DOCSLIB.ORG

Privacy As Privilege: the Stored Communications Act and Internet Evidence Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Privacy As Privilege: the Stored Communications Act and Internet Evidence Contents PRIVACY AS PRIVILEGE: THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND INTERNET EVIDENCE Rebecca Wexler CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2723 I. THE INTERNET AND THE TELEGRAPH ....................................................................... 2730 A. The Puzzle ........................................................................................................................ 2731 B. The Stored Communications Act .................................................................................. 2735 C. Telegraph Privacy Statutes ............................................................................................. 2741 II. PRIVACY AS PRIVILEGE .................................................................................................... 2745 A. Statutory Privileges ........................................................................................................ 2745 1. Defining Statutory Privileges ................................................................................... 2745 2. Common Features of Privileges ............................................................................... 2748 3. Confidentiality Without Privilege ........................................................................... 2750 4. The Current Stored Communications Act Privilege ............................................. 2753 B. The Rules that Govern Statutory Privilege Construction .......................................... 2757 1. The Strict Construction Rule ................................................................................... 2757 2. Express Statutory Privileges .................................................................................... 2762 3. Implied Statutory Privileges .................................................................................... 2767 4. Misconstruing the Stored Communications Act .................................................... 2773 III. THE POLICY OF AN INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE ......................... 2778 A. Correcting the Current Case Law ................................................................................. 2779 1. Privacy Interests ........................................................................................................ 2779 2. Service Provider Interests ........................................................................................ 2782 B. Considering a Novel “Medium” Privilege for the Internet ....................................... 2785 1. Privacy and Privilege Law’s Shared Theoretical Concerns ................................. 2786 2. Applying Privilege Analysis to the Internet ........................................................... 2788 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 2792 2721 PRIVACY AS PRIVILEGE: THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND INTERNET EVIDENCE Rebecca Wexler∗ This Article exposes a profound and growing injustice that major technology companies have propagated through every level of the judiciary under the guise of protecting data privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly proclaimed: “In our judicial system, the public has a right to every [person’s] evidence.” Yet, for over a decade, Facebook, GitHub, Google, Instagram, Microsoft, and Twitter have leveraged the Stored Communications Act (SCA) — a key data privacy law for the internet — to bar criminal defendants from subpoenaing the contents of another’s online communications, even when those communications could exonerate the wrongfully accused. Every appellate court to rule on this issue to date has agreed with the companies. This Article argues that all of these decisions are wrong as a matter of binding Supreme Court doctrine and just policy. The Article makes two novel doctrinal claims and then evaluates the policy consequences of those claims. First, when courts read the SCA to block criminal defense subpoenas, they construe the statute as creating an evidentiary privilege. Second, this construction violates a binding rule of privilege law: courts must not construe ambiguous silence in statutory text as impliedly creating a privilege because privileges are “in derogation of the search for truth.” This Article is the first to read the SCA through the lens of evidentiary privilege law. Overturning the conventional wisdom and correcting the erroneous case law on this issue will enhance truth-seeking and fairness in the criminal justice system with minimal cost to privacy. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley School of Law. This Article received the 2020 Privacy Law Scholars Conference Reidenberg-Kerr Award for “overall excellence of a paper submitted by a pre-tenure scholar.” This Article benefited from workshops at Berkeley School of Law, Fordham University School of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, UCLA School of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law, University of Chicago Law School, Stanford Law School, Yale Law School, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, the Privacy Law Scholars Conference, the Privacy Law Forum, the Internet Law Works-in-Progress Conference, and the Evidence Summer Workshop. For detailed comments on prior drafts, the author thanks Dan Burk, Simon Cole, Vikas Didwania, Mark Gergen, Aziz Huq, Edward Imwinkelried, Orin Kerr, Paul Ohm, Andrea Peterson, Andrea Roth, Pam Samuelson, Paul Schwartz, and Ari Waldman. The author thanks Ron Allen, Jack Balkin, Ken Bamberger, Bicka Barlow, Franziska Boehm, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Ryan