Starting Now! Symposium Keynote from Anthony Ray Hinton

Join us for the Keynote Address for out Locked Up & Locked Out Symposium: Anthony Ray Hinton! Reminder that this is a SEPARATE Zoom link from the rest of the Symposium events.

Anthony Ray Hinton survived for 30 years on Alabama’s death row. His story is a decades-long journey to exoneration and freedom. In 1985, Mr. Hinton was convicted of the unsolved murders of two fast-food restaurant managers based on the testimony of ballistics experts for the State who claimed that the crime bullets came from a dusty revolver found in Mr. Hinton’s mother’s closet. Without the benefit of a competent expert to challenge the State’s theory (Mr. Hinton’s lawyer hired a ballistics expert who was blind in one eye), an all-white jury convicted Mr. Hinton and he was sentenced to death. After years of petitioning to have the revolver re-analyzed, three independent experts concluded that the bullets could not have been fired from his mother’s revolver. With the assistance of the Equal Justice Initiative, led by attorney Bryan Stevenson, Mr. Hinton was freed in 2015. Since his release, Mr. Hinton has traveled the world sharing his story and discussing the changes that need to be made to prevent similar injustices from happening to other people. In 2018, Mr. Hinton published The Sun Does Shine: How I Found Life and Freedom on Death Row, which was selected for Oprah’s Book Club and is a New York Times bestseller. In 2019, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from St. Bonaventure University.

Starting Now! Symposium Panel 4: Juvenile Justice Diversion Programs

Click here to join us for a discussion with panelists Ayodele “Dele” Famodu, from the Youth Justice and Wellness Division of the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, Sarah Davis, Executive Director of the Legal Rights Center, and Megan Jablonski Johnson, from the Juvenile Prosecution Division of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office

Continue reading “Starting Now! Symposium Panel 4: Juvenile Justice Diversion Programs”

Starting Now! Symposium Panel 3: Restorative Justice in Practice

Click here to join us for a conversation with panelists Roslyn Harmon, Executive Director of the Dispute Resolution Center, Linsey McMurrin, Prevention Specialist from Peacemaker Resources, and Howard Vogel, Professor Emeritus of Mitchell Hamline.

Continue reading “Starting Now! Symposium Panel 3: Restorative Justice in Practice”

The Lawyer’s Role in Improving “Humane” Meat Labeling

American consumers are becoming increasingly aware farmed animals suffer greatly during farming processes that aim to provide meat at the lowest possible price. It has become standard practice on industrial farms for animals to be crowded into spaces so small they cannot move freely; deprived of sunlight and outdoor access; denied basic social interaction; artificially inseminated or restrained for forced insemination; painfully dehorned, debeaked, detailed, and castrated; and forced to endure unsanitary conditions, promoting diseases that lead to antibiotic resistance from frequent treatment.

Continue reading “The Lawyer’s Role in Improving “Humane” Meat Labeling”

Voting Rights for People with Diminished Mental Capacity

Implementing a capacity metric for those with diminished mental capacity comes with inherent risks. Ideally, states should amend their constitutions and statutes to remove voting restrictions based on mental incapacity. Realistically, for states that wish to continue implementing voting restrictions based on mental incapacity, they should implement the ABA’s recommendation absent the third criterion. This method would serve to create uniform standards implemented by the judiciary and deter informal gatekeeping. Mobilization and advocacy through education and non-legislative initiatives should occur to promote enfranchisement and encourage those with diminished mental capacity to vote, thereby cementing their inclusion in society and dismantling the continuation of stigma.

Continue reading “Voting Rights for People with Diminished Mental Capacity”

Should the Call for Systemic Change Start with Police Grievance Arbitration?

Police discipline grievance arbitrations are not going away because they are statutorily required. A key issue with the police discipline grievance arbitration is the number of police officers reinstated after termination. The reinstatement of a police officer after termination makes a chief of police’s job more difficult because they cannot manage the culture of their department. However, because of the statutory nature of these grievance procedures, the changes need to come from the legislature or adjusting the language in the governing collective bargaining agreements. Minnesota’s PAA’s reform of police discipline grievance arbitrations was an attempt address this issue.

Continue reading “Should the Call for Systemic Change Start with Police Grievance Arbitration?”

Hyperpartisanship, Impeachment, and the Unchecked Executive Branch

While no president has been impeached and convicted in our country’s history, impeachment has been used in the past to temper presidential power. As our country has become more polarized, the usefulness of impeachment as both a deterrent and as a check on executive authority has been put into question. This is, in large part, due to the failure of Congress to unite around impeachment. Because Congress is our most democratic institution, issues within Congress generally speak more broadly to issues within our country. Currently, our country is too polarized to reach a political consensus, even after an armed insurrection. Moreover, impeachment has been weakened by its continued exploitation by both parties in Congress. Without an effective impeachment tool, Congress will have to rethink its checks on the executive branch.

Continue reading “Hyperpartisanship, Impeachment, and the Unchecked Executive Branch”

The Enforceability of Step-Down Provisions in Automobile Insurance Policies

Courts across the country struggle with the enforceability of step-down provisions. Many courts reject step-down provisions as unfair, against public policy, or as ambiguous terms that upon examination do not warrant enforcement. Other court decisions focus on the freedom to contract, and many approve the provisions based on specific language of state insurance statutes.

This Article presents a brief history of these provisions, then surveys various judicial decisions attempting to put the different rulings in context with one another. Concluding, the authors suggest decisions like the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Sharmin’s case are correct because sound public policy and the reasonable expectations of an insured are not served by allowing the provisions to limit coverage.

Continue reading “The Enforceability of Step-Down Provisions in Automobile Insurance Policies”