rehabilitate%20criminals%20through%20incarceration.

[2] Shuai, H., & Liu, J. (2023, June 23). The relationship between Criminology and Criminal Law: Implications for developing Chinese criminology. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01851-3

[ohioprelawland]

The Impact Of Mapp v. Ohio

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

November 21, 2023

The landmark case of Mapp. v. Ohio originated on May 23, 1957, in Cleveland, Ohio. Three Cleveland police officers arrived at a home with the information that there was a person in the house who was needed for questioning. They wanted to question this person in relation to a recent bombing who they suspected had information on the case. The residence was inhabited by Miss Mapp and her daughter. The police demanded entry into their home, however, Mapp consulted her attorney and refused to let them enter without a warrant. The police advised their headquarters and placed the house under surveillance. [1]

Later that day, four more officers arrived at the home. They requested entry into the home gain. However, they forcibly entered the home when Mapp did not answer the door. Soon after, Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived. However, the attorney did not allow him to see her or enter the house. After the forced entry, Mapp demanded to see a warrant. They held up the “warrant” and Mapp tried to read it. However, this resulted in a struggle, and they detained her for being belligerent. It was stated that she pleaded with them because they were hurting her as they restrained her. They forced her upstairs and they began to go through the house. [1]

At the trial, there was no search warrant produced that would admiss forced entry into the home. It was widely believed that the conviction should be reversed because the method used to obtain evidence was unlawful. However, the court found that the evidence had not been taken with the use of brutal or offensive force against Miss Mapp. The State says that even if the search was conducted without authority, it is not prevented from using unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. However, this was later appealed, and it changed the course of legal procedures. [1]

Mapp’s lawyer appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. He explained that her conviction violated her constitutional rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision overturned Mapp’s conviction because the evidence was seized without a search warrant and can’t be used in state criminal proceedings under the fourth amendment. This amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. [2]

Previously, the Supreme Court created an exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States in which the federal government could not use evidence that was obtained illegally for criminal convictions in federal court. However, this ruling was limited to the federal government. This decision was altered with Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp’s attorney cited the Weeks case when seeking to dismiss the charges. He failed to argue that this prohibition should be extended to state court. However, after citing the ACLU argument surrounding this issue, the Supreme Court reversed Mapp’s conviction. They also adapted the exclusionary rule to be a national standard. [3]

This case is so notable because it strengthened the Fourth Amendment which protects against illegal search and seizures. However, even with the Mapp v. Ohio case, this amendment does not guarantee illegal searches will be conducted. It only protects against those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. The location of where a search and seizure take place is important in deciding whether a person is granted protection under the Fourth Amendment. Home searches without a warrant are generally unlawful, but there are a few exceptions. Firstly, if the office has given consent, they may search the residence. If the search is crucial to a lawful arrest or if there are exigent circumstances, the home may also be searched without a warrant. Similarly, if an officer observes unusual behavior in a person, they may search them if exigent circumstances are present. In addition, a vehicle may be searched illegally if there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity. All these regulations vary by jurisdiction, but it is important to note that there are several exceptions to the use of illegal searches and seizures. [4]

In general, Mapp v. Ohio serves as an example of why it is crucial to conduct legal searches and seizures. If done without a warrant, guilty people may roam free. For example, they found incriminating evidence inside Mapp’s home, but since it was collected illegally, the conviction was overturned. This is not an uncommon practice among law enforcement because there is a sense of urgency when making an arrest. However, if the exceptions to this law are not met and a search is conducted, the evidence found can and likely will be dismissed.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/

[2] Mapp v. Ohio: Encyclopedia of Cleveland History: Case Western Reserve University. Encyclopedia of Cleveland History | Case Western Reserve University. (2018, May 12). https://case.edu/ech/articles/m/mapp-v-ohio

[3] ACLU history: Mapp v. Ohio. American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-mapp-v-ohio

[4] What does the Fourth Amendment Mean? United States Courts. (n.d.). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0#:~:text=The%20Constitution%2C%20through%20the%20Fourth,deemed%20unreasonable%20under%20the%20law.

[ohioprelawland]

Forensic Science and the Courtroom

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

November 14, 2023

The use of forensic science undoubtedly impacts the courtroom. When done correctly, it is a useful tool in convincing jurors. When done incorrectly, it can be detrimental to the verdict. It is difficult to pinpoint when and if forensic testimony is being used in a courtroom correctly. Oftentimes, forensic scientists are called to give expert testimony before a courtroom. However, in recent years this practice has been questioned. If a forensic scientist is involved in a questionable practice, their testimony cannot be trusted in the courtroom. Unfortunately, there are many cases in which faulty forensic science has been a deciding factor. This is why there has been further investigation into the validity of forensic science practices. Examining these practices makes it clearer if they can be used to prove or disprove what really happened at a crime scene. [1]

A major reason forensic science is coming into question is because there is no way to reduce the error rate to zero. In other words, there is no way to reduce human error to zero when using forensic science. Pattern matching is common in forensics, and it is often used in the courtroom, but this practice is not foolproof. For example, hair analysis is commonly used in criminal cases. Hair is collected at a crime scene and taken to a lab. They try to find a match to eh hair found at the crime scene, thus giving them “proof” of the suspect. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that hair analysis is flawed in over ninety percent of cases. This is because hair only holds DNA if the root is still attached. However, “matches” are made by forensic scientists even without the hair root being present. This has led to false convictions because forensic evidence was always believed to be fact. Bite mark analysis is not commonly used as it once was, but it was found that forensic dentists were completely making up the information they presented as fact in the courtroom. [1]

Odontology is the practice in which bite marks are analyzed to match marks found at a crime scene. Bite marks are often found on victims. This is why it was believed using these bite marks would reveal valuable information. Bite mark analysis was once used in the courtroom. However, there is no scientific research into the accuracy of the accuracy in odontology. There is also no scientific validation that a person’s dentition is unique to them. Again, this practice is subject to the error of the person performing the analysis. In addition, a person may lose a tooth, get a replacement, or have several dental procedures to make their teeth completely unrecognizable. In 1992, a man by the name of Ray Krone was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based on odontology. There was no other evidence linking the man to the scene other than a bite mark on the victim that a forensic dentist identified as being his bite impression. The use of bite mark comparison is similar to fingerprint comparison. [2]

Up until recent years, fingerprint analysis was thought to be undeniable evidence. However, it has falsely convicted multiple people due to the human error in matching prints together. It is widely accepted that every human has a set of unique fingerprints. However, it is questioned if examiners can accurately link prints to a person. In many cases, partial fingerprints are relied on to get a match. This immediately risks false identification. Patrial prints may have missed or altered features due to the surface they are left on or oils from the person who left it. Once a print is gathered, examiners look at the ridges and other identifying markings in the print. In high-profile cases, prints are run in the fingerprint database of AFIS. Once the database search is completed, potential matches appear to the examiner. It is the examiner’s job to go through the potential matches to compare the markings to see if there is a match. This practice alone is flawed because it leads examiners to believe that there is a match in one of the results from the database. None of the options given by the database might be a match. In addition, some people may have remarkably similar fingerprints that differ by only a few characteristics. This is why it is hard to match a person to a print without a doubt. [3]

With further examination, common forensic science practices are easily susceptible to error. A few of these practices include hair analysis, odontology, and fingerprints. While these practices can help limit suspects, people are becoming cautious when accepting them as facts. However, forensic evidence is still used today which leads to false convictions. It is important to consider such information in the courtroom. However, basing entire convictions upon this information is becoming a way of the past due to the human error associated with each practice.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Faulty forensic evidence: Wrongful convictions. The AP Law Group. (2022, August 26). https://theaplawgroup.com/faulty-forensic-evidence-exonerating-the-innocent/

[2] California Innocence Project. (2019, April 26). Bite mark evidence. https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/bite-mark-evidence/#:~:text=Bite%20mark%20evidence%2C%20an%20aspect,the%20dental%20impressions%20of%20suspects.