Calo, Linc Caplan, Erwin Chemerinsky, Bryan Choi, Danielle Citron, Julie Cohen, Catherine Crump, Ellen Deason, Jim Dempsey, Deven Desai, Niva Elkin-Koren, Hanni Fakhoury, Peter Galison, Brandon Garrett, Jonah Gelbach, Albert Gidari, Jonathan Gould, Megan Graham, Jerome Greco, Woodrow Hartzog, Chris Hoofnagle, Kirsty Hughes, Pam Karlan, Don Landis, Mark Lemley, Karen Levy, William McGeveran, Priscilla Regan, David Sklansky, Tyler Slay, Chris Soghoian, Jeff Stein, Steven Sugarman, Olivier Sylvain, Kate Tesch, Maggie Wittlin, and Diego Zambrano. This Article benefited immensely from reference support from Doug Avila, Marci Hoffman, Dean Rowan, and I-Wei Wang, and from research assistance from Kristina Chamorro, Robert Fairbanks, Chelsea Hanlock, Joon Hwang, Joseph Kroon, David Murdter, Shreya Santhanam, Cheyenne Smith, Nivedita Soni, Tyler Takemoto, and Daniela Wertheimer. The editors of the Harvard Law Review provided invaluable editorial assistance. 2722 2021] PRIVACY AS PRIVILEGE 2723 INTRODUCTION A homicide defendant in California was blocked from arguing self- defense because he was denied access to the records of harassing online messages and death threats that had kept him “in constant fear for his life.”1 A murder defendant in the District of Columbia was denied ac- cess to impeachment material from a key prosecution witness’s social media accounts, despite the trial judge’s finding that the evidence was relevant, material, and necessary to vindicate his “fundamental consti- tutional rights.”2 A death row inmate in Texas was denied access to the source code for a forensic software program used to analyze the evidence against him, despite a judge’s finding that the code was “material and necessary for the administration of justice.”3 An Iraqi refugee, accused of terrorism and facing extradition, torture, and “almost certain death,”4 was denied access to Facebook and Twitter posts that might have helped exonerate him.5 The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared: “In our judicial system, the public has a right to every [person’s] evidence.”6 Yet, in each of these cases, and many more like them,7 technology companies, including ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Opposition to Non-party Instagram Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum at 5, People v. [Redacted], No. [Redacted] (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2018) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) [hereinafter Opp’n to Instagram Motion]; see also id. at 1 & n.1, 4–6, 8; id. at 14 Exhibit A (subpoena duces tecum to Facebook, Inc. (Instagram)). 2 Brief for the United States at 3, Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625 (D.C. 2019) (No. 18-SS- 958) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) (describing the trial court’s order denying Facebook’s motion to quash); see also Wint, 199 A.3d. at 628; Brief for the United States, supra, at 4. 3 Order and Certificate, Ex parte Colone, No. 10-10213 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Jan. 3, 2020) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); see Protective Order, Ex parte Colone, No. 10-10213 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Nov. 21, 2019) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Order Denying Petitioner Joseph Colone’s Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Production of Records Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1334.2, In re Colone, No. 20-517083 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 28, 2020) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) [hereinafter Order Denying Colone’s Motion]. 4 Ben Taub, The Fight to Save an Innocent Refugee from Almost Certain Death, NEW YORKER (Jan. 20, 2020), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/27/the-fight-to-save-an-innocent- refugee-from-almost-certain-death [https://perma.cc/53Y7-WVHN]. 5 Audrey McNamara, Facebook, Twitter Withheld Data that Could Prove Refugee’s Innocence in Murder Case, Attorneys Say, CBS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “From the Cracks in the Sidewalks of NYC”: The
    “From the Cracks in the Sidewalks of N.Y.C.”: The Embodied Production of Urban Decline, Survival, and Renewal in New York’s Fiscal-Crisis-Era Streets, 1977-1983 by Elizabeth Healy Matassa B.A. in Italian and French Studies, May 2003, University of Delaware M.A. in Geography, May 2006, Louisiana State University A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 31, 2014 Dissertation directed by Suleiman Osman Associate Professor of American Studies The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of the George Washington University certifies that Elizabeth Healy Matassa has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of August 21, 2013. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. “From the Cracks in the Sidewalks of N.Y.C.”: The Embodied Production of Decline, Survival, and Renewal in New York’s Fiscal-Crisis-Era Streets, 1977-1983 Elizabeth Healy Matassa Dissertation Research Committee: Suleiman Osman, Associate Professor of American Studies, Dissertation Director Elaine Peña, Associate Professor of American Studies, Committee Member Elizabeth Chacko, Associate Professor of Geography and International Affairs, Committee Member ii ©Copyright 2013 by Elizabeth Healy Matassa All rights reserved iii Dedication The author wishes to dedicate this dissertation to the five boroughs. From Woodlawn to the Rockaways: this one’s for you. iv Abstract of Dissertation “From the Cracks in the Sidewalks of N.Y.C.”: The Embodied Production of Urban Decline, Survival, and Renewal in New York’s Fiscal-Crisis-Era Streets, 1977-1983 This dissertation argues that New York City’s 1970s fiscal crisis was not only an economic crisis, but was also a spatial and embodied one.
