Confronting Forensic Pathologists

Background: The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause gives defendants a right to confront their accusers. Method: U.S. Supreme Court cases that interpreted this right as applied to forensic scientists were reviewed. Results: Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, and Williams examined constitutional rights to confront forensic scientists. Lower courts have specifically examined their application to forensic pathology. Whether autopsy reports are considered “testimonial” varies among jurisdictions and has not been definitively settled. Defendants are generally able to compel testimony of forensic pathologists. Where the forensic pathologist is truly unavailable, the surrogate expert should be in a position to render an independent opinion.

The independence of the administrative judiciary in accordance with the Iraqi State Council Law No. 71 of 2017

This study deals with the concept of the independence of the administrative judiciary under the Sixth Amendment Act of the State Council numbered 71 of 2017 and means independence is the independence of the judiciary from the legislative and executive branches because it represents a fundamental and effective pillar in ensuring respect for the rights and freedoms of individuals and achieving the principle of legitimacy by having administrative, financial and functional organization that guarantees its members Legal and procedural guarantees the researcher has adopted the inductive analytical approach of the legal texts in this research through two researches dealing in the first research the organic independence of the administrative judiciary and in the second research functional independence and then presented in the conclusion of the study the most important conclusions and proposals which hope to contribute to the strengthening of the independence of the administrative judiciary in Iraq 0 Keywords: Independence, Judiciary, Administrative, State Council

Epilogue

This chapter provides a brief overview of post-1970s developments in indigent defense. The crisis of overwhelming caseloads and inadequate funding for public defenders has continued to the present day. As a result, many advocates argue that the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has never been fully realized in criminal courts around the United States. New models of advocacy, like the holistic defense approach, seek to make public defenders more representative of, and responsive to, the communities they serve, and public defenders increasingly connect their work with racial justice, particularly with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Motives and Fiduciary Loyalty

How, if at all, do motives matter to loyalty? We have argued that loyalty (and the duty of loyalty in fiduciary law) has a cognitive dimension. This kind of “cognitivist” account invites the counterargument that, because most commercial fiduciary relationships involve financial considerations, purity of motive cannot be central to loyalty in the fiduciary context. We contend that this counterargument depends on a flawed understanding of the significance of motive to loyalty. We defend a view of the importance of motivation to loyalty that we call the compatibility account. On this view, A acts loyally toward B only if A’s motives are compatible with A’s robustly assigning non-derivative significance to the interests of B. We show that the compatibility account describes the motivational structure of fiduciary loyalty and of loyalty as such. This account provides a realistic picture of motivation and helps respond to two broader criticisms of cognitivism: first, that attributing significance to motivation is paradoxical; second, that attributing significance to motive would make fiduciary law impossible to administer. We also show that the compatibility account can help explain features of ineffective assistance of counsel jurisprudence under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which draws on the lawyer’s duty of loyalty toward the client.

The median voter theorem and the repeal of the prohibition on abortion in Ireland: an analysis of the passage of the Thirty-Sixth Amendment

In 2018, the Irish people voted in favour of the passage of the Thirty-Sixth Amendment. This vote abolished the Eighth Amendment, which had previously outlawed abortion by establishing the equal rights of the woman and the unborn child. To uncover potential driving forces behind the vote share in support of the Thirty-Sixth Amendment, this article uses regional data on religious identification, age and a measure of traditional identity. The results of this article show that variation by region in religious identification was significantly correlated with voting behaviour in the 2018 referendum. Furthermore, evidence for the validity of the median voter theorem is developed by analysing data on the reported support of Irish elected representatives for the legislation before the vote. The results of this analysis on the referendum vote suggest a societal shift has taken place in the preferences of Irish citizens, which is complimented by the views of their elected representatives.