[3] Arpin, T. (n.d.). Faulty Fingerprints. Faulty fingerprints. https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm

[ohioprelawland]

Inchoate Crimes

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

November 6, 2023

In criminal law, inchoate crimes are often a point of contention. An inchoate crime is committed by taking significant steps toward completing a crime. However, for whatever reason, the crime falls incomplete. The three major inchoate crimes are attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. These crimes are hard to prosecute at times because they involve intent. If proving someone’s intent is difficult, the crime may go unpunished. When charging someone with an inchoate crime, there must be proof of specific intent to ensure they truly desired to carry out the intended crime. After analyzing these inchoate crimes, their importance becomes clear. [1]

An attempt crime occurs when a defendant takes reasonable steps towards committing a crime. The actus res of these crimes differs by jurisdiction. However, it is accepted that thoughts are not criminal acts. Therefore, people cannot be persecuted if they simply think of doing something wrong. How close a defendant comes to completing the crime is important in this situation. Not only can a defeated get charged with an attempt but they may be charged with the completion of the crime if they carry through with the act. For example, if a defendant holds a gun up to someone and pulls the trigger, but forgets to load the gun, that would be attempted murder. In other words, to be charged with murder in this situation, there is a murder attempt that comes beforehand. Someone cannot be charged with murder if they did not attempt to do so first. Multiple tests are done to determine someone’s willingness to commit a crime in an attempt situation. The first is the proximity test which measures progress made by the defendant when moving towards completion of the crime. This test focuses on how much is left that needs to be done for the crime to be carried out. In contrast, the probable resistance test focuses on how far the defendant has progressed towards committing the crime, not how much they have left to go. The substantial steps test focuses on how corroborative the defendant's actions are to their intent. In other words, this test seeks to understand if the defendant willingly took the action or if it was a mistake. [2]

Conspiracy crimes involve two or more people forming a contract together to break the law in some way. Conspiracy is popular in cases relating to government officials in voting schemes. The crime of conspiracy became recognized due to the danger that arises when groups form with a foundation in criminality. Multiple elements are needed in a conspiracy. Firstly, there must be at least two people who have agreed to commit a crime. However, there is no maximum amount of people. Some conspiracies include many participants. The second element is that those involved must intentionally agree to commit a crime. There also must be an agreement to violate some federal law. Finally, those individuals must commit an overt act towards carrying out the agreement. These crimes are difficult to uncover because they are often carried out by people in positions of power who are protected more than the average citizen. However, if they are prosecuted, individuals who are involved on a minor level often end up revealing the main contributors because the fines and sentences are so high for a conspiracy crime. [3]

Solicitation involves one person trying to convince or coerce another to commit a crime. For example, if a person asks someone to commit a felony they will be charged with solicitation. Even if the other person does not agree to the crime, the solicitor can still be charged with solicitation because the actus res of this crime is a verbal request. Just because the individual declines to take part in the criminal act does not mean the other person revokes their intention to commit the crime. Firstly, a defendant must intend for another person to commit a crime. Then, there needs to be proof that they provide encouragement or coercion when trying to persuade them to act. Preferably, the defendant needs to suggest a way for the individual to carry out the crime. This proves their intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The person being solicited does not have to take part in any crime for the defendant to be convicted; asking for a crime to be committed is enough to charge them. [4]

All three of these inchoate crimes are common in criminal law proceedings. They are influential because they are based on a defendant’s intention. Since these crimes are incomplete, intent is the deciding factor in many of these cases. It is important to understand that just because a crime is unfinished does not mean it is not punishable. Although they come up frequently, they are difficult to prosecute, especially when the elements of the crime are only known by the defendant and the victim. This creates a need for a better understanding of inchoate crimes and how to effectively prosecute them.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Cornell Law School. (2023). Inchoate offense. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inchoate_offense#:~:text=An%20inchoate%20offense%20is%20a,to%20as%20the%20target%20offense.

[2] University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015. This edition is adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. (2015b, December 17). 8.1 attempt. Criminal Law. https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/8-1-attempt/

[3] Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. (n.d.). Federal conspiracy law. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/federal-conspiracy-law-mp3#:~:text=Legally%2C%20a%20Conspiracy%20exists%20when,forces%20to%20commit%20criminal%20acts.

[4] Eisner Gorin LLP. (2023). Federal Solicitation to Commit a Crime Law, Defenses, and Penalties. State and Federal Criminal Defense. https://www.egattorneys.com/solicitation-to-commit-a-crime#:~:text=Solicitation%20to%20commit%20a%20crime%20involves%20seeking%20out%20someone%20else,person%20to%20commit%20a%20felony.

[ohioprelawland]

The Facts Behind Roe v. Wade

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 30, 2023

Roe v. Wade is a prominent case in the laws surrounding abortion. However, this is not the first case relating to abortion. The case of United States v. Vuitch involves a doctor who provided abortions. It resulted in the expansion of the definition of women’s health. After this decision, it was widely believed that health encompassed both psychological and physical aspects. This case also created the foundation that the burden of proof should be placed on the prosecutor, not the doctor who provided care. After Vuitch, seventeen other abortion cases headed for the Supreme Court. One of the seventeen was the landmark case, Roe v. Wade. [1]

Roe v. Wade was decided upon in 1973. The Supreme Court found that the suggested right to privacy in the Constitution protected the right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy. This ruling struck down many laws in states that had previously banned abortion. This monumental case started with a woman who lived in Texas named Norma McCorvey. She was five months pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Two lawyers represented her in challenging the state's prohibition on abortions. Jane Roe was a pseudonym for McCovery. She later spoke out and revealed her identity. However, we went with Jane Roe before that. Wade refers to Henry Wade, the district attorney in Dallas County, Texas. The seven to two ruling was announced on January 22, 1973, which defended the right to abortion. [2]

Roe v. Wade was recently overturned in 2022 which has led this historic case to take the United States by storm yet again. This decision has led to abortion rights being rolled back in half of the U.S. effective immediately following the decision. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Alito opinion to reverse Roe v. Wade. Dissenting Justices were Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. They said this ruling means that young women will have to come of age with fewer rights than the previous generations. Furthermore, the court's opinion means that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. [3]

Alito wrote a seventy-eight-page opinion that leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no evidence that people’s reliance on the court’s abortion presidents should matter. After dissecting Alito’s opinion multiple objectives are revealed. [3]

First, he wrote for the majority and said that abortion is a matter to be decided by the state and its voters. This would leave the opinion up to each state as to whether they bar abortion or not. He goes on to emphasize that states are allowed to regulate abortion and eliminate medical procedures to preserve the integrity of the medical profession. [3]

This court decision is sure to impact all fifty states and change is still developing as the case is recently overturned. States such as Mississippi, North Carolina, and Wisconsin still have abortion bans on the books. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, they are allowed to revert to a pre-Roe legal system. Officials are also allowed to enforce old laws and ask the courts to reinstate them. For example, a Michigan law from 1931 would make abortion a felony charge. [3]