    [Show full text]
  • Dean William Trickett
    Dean William Trickett By MARK W. PODVIA, 1 West Virginia University College of Law Member of the Pennsylvania Bar TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EARLY LIFE AND CAREERS . 192 IV. DEATH AND LEGACY . 199 II. LEGAL CAREER AND APPENDIX: TRICKETT ARTICLES SCHOLARSHIP . 193 APPEARING IN THE FORUM AND III. EDUCATOR AND DICKINSON LAW REVIEW . 200 ADMINISTRATOR . 195 ABSTRACT William Trickett, Dean of the Dickinson School of Law from 1890 until his death in 1928, is remembered today as a noted educator, the man for whom the Law School’s Trickett Hall was named in 1918. Sometimes forgotten is his role as a legal author who wrote and published numerous articles and treatises. All of his treatises and many of the more than 100 articles he authored specifically focus on Pennsyl- vania law. His works are still occasionally referenced by courts, a century or more after they were written. This article reexamines his life and legacy. I. EARLY LIFE AND CAREERS William Trickett was born in Leicester, England, on June 9, 1840. 2 His family moved to the United States when he was two years old, settling in Philadelphia. 3 Trickett grew up there, graduating from Philadelphia Central High School at the age of 17. 4 Trickett’s first career was in the ministry. In March 1859, he was admitted as a preacher in the Philadelphia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 5 In 1. M.A., The Pennsylvania State University, 2006; M.S.L.S., Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 1993; J.D., The Dickinson School of Law, 1986; A.B., Grove City College, 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Meeting of the Board of Directors Society of Professional Journalists October 3, 2010 Las Vegas, Nevada Planet Hollywood Hotel
    MINUTES MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS OCTOBER 3, 2010 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA PLANET HOLLYWOOD HOTEL MEETING CALLED TO ORDER With President Kevin Smith presiding, the meeting of the board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on Sunday, October 3, 2010, at the Planet Hollywood Hotel. ROLL CALL In addition to Smith, the following were present: Immediate Past President Dave Aeikens; President-Elect Hagit Limor; Secretary-Treasurer Darcie Lunsford; Vice President for Campus Chapter Affairs Neil Ralston; Director at-Large Bill McCloskey; Director Lauren Bartlett, Campus Advisers at-Large Sue Kopen Katcef and George Daniels; Student Representative Tara Puckey; Regional Directors Luther Turmelle, Brian Eckert, Jenn Rowell, Jeremy Steele, Liz Hansen, Amanda Theisen, Holly Edgell, Scott Cooper, John Ensslin, Jodi Cleesattle, Dana Neuts and Sonny Albarado. Staff members present for the meeting were Executive Director Joe Skeel and Associate Executive Director Chris Vachon. Others in attendance were SDX Foundation President Steve Geimann; SDX Foundation Vice President Robert Leger; SDX Foundation Secretary Irwin Gratz; SDX Foundation Board member Dave Carlson; FOI Committee Chairman Dave Cuillier and several representatives from RTDNA. MEETING MINUTES APPROVED Upon proper motion and second by Aeikens and Neuts, respectively, the board approved the minutes from the April 17, 2010 board of directors meeting. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Smith first acknowledged the work of the SPJ committees and recommended that people take time to read the committee reports in the board meeting packet. Next, Smith discussed the shield law. He recommends, looking forward, that SPJ put forth as much effort as possible in the way of support for the bill and directs it at the senate in the next two months to facilitate its passage.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Data Privacy and the First Amendment
    RECONCILING DATA PRIVACY AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT Neil M. Richards This Article challenges the First Amendment critique of data privacy regulaion- the claim that data privacy rules restrict the dissemination of truthful information and thus violate the FirstAmendment. The critique, which is ascendant in privacy discourse, warps legislative and judicial processes and threatens the consti- tutionalization of information policy. The First Amendment critique should be rejected for three reasons. First, it mistakenly equates privacy regulation with speech regulation. Building on scholarship examining the boundaries of First Amendment protection, this Article suggests that "speech restrictions" in a wide variety of commercial contexts have never triggered heightened First Amendment scru- tiny, refuting the claim that all information flow regulations fall within the First Amendment. Second, the critique inaccurately describes current First Amendment doctrine. To demonstrate this point, this Article divides regulations of information flows into four analytic categories and demonstrates how, in each category, ordinary doctrinal tools can be used to uphold the constitutionality of consumer privacy rules. Third, the critique is normatively unpersuasive. Relying on recent intellectual histories of American constitutional law, this Article argues that fundamental jurisprudentialreasons counsel against acceptance of the First Amendment critique. From the perspective of privacy law, there are striking parallels between the critique's advocacy of "freedom of information" and the discredited "freedom of contract" regime of Lochner. More importantly, from the perspective of First Amendment law, the critique threatens to obliterate the distinction between economic and political rights at the core of post-New Deal constitutionalism. Rejecting the FirstAmendment critique thus has real advantages.