Along with this reversal has come a new wave of trigger bans. These are newer laws that are pushed by anti-abortion rights in many states with the anticipation that they will see action taken by the Supreme Court. Some states have acted swiftly to ban abortion. South Dakota, Kentucky, and Louisiana drafted new laws before the fall of Roe that would become effective immediately if the case were overturned. States have also passed bans prohibiting abortion at various stages of pregnancy. In Georgia, Ohio, and Idaho, those laws were put into effect immediately after the reversal. Other limitations restrict where, to whom, and to what conditions abortions can be provided. Requiring parental notification if the individual is under the age of eighteen and health regulations for doctors are a few examples. [3]

While this decision is still developing in America today, there is legal uncertainty surrounding it. States with multiple abortion regulations on the books seek further analysis into which ones would be valid under this new decision. Not to mention the public uproar it has caused. The final influence this decision will have on the United States is unclear. However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade is even more significant than its original 1973 ruling. ______________________________________________________________

[1] American Civil Liberties Union. (2010). ACLU history: The Roe v. Wade Era. https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-roe-v-wade-era

[2] Taylor, D. B. (2022, May 4). What is Roe v. Wade? Here’s a short history of the case. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/what-is-roe-v-wade-heres-a-short-history-of-the-case.html [3] Totenberg, N., & McCammon, S. (2022, June 24). Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn#:~:text=Race-,Supreme%20Court%20overturns%20Roe%20v.%20Wade%2C%20ending%20right%20to%20abortion,right%20to%20obtain%20an%20abortion.

[ohioprelawland]

The Insanity Defense

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 24, 2023

The insanity defense originated in the 1800s and is widely used in the legal system today.  In a criminal trial, the insanity defense is legitimate. The defendant admits to the action but claims a lack of culpability due to mental illness. This defense is considered affirmative rather than a partial defense. First, to understand the use of the insanity defense, it is important to note its differences from the diminished capacity defense. Then, examining its rich history reveals why it is necessary to place strict regulations on a defense that encompasses cognitive functioning. [1]

The “reason of insanity” is the equivalent of pleading “not guilty.” Whereas “diminished capacity” is pleading to a lesser crime. Diminished capacity often seeks to negate the proof of intent to commit a crime. The insanity defense is based on proving if the defendant is legally competent to stand trial. A defendant cannot stand trial if they are legally incompetent. According to the Supreme Court, a defendant is legally incompetent if they are incapable of rationally communicating with their attorney or rationally comprehending the nature of the preceding against them. Assessing someone for legal competency can be done at any time and involves the submission of supporting evidence with the addition of a psychological evaluation. The threshold for identifying someone is often identified as low. If a defendant is deemed incompetent, the insanity defense becomes the default as they are not fit to stand trial. In addition, if a defendant is found fit to stand trial, they can still submit evidence at any point during the trial to support their insanity defense. The foundation of this defense was founded upon a case in England in 1843. [1]

The first famous case surrounding the insanity defense was the M’Nagthen case. A man named Daniel M’Nagthen killed the secretary of the British Prime Minster. Daniel believed that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted him because of insanity. He was placed in a mental health institution for the rest of his life. This case caused much controversy, and it was ordered by Queen Victora to develop a strict test for insanity. The M’Naghten rule was the standard to be applied by the jury when looking for insanity. After hearing medical testimony and supporting evidence, they would decide if a defendant was deemed insane. This rule created a presumption of sanity unless the defense proved otherwise. This rule also focused on the cognition of the defendant. Firstly, a defendant would be deemed insane if they were incapable of knowing what they were doing at the time of the crime. Secondly, the rule analyzed if the defendant knew their actions were wrong. The “Irresistible Impulse” test is also a factor when considering insanity. [1]

The “Irresistible Impulse” test has lost popularity over the years, but it was essential to the history and development of the insanity defense. This test focused on the defendant’s awareness and will. In other words, it recognized that the defendant knew the crime was wrong but had a lack of self-control. The defiant must suffer a disease of the mind in which their self-control is demised, therefore they were unable to stop themselves from committing the crime even though they had the cognitive ability to understand the crime was wrong. Although this test was widely used concerning the insanity defense, in recent years it has become less portal because it is argued that if a defendant knew the action was wrong, they would have been able to stop themselves from doing it. [2]

The Durham Rule was also influential in the history of the insanity defense. Durham was a man who had been in and out of prison and mental facilities since he was seventeen. He was convinced of housebreaking and his attorney appealed. The district court stated that his attorneys failed to prove that Durham did not know the difference between right and wrong. This case was used to revise the M.Naghten rule. The case was overturned, and a new rule was created. Under this rule, criminals must be proven to have a mental disease or defect to be deemed insane. [2]

To modernize the insanity defense, the American Law Institute developed a new rule surrounding insanity as a part of the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code created a test that is much broader than the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. The Model Penal Code test asks whether defendants have a substantial incapacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct. This test also requires that the mental disease or defect be a mental diagnosis. This modern rule incorporates the knowledge of right and wrong, the lack of control from the Irresistible Impulse test, and the diagnosis of a mental defect according to the Durham Rule. [3]

Currently, the Model Penal Code rule surrounding insanity is where the defense stands today. Although the development of this defense is complex, it is proven to be necessary. Without the evolution of this defense, it would be much easier for defendants to blame their crimes on insanity. That said, this defense is still controversial today and is undergoing change with every trial.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Cornell Law School. (2023). Insanity defense. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

[2] University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. (2015, December 17). 6.1 the insanity defense. Criminal Law. https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/

[3] US Legal. (n.d.). The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code Test. USLegal. https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-american-law-institutes-model-penal-code-test/

[ohioprelawland]

Colorado Funeral Home Faces Charges After 115 Bodies Were Found

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 16, 2023

A massive lawsuit is underway after legal authorities found over 115 decaying bodies at a Colorado funeral home. Family members of the deceased are angered that this has been going on for such an extended period. However, local officials say that the industry is difficult to effectively oversee. Colorado has some of the most lenient rules when relating to funeral homes in all of the United States. There is no regulation for routine inspections or minimum qualifications for funeral home owners. After hearing the downfall of the funeral home and the stories from the deceased's families, it is clear what a tragedy this is. The laws and regulations surrounding funeral home functioning in Colorado will be greatly impacted by this situation. [1]

The owners of the return to Nature Funeral Home were evicted from their property after not paying their taxes. In addition, they were sued by a crematory for bills that were not paid. According to public records, this crematory stopped working with them over a year ago. This information did not pique the interest of regulators in the industry. The funeral home was not even inspected after its registration expired in November of 2022. Although strict regulations may not have prevented this tragedy, they would have ensured that these problems were found much earlier. The general counsel for the National Funeral Directors Association is calling into question the regulator’s failure to act in this situation. [1]

Despite knowing the business was failing, the funeral home went on with business-as-usual providing “green” funeral operations. They included burials without embalming fluids. In October of 2023, officials were called to the funeral home’s dilapidated building with a search warrant. The call was made by a witness who accounted for a horrific smell coming from the building. Law enforcement found the decomposing bodies in the funeral home that day. [1]

When this news broke, over 120 families were concerned that their relatives were among the decaying bodies. The number of bodies was so severe that the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management was called in to help identify them. In addition, the FBI team that gets deployed in mass casualties such as airplane crashes was also called in to aid in this event. [1]

The legal issues in this tragedy are astronomical. Firstly, there is no indication that any state regulator visited the site or contacted the owners for at least ten months after their license expired. Last year, state lawmakers gave regulators the authority to search funeral homes without the owner’s consent. However, no additional funds were provided, so this practice was overlooked for months while the bodies were left in this funeral home. Nonetheless, the regulator's failure to act in this situation could serve as an actus res. A 2022 state law allows the agency overseeing these funeral homes to inspect them at random once complaints are received. However, this was never done in the case of Return Nature Funeral Home. [1]

As the lawsuit against Return to Nature develops there are multiple codes being questioned. Firstly, many statutes adopt the idea that the burial of human remains must be done in a respectful and humane way. The mishandling of a corpse is a prosecutable offense. Similarly, the unauthorized disturbance of a corpse is a criminal offense under common law. The funeral home operator's failure to care for these corpses in a proper way serves as their specific intent in this case. [2]

In relation to the inspectors who failed to do their job, their role in this situation is not going unnoticed. Although the funeral home officials were cooperating with law enforcement after the bodies were discovered, they failed to uphold their job duties. They are supposed to do regular checks on the funeral homes, especially after complaints such as suspicious smells are reported. However, for months, that was not done. No one has been arrested yet in this case, but the families who are impacted plan to press charges on not only the funeral home owners but the funeral home officials as well. If they had done their job, the bodies would have never amounted to such a vast quantity. [2]

While the making of this case is still in its infancy stages, it raises important questions about the legality issues related to funeral homes. Unfortunately, this is not the first case of funeral homes improperly caring for the deceased. The issue arises from people paying this funeral home for a service that was not being done correctly. They were taking more from these already grieving families and leaving their loved ones uncared for. The outcome of this case is still unknown, but it brings light to the issue surrounding the lenient laws and regulations around funeral home agencies.

______________________________________________________________

[1] At Colorado Funeral Home where 115 decaying bodies found, troubles went ... U.S. News and World Report. (2023, October). https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-10-12/at-colorado-funeral-home-where-115-decaying-bodies-found-troubles-went-unnoticed-by-regulators

[2] Bedayn, J. (2023, October 10). Police found 115 bodies at Colorado “green” funeral home while investigating putrid smells. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/colorado-funeral-home-green-burials-investigation-4c77ec13d8dfb1394e61da8881426deb

[ohioprelawland]

McElrath v. Georgia

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 12, 2023

The Supreme Court holds that the most fundamental ruling in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence is that acquittals are untouchable no matter their reasoning. In other words, no judge can overturn an acquittal. Furthermore, a defendant cannot be retried on a charge that has been acquitted. This essential right has been called into question in McElrath v. Georgia. This case has left many people hungry for answers on the specifics of the double jeopardy rule. [1]

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned an acquittal on the grounds that the verdicts were inconsistent. As a result, the rulings were treated as “valueless” and were vacated. Now, McElrath is being tried again for charges that he was already acquitted of. Support has been given to McElrath as his basic rights are being violated. According to the double jeopardy rule, it is unconstitutional to try someone on the same charges after they have been acquitted. Understanding the facts of the case is crucial in explaining how it got to this point. [1]

In 2017, McElrath was found guilty by a Georgia jury of felony murder. He was also found mentally ill but not guilty of insanity. It is claimed that there was a malice murder after McElrath encountered his mother. The trial courts did not recognize the verdicts as repeat, and they were accepted. However, the Georgia Supreme Court found the verdicts were repugnant and overturned the verdicts. This meant McElrath would have to be retired. McElrath claimed that the retiral was based on double jeopardy, but his motion was denied. On his second appeal, McElrath said that to be tried again, the court needed to reverse his charges rather than vacate them. The ruling on double jeopardy was also challenged because they found him not guilty by a reason of insanity on the count of malice murder. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's previous ruling. [2]

The clause of double jeopardy is based on the Fifth Amendment which outlines multiple constitutional rights. This clause states that no one can be convicted of the same offense twice. Subsequently, no one can be tried for the same offense multiple times. This concept has roots in English common law. In its early forms, issues spang up as to whether two separate offenses can be considered the same offenses. Additionally, defendants used to be able to relinquish their double jeopardy rights. However, in the decision of United States v. Broce, it was ruled that the defendant could not assert a double jeopardy claim because he had waived it in the plea agreement. In the case of McElrath v. Georgia, the double jeopardy claim was not waived, making it unconstitutional. [3]

This clause's protection is important for many reasons. Firstly, it is unfair to try a defendant twice for the same crime. One reason for this is that a person’s life often becomes consumed with legal proceedings. This is financially stressful and takes a toll on a defendant’s mental health. Protecting a defendant from double jeopardy ensures that if they are acquitted, they will not have to go through the same strenuous process again. Secondly, once a label is attached to a defendant, it takes years to build up their reputation again. Being retired delays this possess even more especially after they have been acquitted. Finally, the double jeopardy clause is also beneficial to the government. Trying cases takes ample time and money away from the government. Ensuring that each case is only tried once distributes the court’s resources evenly. [4]

In the case of McElrath v. Georgia, the rule barring judges from reviewing and reversing acquittals directly impacts the jury and defendant. This rule was put in place to protect the integrity of the jurors and to safeguard defendants. The purpose of the jury is to act as a barrier between the accused and the judges. When this barrier is broken, it damages the trial role assigned to the jury in the legal system. [1]

Although this case is ongoing, light has been shed on the avenues the court system has taken to avoid following the double jeopardy clause. With this being a fundamental right, people are frustrated and offer support to McElrath. As this case develops further, there is an eagerness to see the impact this case has when relating to the Fifth Amendment and the double jeopardy clause.

______________________________________________________________

[1] American Civil Liberties Union. (2023, September 19). McElrath v. Georgia. https://www.aclu.org/cases/mcelrath-v-georgia

[2] McElrath v. Georgia. Oyez. (2023). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-721

[3] Ward. (1989). Double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. U.S Department of Justice Office. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/double-jeopardy-clause-fifth-amendment

[4] Samuel Strom, J. D. (2023, August 25). Double jeopardy. Findlaw. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/double-jeopardy.html#:~:text=The%20protection%20against%20double%20jeopardy,save%20governments%20time%20and%20money.

[ohioprelawland]

The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 7, 2023

With technological developments skyrocketing, there has been an influx of privileged information being shared across agencies. With people’s sensitive information readily available for companies to use, the right to privacy comes into play. Although the right to privacy is recognized by the Supreme Court, it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This is why legal proceedings that deal with someone’s “right to privacy” are so difficult. The closest documented description of the right to privacy is in the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches. It is widely accepted that there is no need for a formal explanation of the right to privacy because it can be inferred from other policies. However, such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut serve as examples of why a concrete definition of the right to privacy is crucial. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court found that it was unlawful to prohibit the education of contraceptives by adults. In a society where personal information can be reached with the click of a button, the lack of specific parameters around the right to privacy has conjured up conflicts. [1]

Over the last fifteen years, the popularity of the iPhone has changed how the world views data privacy. Companies are given direct access to people’s addresses and credit card information. Since there is an absence of a federal privacy law, selling such information has become normalized. These companies that sell confidential information are often unregulated and go unnoticed by consumers. This makes it nearly impossible for users to understand where their data is going. In addition, there are no standard practices for these companies which makes it even harder for users to figure out what is and is not legal information for the companies to have access to. The agreements that are implemented to sell user information are buried deep in the permission agreements they consent to before using apps. To understand how this violates privacy, it is first important to know where this data ends up going. [2]

When a developer creates an app, they make a network that can access information spanning from user location to app usage. A user is often roped into agreeing to such practices by consenting to the privacy policy provided by the app. If someone takes the time to read every detail of the privacy policy and terms of service, they will see the use of their personal information outlined. However, these policies don’t explain how or when this data gathering occurs. Furthermore, there is no outline of what information is being sold to third-party companies. The apps also sell information to companies who then provide target ads to individual users based on their data. These target ads are used to drive sales and to make users feel important. [2]