    [Show full text]
  • Eleanor Roosevelt
    ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○ Matters A Newsletter for The City University of New York • Fall 1998 FROM A HENRY ROTH MEMOIR Call It Writing: “Streetwise” in the City: A City College Epiphany Language and Culture on the Beat en years before publishing his By Leslee Oppenheim tal theme of this initiative, developed by classic novel Call It Sleep in 1934 Director of Curriculum and Instruction, CUNY for the NYPD, from Police Commis- T to mixed reviews, Henry Roth (pic- Adult and Continuing Education, Office of sioner Howard Safir’s opening remarks: tured right at about that time) began his Academic Affairs police officers who know about the lan- freshman year at the City College of New guage and culture of the communities they York. In one of several volumes of mem- leven hundred new NYPD officers, serve, equip themselves with powerful oirs Roth wrote late in life under the um- day-old graduates of the Police tools for ensuring the safety and well-being brella title Mercy of a Rude Stream, he EAcademy, file into darkened audito- of themselves, their colleagues, and the devoted more than 150 pages to his colle- riums at four CUNY campuses on July 2. public at large. giate days. This volume, A Diving Rock on The crackle of a police radio can be heard. the Hudson, was published by St. Martin’s As the lights dim, the volume rises. In total he newly-assigned officers in the audi- in 1995 (Picador paperback, 1996), which darkness now, the graduates hear a Tence that day are about to plunge into was also the year he died at the age of 89.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Interaction with the Public in Emergency Situations: Four Case Studies
    MEDIA INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS: FOUR CASE STUDIES A Report Prepared under an Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress August 1999 Authors: LaVerle Berry Amanda Jones Terence Powers Project Manager: Andrea M. Savada Federal Research Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540–4840 Tel: 202–707–3900 Fax: 202–707–3920 E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage:http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/ PREFACE The following report provides an analysis of media coverage of four major emergency situations in the United States and the impact of that coverage on the public. The situations analyzed are the Three Mile Island nuclear accident (1979), the Los Angeles riots (1992), the World Trade Center bombing (1993), and the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). Each study consists of a chronology of events followed by a discussion of the interaction of the media and the public in that particular situation. Emphasis is upon the initial hours or days of each event. Print and television coverage was analyzed in each study; radio coverage was analyzed in one instance. The conclusion discusses several themes that emerge from a comparison of the role of the media in these emergencies. Sources consulted appear in the bibliography at the end of the report. i TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... i INTRODUCTION: THE MEDIA IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS .................... iv THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, 1979 ..........................1 Chronology of Events, March
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Technology, and Public Health in the COVID-19 Crisis
    Privacy in Pandemic: Law, Technology, and Public Health in the COVID-19 Crisis Tiffany C. Li* The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths and disastrous consequences around the world, with lasting repercussions for every field of law, including privacy and technology. The unique characteristics of this pandemic have precipitated an increase in use of new technologies, including remote communications platforms, healthcare robots, and medical AI. Public and private actors alike are using new technologies, like heat sensing, and technologically influenced programs, like contact tracing, leading to a rise in government and corporate surveillance in sectors like healthcare, employment, education, and commerce. Advocates have raised the alarm for privacy and civil liberties violations, but the emergency nature of the pandemic has drowned out many concerns. This Article is the first comprehensive account of privacy in pandemic that maps the terrain of privacy impacts related to technology and public health responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Many have written on the general need for better health privacy protections, education privacy protections, consumer privacy protections, and protections against government and corporate surveillance. However, this Article is the first comprehensive article to examine these problems of privacy and technology specifically in light of the pandemic, arguing that the lens of the pandemic exposes the need for both wide-scale and small-scale reform of privacy law. This Article approaches these problems with a focus on technical realities and social * Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor, Boston University School of Law; Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project. The author thanks Tally Amir, Chinmayi Arun, Jack M.