A proposed situation given by Whitney Merrill, a privacy attorney, details how dangerous the collection of this data can be. This situation involves an app developer monetizing their app by creating multiple advertising schemes to reach as many networks as possible. The app developer has not explored the privacy policies of these other networks because there are thousands to dig through. Therefore, they can take all the data they receive from this app, pack it up, and sell it. Then, this creates a vicious cycle of companies combining user information with other data. Your package of data keeps streaming through these networks until it creates an accurate representation of your behavior. This behavior profile can be bought and sold again, and they can even be purchased by government agencies. [2]

In further detail, there is more danger when relating to who can view user data. Not only are these large companies granted access to user data, but anyone who encounters it can be granted access as well. When data is being sold it often goes through many online channels before it reaches its destination. This is why figuring out everyone who comes in contact with user data in online crimes is so difficult. Anyone who works at the company creates the app, and even employees of that company can see private user data. This united access to user data can be attributed to how the data is stored. The only way to secure data is to create a system of end-to-end encryption. This system creates a unique “key” for users and their data in which the user is the only person who holds the encryption key to their own data. This “key” creates a jumbled set of words that only the user has access to creating a cohesive “key” that unlocks their data. The problem is that very few online agencies encrypt data this way. This allows for data to be shared infinitely among companies who pay for it. [2]

While this issue is pressing, there is still no concrete solution. With user data in jeopardy, there is a call for a new foundation in creating a right to privacy in this digital age. The uncertainty of this matter has left users vulnerable as their personal information remains up for grabs. However, the necessity for technology today allows companies to create user data powerhouses that produce millions of dollars each year.

______________________________________________________________

[1] American Library Association. (2009, July 20). Constitutional Origin of the Right to Privacy. https://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/contactwo/oitp/emailtutorials/privacya/05.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious%20protection%20of,and%20seizures%22%20by%20the%20government. 

[2] Klosowski, T. (2022, September 29). How mobile phones became a privacy battleground-and how to protect yourself. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/protect-your-privacy-in-mobile-phones/

[ohioprelawland]

The Supreme Court Under Fire

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 2, 2023

The Supreme Court is facing conflict as the start of its new term is underway. During the summer of 2023, accusations arose about unethical practices among the Supreme Court. At the center of this controversy is Justice Clarance Thomas who is accused of taking luxury gifts without disclosing them per federal law regulations. Earlier this year, it came out that Thomas had been taking bribes from a man named Harlan Crow for over twenty years. Crow has a private family business in real estate. Although Thomas is the focus of this dispute, there has been conflict developing in different areas of the Supreme Court as well. If a Justice has been taking bribes for over twenty years without the public knowing, what else has been happening behind closed doors? [1]

Justice Samuel Alito took a trip with Paul Singer who happens to be a billionaire who has had business seen by the courts. Alito denied having any knowledge of this involvement prior to the trip. He claimed he simply filled a seat in Singer’s private jet that was empty. In another ethical dispute, Alito was at the center of attention after an activist claimed to know the outcome of a case in 2014 after a donor of his had dinner with the Justice. This resulted in a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee. [2]

In other unethical practices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor informed her staff to stimulate the public where she was delivering speeches. Her staff influenced them to buy copies of the book that she wrote. This situation raised the ethical issue of public officials using manipulation tactics to drive sales. Not to mention that the increase in sales leads people to believe that Sotomayor has a false sense of support. [2]

In 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch sold real estate to a law firm that has had cases heard before the Supreme Court. This exchange took place just days after Gorsuch was sworn in as Justice. This is a notable offense given that having special or personal relations with companies who have cases heard before the court is an immense conflict of interest. Many voters have noted they believe that examples such as this one creates a Supreme Court that lacks the ability to be unbiased. [2]

Chief Justice John Roberts came under scrutiny since reports came out about his wife making ten million dollars on commission at her job. She works for a recruiting agency that pairs attorneys with law firms. The concern arose once many of these pairings had cases seen by the Supreme Court. Once again this is an example of public officials creating an environment where it is impossible to be unbiased when hearing cases. [2]

These practices have left the ethical integrity of the Supreme Court up for question in an emerging term. Senate Judiciary Committee is gearing up to vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023. If this bill is passed it will implicate a new code of ethics for the Supreme Court giving special attention to Justices. It will be mandated that information on gifts and trips be reported. Furthermore, such information will eliminate Justices from hearing cases that involve the people or companies that have given them gifts or paid for travel expenses. Also, this new bill will allow for an easier reporting system when voicing concerns about ethical codes being violated by Supreme Court Justices. [2]

Reports claim that many of these cases are coming to light after years of silence because the lack of ethics in the Supreme Court has come to the forefront in recent years. This scrutiny has not gone unnoticed by voters. A recent POLITICO Morning Consult poll showed that three in four voters are demanding Supreme Court Justices be bound by a strict and revised code of ethics. There are also arguments on issues such as creating an age limit for Justices and having televised arguments. While these disputes are still in their preliminary stages, the Supreme Court is clearly feeling the pressure as an order for a new code of ethics is underway. [3]

______________________________________________________________

[1] CBS Interactive. (2023). Supreme Court begins new term with battles over agency power, Guns and online speech. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-new-term-with-cases-on-agency-power-guns-and-online-speech/

[2] Durkee, A. (2023, September 12). Here are the recent controversies Supreme Court justices have been caught up in-as Senate Committee votes on Ethics bill. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/07/17/here-are-the-recent-controversies-supreme-court-justices-have-been-caught-up-in-as-senate-committee-votes-on-ethics-bill/?sh=5ce761e83954

[3] POLOTICO LLC. (2023). Faith in the Supreme Court is down. voters now say they want changes. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/30/supreme-court-ethics-poll-00119236

[ohioprelawland]

The Roman Empire and The United States Legal System

By Gemma Volpe-Monrean, Youngstown State University Class of 2026

October 1, 2023

The Roman Empire has been the center of a new social media trend, but its influence on law in the United States dates back over 2,000 years. The early Roman people lived a simple life based on a set of laws with a foundation in tradition. This law withstood the test of time and was passed through generations by word of mouth. The content of the earliest Roman laws is still uncertain, but they applied strictly to Roman citizens. Thus, creating a blueprint for modern civil law. [1]

Prior to the development of the Roman Empire, the Romans were split into two social classes, the patricians and plebians. The patricians were beloved, and they were often the leaders of society. The plebians were average citizens who followed the patricians’ rulings. As culture developed, the plebians noticed that the patricians had an advantage in legal proceedings. This caused a great dispute in which the plebians demanded the law be written down to bring some sense of uniformity to their legal practices. As a result, in 449 BCE, the Twelve Tables were written down and became the cornerstone of Roman Law today. The Twelve Tables covered many legal topics such as religious, public, and civil law. After hundreds of years of oral tradition, the initial stages of the Roman Empire created one of the first documented examples of law in the world. In the fourth century BCE, the Twelve Tables were demolished during the Celtic invasions. Their contents were revived by a man named Cicero who was a leader of the late Republic. [1]

As the Roman Empire began to flourish, advanced legal situations developed in which the information contained in the Twelve Tables was unhelpful. Therefore, the Romans developed a new set of laws called the “law of nations.” This is the foundation on which modern natural law is based. Not only did this law apply to Romans, but to all people. It could be universally applied and understood by humanity. It was then that Rome appointed leaders well-versed in law to be jurists. This transitioned the Romans into a period of classical law of which its traits can still be seen in the United States legal system today. [1]

One basis of Roman Law is that subjects must be capable of legal responsibility. Similarly, the United States adopted the idea that a defendant must be competent to stand trial. This practice is based on citizens having free will. Therefore, both legal systems have identified there is a responsibility to uphold the law. If a person chooses to act against the law, the Romans created a footing for defendants to be deemed competent before standing trial, which is a practice that is still used in the United Sates today. [2]

Romans also set the legal precedent for cases dealing with juveniles. They identified a need for guardians in situations dealing with minors. In ancient Rome, tutors were assigned to individuals who required a guardian based on their age. If the individual became independent of their biological parents, the Romans recognized that they needed guidance in legal situations. In the United States, a similar process is followed. If a juvenile is being tried in the United States, they are given special guidance, and their case is often tried differently compared to an adult. Such practices used today were first favored by Roman Law. [2]

The concept of trial by jury which is widely accepted in the United States was first created in ancient Rome. Those who were highly educated in the law became appointed jurists who would oversee legal proceedings. This is much like the jury used in the United States today. A crucial difference between the Roman jury and the modern jury is that they are no longer legal professionals. Anyone who is registered to vote in America can be summoned to the jury at random. [3]

Also, the Romans emphasized rebirth in their legal system. In other words, they practiced law under the assumption that one of its functions was to revive society. This is observed in the United States through the practice of rehabilitation. Like the Romans, the United States provides a means for people convicted in the legal system to explore different possibilities. [4]

This recent revival in the interest of the Roman Empire has brought its influence on the United States legal system to the forefront. In general, the Roman Empire served as the basis for the United States legal system. Of the few examples explored, much of the inspiration for the modern legal system is derived from early Roman practices.

______________________________________________________________

[1] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/romanlaw.pdf

[2] Chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4429&context=ndlr

[3] https://voegelinview.com/the-contribution-of-roman-law-to-modern-legal-systems/

[4] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=ef2a503f-9853-49b4-a953-ada17e9f1780

[ohioprelawland]

The Law Of Class Action And Prisons

By Amandia Hatija, The Ohio State University, Class of 2023

August 21, 2023

The duty of our government is to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their characteristics or placement within the US. However, there are times when this objective mission is not always seen as a top priority when it comes to the protection of certain groups of people within our society, one of these groups being incarcerated individuals. In San Francisco, a class-action lawsuit was filed by inmates within San Francisco jails and alleges that these individuals are not being given access to their constitutional right to sunlight, which has led to numerous health issues and impedes their constitutional rights. To truly understand this suit, and why its existence is related to a lot more than just sunlight, it is essential to take a step back and acknowledge what led up to it and the concrete facts of the case.

Norbert v. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department was filed in May of 2019 by seven county inmates against the city and county of San Francisco, the Sheriff’s office, and the acting Sheriff of 2019, Paul Miyamoto [2]. The class-action lawsuit alleges that the incarcerated individuals are allowed only three to three and a half hours a week out of their cell, if even that, causing a deprivation of sunlight which has led to numerous health issues. It also seeks to represent those in cell confinement, often up to 23.5 hours a day, who are denied any “access to direct sunlight or outdoor recreation” [3]. The standing of this lawsuit is based on violations of the eighth amendment, under cruel and unusual punishment, the fourteenth amendment, within the due process requirements, and two violations of the California Constitution. The suit also brings on two tort claims against the Sheriff’s office and seeks to receive both punitive and compensatory damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief [3]. While this may seem like a lot of information and accusations all in one lump sum, it's essential to understand the requirements for the plaintiffs before they even begin to attempt to write up a lawsuit, especially when you’re already incarcerated.

Being held in a prison has its challenges and ensuring all your rights are protected is a large portion of that. Under the federal PLRA, Prison Litigation Reform Act, it is a federal requirement that inmates must “exhaust all administrative remedies before they’re permitted to file a lawsuit” [6]. Therefore, before an incarcerated individual would like to reach out to a lawyer and start filing a lawsuit, class-action or not, they must file a grievance within the jail, the very system that is being accused of negligence. Moving past that conflict of interest, the inmate(s) must then file a written government claim form to the county before they can file a lawsuit with the state, with very explicit state guidelines on deadlines and specific form requirements. If there has been no deadline passed or does not include medical malpractice, the individual(s) may finally move to file their suit with the state [5]. It is also relevant to note that these steps often require monetary payment, either chosen by the jail or state, which stands as another barrier for these individuals to cross to attempt to fix the alleged violation of their rights. Another interesting aspect to consider is the regulations of who exactly can be sued and for what, under § 1983 in the California Constitution. An individual(s) can be sued if they are acting “under color of state law” and causing a violation of federal right(s) [5]. A city/county cannot be sued simply for employing an individual who has violated your rights but must have a deeper connection to the individual or the issue, such as the violation being caused by an informal, widespread practice, which can be seen through the details of this lawsuit.

When looking at the facts surrounding the San Francisco jail system, several discrepancies helped to make the plaintiffs and their claims in the class-action suit more credible. According to the San Francisco public defender’s Office, the trial backlog is over 1,000 cases behind, and over 100 inmates are being jailed past their constitutional speedy trial date, which is a concern in itself [2]. However, when you take into account the exact constitutional rights of pretrial detainees, the claims of this case get even more credible. Pretrial detainees are considered innocent, as they have yet to be proven guilty, and therefore have the right to generally be free from punishment, under the fourteenth amendment within the due process clause of the US Constitution, which is exactly why the court ruled in 2020 that these specific individuals within the San Francisco jails were to be provided at least one hour a week of exposure to direct sunlight [3].

The court system takes a while to work through its cases but has finally gotten to this 2019 class action as of August 8, 2023, where the alleged claims of the suit will be heard. The filing of this lawsuit stems directly from the health issues and defects caused by the lack of sunlight exposure in San Francisco jails. The inmates are generally allowed out of their cells for up to 30 minutes a day, if even that, to access the phones and the exercise room collectively. One of the inmates named in the suit, Kenyon Norbert, was a pretrial detainee as of 2019 and stated that he spent over 1,700 days without feeling direct sunlight or being outside since 2014 [1]. While some of the jails, such as the San Bruno jail, have certain designs that include slits for outside air, they allegedly “never let in sunlight” [2]. This has caused various health issues and complications such as hypertension, headaches, depression, cardiovascular disease, blood sugar issues, etc. On top of that, the class-action claims that every prisoner within San Francisco jails have vitamin D deficiencies and lots of them have melanin depletion in their skin, which would theoretically include the over 1,100 inmates housed over the two jails daily, and has subjected over 30,000 individuals annually [1]. The defense came back at this claim and stated that the incarcerated individuals have “no independent right to direct sunlight”, but they are distributing vitamin D supplements to any inmate who needs it [2]. Despite this, the lawsuit has gained support from the former San Francisco Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, and even the current head of the Sheriff's union, Ken Lomba [2]. Lomba has shown continuous support for the lawsuit as the plaintiffs argue that the city jails do not meet the state building code requirements and has stated, “This is the law, contained in California’s building code, which is based on health and safety. As sheriff’s deputies, everyone, including the sheriff and the City of San Francisco, is required to obey the law, especially the building code at our facilities” [2]. Despite all this, in 2020 the court dismissed all claims based on the eighth amendment, deeming them too redundant to the ones related to the fourteenth amendment, and struck the plaintiff’s request for both punitive and compensatory damages. It also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove specific harm from being denied access to outdoor exercise, but did require the jails to allow the post-trial inmates at least an hour a day of indoor exercise, five days a week [3].