    [Show full text]
  • Dean Attanasio
    SMU Law Review Volume 52 Issue 1 Article 20 1999 Welcome, Dean Attanasio Hideo Chikusa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Hideo Chikusa, Welcome, Dean Attanasio, 52 SMU L. REV. 267 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol52/iss1/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. WELCOME, DEAN ATTANASIO Judge Hideo Chikusa* ** ROFESSOR John Attanasio, guests from the United States, and friends, to all of you, I wish to extend my hearty greetings and welcome. Allow me to represent my colleagues by saying that all of us welcome Professor Attanasio, congratulate his joining the SMU Law School faculty to take up the position of the new dean, and wish him a happy and bright future. By request of Mr. Matsumuro, President of SMU Japanese Alumni, I will speak a few minutes. Being a judge, it would have been appropriate to speak about a current aspect of the court practice in this country. I must confess, however, that I have failed to prepare something intelligible for the topic, due to the extremely tight schedule I have had to face. In the Supreme Court, today is the last day for the deliberation before summer vacation, which begins July 20, just next week, and lasts through August. As an alternative, I wish to deal with a topic in another area somewhat related to comparative law which happens to be the major field of Profes- sor Attanasio.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Meaning and School Vouchers
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 42 (2000-2001) Issue 3 Institute of Bill of Rights Symposium: Article 9 Religion in the Public Square March 2001 Social Meaning and School Vouchers Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Education Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Neal Devins, Social Meaning and School Vouchers, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 919 (2001), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol42/iss3/9 Copyright c 2001 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr SOCIAL MEANING AND SCHOOL VOUCHERS NEAL DEvINs* The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same: In 1981, I wrote a paper on the constitutionality of school vouchers for a law school course. At the time, it appeared that a sharply divided Supreme Court would reject vouchers, five to four. Two decades later, it appears that a sharply divided Supreme Court might well uphold vouchers, five to four. For this very reason, academics and others continue to fill the pages of law reviews with competing analyses of whether school vouchers violate the Establishment Clause.' Far more tellingly, during the 2000 elections, Court watchers claimed that the winner of the presidential race would control the constitutional fate of school vouchers (by, presumably, appointing the Justice who will cast the deciding vote in a constitutional challenge to school vouchers).2 * Goodrich Professor of Law and Lecturer in Public Policy, College of William & Mary.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About AALL's First Hundred Years Frank G
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Publications School of Law Winter 2006 Frequently Asked Questions About AALL's First Hundred Years Frank G. Houdek Southern Illinois University Carbondale Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/law_pubs Part of the Legal Writing and Research Commons © 2006 by the American Association of Law Libraries. Published in Law Library Journal, Vol. 98, No. 1, Winter 2006 Recommended Citation Houdek, Frank G. "Frequently Asked Questions About AALL's First Hundred Years." (Winter 2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AALL Centennial Feature* Frequently Asked Questions about AALL’s First Hundred Years** Frank G. Houdek*** To kick off the yearlong celebration of the centennial of the American Association of Law Libraries in 2006, Professor Houdek answers some basic questions about the history of AALL. Contents Why Will AALL Celebrate Its Centennial at the Association’s 99th Annual Meeting? . 158 When and Where Was AALL’s First Annual Meeting? . 158 Who Was A. J. Small and Why Is He Important in AALL History? . 159 When and How Was Law Library Journal Created? . 160 What Was the Roalfe Plan? . 160 Who Was William R. Roalfe and Why Is He Important in AALL History? . 161 Why Didn’t AALL Meet in 1943 and 1944? . 162 When and How Were AALL’s Chapters First Developed? . 163 When and How Were Special Interest Sections First Developed? .