As the class action is being argued in court and the claims on the inmates are presented to a grand jury, the question remains, is access to direct sunlight truly a constitutional right given to US citizens or merely a bonus to abiding by the law? While the use of the eighth amendment to back the plaintiffs claims have been struck down by the court, the fourteenth amendment violation claims still stand. Over 30,000 individuals possibly affected by this issue over the span of one year are the motivation for the plaintiffs as they go onto their fifth year of fighting for this lawsuit and their constitutional rights. Only time will tell if their alleged claims are direct violations of their rights and how far the constitution protects different rights for citizens. Regardless, it points to a bigger picture of how we distribute and protect the rights of US citizens based on their identifying characteristics.

______________________________________________________________

[1] “Inmates Suing SF Sheriff’s Office for Allegedly Denying Access to Sunlight in County Jails.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 9 Aug. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/inmates-suing-sf-sheriffs-office-for-allegedly-denying-access-to-sunlight-in-county-jails/.

[2] Balakrishnan, Eleni. “SF Inmates Sue in Federal Court for Access to Sunlight in Jail.” Mission Local, 11 Aug. 2023, missionlocal.org/2023/08/sf-inmates-sue-for-access-sunlight-jail/.

[3]  “Case: Norbert v. San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.” Norbert v. San Francisco Sheriff’s Department 3:19-Cv-02724 (N.D. Cal.) | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, clearinghouse.net/case/17388/. Accessed 19 Aug. 2023.

[4] Fourteenth Amendment | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov ..., constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/. Accessed 19 Aug. 2023.

[5] “LAWSUITS FOR MONEY DAMAGES AGAINST CALIFORNIA JAIL OFFICIALS.” Prison Law Office , Jan. 2022, prisonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Suing-Local-January-2020.pdf.

[6] Enjuris Attorney Editor. “Can an Inmate Sue a Jail or Prison for Negligence?” Enjuris, 13 Sept. 2022, www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/civil-suit-while-incarcerated/#:~:text=The%20Prison%20Litigation%20Reform%20Act%20(PLRA)%20is%20a%20federal%20law,the%20prison’s%20existing%20grievance%20procedures.

[ohioprelawland]

Wisconsin Woman Charged with Sexual Assault, Homicide, and Mutilation of a Corpse

By Jenna Kokish, The Ohio State University Class of 2024

July 23, 2023

Taylor Schabusiness, a 25-year-old woman from Wisconsin had been accused for the killing of 24-year-old Shad Thyrion. In February of 2022, Schabusiness and Thyrion were known as boyfriend and girlfriend, and had been hanging out and using meth together. The last time they were together, it had taken a twisted turn. Schabusiness had strangled, sexually assaulted, and mutilated the corpse of Thyrion. Thyrion’s mother allegedly was awoken and went to investigate the house which her and her son, Shad, shared together. During her investigation, the mother had discovered his decapitated head and male organs in a bucket in the basement of the house and had immediately called 911. Although Schabusiness had admitted to using meth, at the time of her arrest, officers report that Schabusiness was not currently under the influence of meth and was coherent and asked and answered questions. Schabusiness had also expressed to investigators, “have fun finding all of his body parts.” Throughout the investigation, it had been discovered that Schabusiness had dismembered Thyrion’s body and spread his body parts throughout the house and a vehicle. Schabusiness was open and explained what she had done in the murder that occurred in February of 2022. What started as choking foreplay turned into strangling Thyrion to death and she had even expressed that she, “enjoyed it,” and “wanted to see what could happen.”

She admitted to cuddling with his headless corpse, and how she had sexual contact with the corpse following his beheading and death. She had used a dog collar during the strangulation and kitchen knives to dismember his body. When investigators had searched the home, they had found his body parts spread throughout the basement, which included his torso, which was harvested of all its organs, and his foot was found in his chest cavity. Schabusiness had been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse, and third-degree sexual assault. Schabusiness had then submitted a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, but in March, Judge Thomas Walsh ruled that she was competent to stand trial. In February, Schabusiness had attacked her former attorney, which he immediately filed a motion to be removed from her legal counsel and was granted to leave. As Schabusiness stood trial for the murder, mutilation, and sexual assault of Thyrion, it has been evident that Schabusiness had no sympathy, nor remorse for her involvement for Thyrion’s death. Multiple times, Schabusiness had been seen in court smirking, laughing, and pointing finger guns. The trial only lasting about 3 days, with the jury’s deliberation only lasting a little over 30 minutes, Schabusiness has been found guilty of all charges against her, but the trial is not over. The second part of this trial will determine whether Schabusiness is sent to a high-security mental facility or prison.

______________________________________________________________

https://nypost.com/2023/07/26/taylor-schabusiness-describes-allegedly-dismembering-abusing-lovers-bod%20https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-woman-convicted-bizarre-murder-sexual-abuse-dismemberment-former-boyfrien

[ohioprelawland]

Activision Sues TikTok Personality Over a TikTok Audio

By Zeyu Su, The Ohio State Class of 2025

July 26, 2023

On Monday in the California federal court, video game giant Activision sued a prominent TikTok personality named Anthony Fantano for unfairly demanding payments from the company due to Activision recently used his viral voice-clip in one of the Activision’s promotional videos for their new game Crash Bandicoot. Activision claimed that Anthony Fantano allegedly demanded a payment of at least $100,000 from the company using what he claimed to be his own voice-clip.

When Activision received legal threats from Anthony Fantano that demanded money from them, they were all shocked and surprised. The viral voice-clip originated from a TikTok clip of Anthony Fantano getting steadily angry and frustrated when reacting to a video of someone cutting the pizza up into tiny slices. At the end of his reaction, Anthony Fantano yells “it’s enough slices!”, and the voice clip blew up on the platform with many TikTok users begging Anthony to make it into a sound where they can use it for their own videos. As of right now, more than 50,000 videos on TikTok have been made using the viral sound clip, and Activision happened to be the creator of one of those videos.

From the Activision side, the company accused Anthony Fantano of misusing the intellectual property laws by only selectively suing TikTok users that used his sound in their videos. Activision also believe that Anthony Fantano also has no rights to sue other TikTok users that use his sound, because Anthony made the sound available to the public by putting it in the TikTok audio library, which means anyone is free to use the sound whenever they want and however they want, so he can no longer sue anyone for using it since he does not technically own the sound and he made it a free to use sound. According to TikTok’s terms of service, by adding content to the TikTok audio library, creators “waive any rights over their content being used for marketing,” so anyone can use the sounds in the audio library for free without consequences.

The lawyer of Activision called this case a prime example of “how intellectual property law can be misused by individuals to leverage unfair cash payments” (Donahue, 2023). The lawyer also claimed that Anthony Fantano was open and happily willing to let the public use his audio clip, but once he realized that he could financially take advantage from this and make profits for himself, that was when he decided that the public no longer has his consent to use the sound freely in their own videos. Both Activision and their lawyer firmly believe that Anthony Fantano deliberately and knowingly added the audio clip into the TikTok audio library, which allows millions of users to use the sound so he can make profits from it. However, apparently, Anthony Fantano even added the sound into the Commercial Sounds library, which means that he allowed brands and companies to use his sound for promotional videos. As of right now, Activision already took down the original video with Anthony Fantano’s sound on TikTok.

______________________________________________________________

Brittain, B. (2023, July 25). Activision sues music critic to fend off TikTok audio copying claims. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/activision-sues-music-critic-fend-off-tiktok-audio-copying-claims-2023-07-25/

Dodgson, L. (2023b, July 25). Activision is suing a TikToker, saying he demanded $100K+ for using a viral clip of his voice he gave away the rights to. Insider. https://www.insider.com/tiktoker-sued-demanding-money-sound-he-gave-away-rights-to-2023-7

Donahue, B. (2023, July 25). Billboard. Billboard. https://www.billboard.com/business/legal/activision-suing-tiktok-music-critic-enough-slices-meme-1235377879/

[ohioprelawland]

Filling the Gap In Immigration Law As The Global Climate Crisis Pursues And Displacement Rises

By Amandia Hatija, The Ohio State University, Class of 2023

July 26, 2023

As the world deals with the costs that have come along with the rise of the global climate crisis, a new sphere of challenges has opened up along with it. A stark increase in migrants seeking refuge due to the effects of climate change and increase in environmental disasters can be seen globally, with no sturdy legal precedents for their existence. Immigration law is ever changing and is applied differently in various areas of the world, but one thing is true regardless of location; a gap exists in the size of climate-induced migrants and will continue to grow until it is fully addressed. This article will go into the effects of that gap and the increasing need for further protection of these refugees as our global climate crisis escalates.

Climate-induced migration refers to the displacement of peoples due to climate or geophysical disasters, such as a drought, flood, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc. More often than not, the communities that are most impacted from these disasters have the least amount of resources accessible to them. The further destruction of their homes and/or land forces them to migrate to other areas, with an estimated 20 million people displaced each year, according to the UN Refugee Agency [1]. While it is impossible to track down the one exact reason why a person has decided to migrate, estimates of migration due to climate change are based on possible triggers from climatic disasters and the various factors pushing the individuals into migration.

Climate refugees are unique in their reason for migration as well as their legal protection in the process. Despite the fact that climatic disasters produce three times the amount of displacement than conflict, there is limited legal standing for their migration/refugee status, unlike the refugees fleeing from conflict [1]. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates that 283.4 millions people globally have been displaced due to climate disasters, all between 2008 to 2020 [2]. However, despite the high volume of climate-induced migration to date, no refugee has been granted asylum based on their claims of displacement due to climate change, even in the most extreme of cases [3]. The 1951 Refugee Convention defined the boundaries of a refugee label along with states’ legal obligation to protect them, but failed to recognize climate change as a valid displacement for individuals claiming refuge. Not only do these individuals have to face harsh living conditions with often no outside resources or help, and most likely have mustered all of their savings to allow them to migrate, they remain unprotected and discarded as refugees. They aren’t even allowed access to the barely tolerable refugee camps, and are not protected against any legal retaliation for their migration [4]. The world has changed severely since 1951, and requires more expansive definitions and protections of refugees, one’s that should include climate-induced migrants.

While climate migrants do have rights, they’re basic human rights which exist under the international human rights law, and do not pertain to their status as a refugee or any further protections [6]. The GCM, Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, recognizes climate change as a persistent factor in migration and even provides a framework for how governments could handle climate-induced migration, but it doesn’t express any legal duties or protections for the migrants themselves [7]. While we could sit and point fingers at which country’s have had the most contributions to the pollution accelerating the global climate crisis, that doesn’t change anything for the individuals currently being affected by it. No country currently has any legal obligation to adhere to migrants seeking refuge on the basis of climate change/disasters, as that would include some form of accepting responsibility to the global rise in climate change. Accepting any form of responsibility would force a country to establish a link between climatic disasters and displacement of people seeking refuge, and would most likely lead to that country putting forth more resources than they’d like on the issue. Cross-border migration has been an issue for most prominent countries in how they decide to go about it, and climate-induced migration doesn’t make it any easier. Numerous factors must be considered before granting asylum to these migrants, from food security to housing, education, and healthcare- issues that exist for current citizens let alone this new wave of migrants.

The biggest argument surrounding climate-induced migration is whether they should be considered refugees, and what kind of, if any, protections should these individuals have regardless of their title. Deeming climate-induced migrants as a special category of refugee would set up a plethora of vulnerabilities, such as the exclusion of internal migration within the legal framework of climate-induced migrants.  The Urban Institute has estimated that around 1.6 million Americans were displaced by a climatic disaster in just 2021, according to their research on climate migration [5]. The displacement led these individuals to other areas of the state or to other states overall, forcing them to uproot their lives with often little resources to create a new home for themselves. Therefore, these individuals would be excluded from the legal framework of climate migration, which would be against what this work is being done for. On the other hand, while it may be more difficult to pinpoint a migration merely due to a climatic disaster, it wouldn’t be even near impossible, and can be done within the correct framework. Individuals fleeing climatic disaster aren’t leaving their current lives because they randomly felt like it one day, but have been forced out of their homes and are trying to find relief in a new community. Even refugees seeking asylum from violent conflict have been persecuted in their journey and threaten their livelihood just to attempt sanctuary. For climate refugees, this journey is even more treacherous and filled with unknowns of how their future might look, as they aren’t guaranteed safety along any step of the way.

In order to move forward with a new legal framework for this booming form of migration, a baseline of human rights must be set and abided by, and then specified for each region accordingly. Some countries, such as the US, may see climate-induced migration within their country as well as those crossing borders to seek asylum in the states. The framework within the US must be built to adhere to both groups, while not excluding either one of them and recognizing them both as part of a similar group and creating a space for them in the legal system. This trend of climate migration is only going up, and must be addressed before it becomes a complete disaster with no clear path forward. For now, it is essential to focus on where exactly the gaps lie within the legal framework and close it, and then work on more long term solutions to attempt to slow down our global climate change crisis and therefore the rate of climate-induced migration.

Climate-induced migration poses an urgent but complex obstacle for immigration law, especially as we start to see more severe effects of the global climate crisis. While the crisis grows, as does the need for a legal framework for these migrants and a creation of their status within global immigration laws and statutes. These individuals are amongst some of the most vulnerable, but have no protections as they are not legally recognized by any official governing body. By encouraging global cooperation, there is a chance for recognition for these individuals and the inclusion of legal duties and protections for them, which would bring us one step closer to fighting against the global impacts of the climate crisis.

______________________________________________________________

[1] “Climate Change and Migration.” Giving Compass, 20 Mar. 2023, givingcompass.org/climate-change-migration?gclid=Cj0KCQjwn_OlBhDhARIsAG2y6zPMUdemH4_ufbG9CfHVQAfnzt2ipXYRxT4ps0nYlR8DL_TcYBZFvMcaAhj0EALw_wcB.

[2] Ghosh, R.C., Orchiston, C. A systematic review of climate migration research: gaps in existing literature. SN Soc Sci 2, 47 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00341-8

[3] “Preparing for a World of Climate Migrants.” Giving Compass, 29 Mar. 2021, givingcompass.org/article/preparing-for-a-world-of-climate-migrants.

[4] Sahra, Afrikaan (2022) "Climate Refugees Are Refugees and Deserve UN Recognition.," SUURJ: Seattle University Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol. 6. https://scholarworks.seattleu.edu/suurj/vol6/iss1/8

[5]Rodriguez-Delgado, Cresencio. “California’s ‘climate Migrants’ and the Difficulty of Finding a New Home.” PBS, 24 Aug. 2022, www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/as-fires-rip-through-california-and-the-west-some-find-it-hard-to-stay-in-their-communities.

[6]“Climate Change Is Fueling Migration. Do Climate Migrants Have Legal Protections?” Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/in-brief/climate-change-fueling-migration-do-climate-migrants-have-legal-protections.

[7]“Climate Change Is Fueling Migration. Do Climate Migrants Have Legal Protections?” Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/in-brief/climate-change-fueling-migration-do-climate-migrants-have-legal-protections. Accessed 25 July 2023.