    [Show full text]
  • John Henry Wigmore (1863-1943)
    LH&RB Newsletter of the Legal History & Rare Books Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries Volume 19 Number 2 Fall 2013 A legal scholar of exceptional status and John Henry Wigmore (1863-1943): unique insight, John Henry Wigmore quite A Sesquicentennial Appreciation literally wrote the book on evidence as commonly understood in and beyond his time, Joel Fishman, Ph.D. and Joshua Boston titled Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law or Wigmore on Evidence. He is also known for being one of the founding members of Harvard Law Review, 1 and a professor and dean of the Northwestern University Law School. With a bibliography of over 900 works, including many addresses, law review articles, books, pamphlets and translations, his contributions to the study of law are simply numerous as he dedicated himself to the writing of 2 Contmany publications that continue to be relevant long after his death. The 150th anniversary of Wigmore’s birth this year makes it appropriate to explore and commemorate these achievements and contributions to the legal field. Continued on page 4 Wigmore 1 William R. Roalfe, John Henry Wigmore Scholar and Reformer (1977) (hereafter Wigmore); Nathan William MacChesney, John Henry Wigmore: On behalf of the Board of Trustees, 38 Ill. L. Rev. 1, 6 (1943-1944); William R. Roalfe, John Henry Wigmore—1863-1943, 58 Nw. U. L. Rev. 445 (1963-1964). William R. Roalfe is known to the law librarians as one of the leading law librarians of the mid-twentieth century and an important leader of the American Association of Law Libraries; he was the librarian at Northwestern University Law School from 1946-64; see William R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Berger List of Past Winners
    2010 List of Berger Past Winners Years Awarded Awardees Company Name Description 1961 McCandlish Philips The New York Times Special Recognition 1961 David C. Miller The New York Herald Tribune 1961 Helen Dudar The New York Post 1962 Lewis Lapham Harper’s Magazine 1963 Pete Kihss The New York Times 1964 Charles Grutzner The New York Times 1964 Jimmy Breslin The New York Herald Tribune 1965 Homer Bigart The New York Times 1966 Robert M. Lipstye The New York Times 1966 William E. Blundell The Wall Street Journal 1967 Leonard Victor The Long Island Press 1967 Murray Schumach The New York Times 1968 J. Anthony Lukas The New York Times 1968 Felix Kressler The Walll Street Journal 1969 Archie Waters The Long Island Press 1969 Sy Safransky The Long Island Press 1969 Robert Mayer Newsday 1970 Richard Severo The New York Times Special Recognition 1970 Art Sears Jr. The Wall Street Journal 1970 Donald Moffitt The Wall Street Journal 1971 Jack Newfield The Village Voice 1971 Robert Mayer Newsday Special Recognition 1972 Diane Zimmerman The New York Daily News 1972 Paul Meskil The New York Daily News 1972 Joseph Martin The New York Daily News 1972 Ray Kestenbaum Special Recognition 1972 Frank Faso The New York Daily News 1973 John Hess The New York Times 1973 Barry Cunningham The New York Post 1974 Penelope McMillan The Sunday News 1974 Sonny Kleinfield The Wall Street Journal 1975 Peter Coutros The New York Daily News 1975 Diedre Carmody The New York Times 1976 Israel Shenker The New York Times 1976 Howard Blum The Village Voice 1977 Richard Severo The New York Times 1977 Denis Hamill The Village Voice 1978 Carey Winfrey Reader’s Digest Association 1978 Ricki Fulman The New York Daily News 1979 Kenneth Gross Newsday 1979 Francis X.
    [Show full text]