DOCSLIB.ORG

Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2) Box: 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2) Box: 6 Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Barr, William: Files Folder Title: Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2) Box: 6 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ ,;:- WHITE HOUSE LAW LIBRARY ROOM 528 OEOB (2021 395-3391/ ·/ D 57 To @J1 dd:J Room~/~ From~ ( e_, flJ(l:si: t-T eep ___ To Borrow (Date Due _____, ___ Per Your Request/Per Our Conversation ditor's note: Over th e years, critics of the These justices were engaged in a less c/11sio11ary rule have called it, among other ambitious venture, albeit a most important ings, an "illogical," "-irrational," and "un­ one. They were interpreting the Fourth atural" interpretation of the Fourth and Amendment as b est they could. As they saw 011rtee11th Amendments. it, the rule-now known as the federal exclu­ Last fall, for example, U.S. Court of Ap­ sionary rule-rested on "a principled basis 5 als Judge Malcolm Wilkey, writing in the rather than an empirical proposition." all Street Journal, said the rule "is not The dissenters in United States v. Caland­ required by the Constitution . ... The exclu- ra were, I think, plainly right when they ionary rule is a judge-made rule of evidence maintained that "uppermost in the minds of hich bars 'the use of evidence secured the framers of the [exclusionary] mle" was rough an illegal search and seiz ure.' ... not "the rule's possible deterrent effect," but 'h e only excuse offered for this irrational "the twin goals of enabling the judiciary to le is that there is 'no effecti ve altemati ve' avoid the taint of partnership in official tQ make the police obey the la w." lawlessness and of assuring the people [that] fo an effort to explore this controversial the government would not profit from its 1estion furth er, Judicature in vited Judge lawless b ehavior, thus minimizing the risk l ilkey and a def ender of the rule, Yale of seriously undermining popular trust in amisar, to express their views. Judge Wil­ government."6 The main purpose of this ey will explain his opposition and suggest article, then, is to trace, explain and justify alternatives to the rule in a later issue. the original grounding of the exclusionary rule-what has come to be known as "the imperative of judicial intergrity."7 ore than SO years have passed since The Weeks opinion Mthe Supreme Court decided the Weeks tia e, 1 barring the use in federal prosecutions As Professor Francis Allen recently remind­ of ev idence obtained in violation of the t!d us, the Weeks opinion "contains no lan­ Fourth A1~ endment, and the Silverthorne guage that expressly justifi es the rule by case,2 invoking what has come to be known reference to a supposed deterrent eff ect on the " fruit of the poisonous tree" doc­ trine. 3 The justices who decided those cas~s 5. Cf. All en, The Judicial Quest for Penal Justice: The Warren Court and the Criminal Cases, 1975 U. ' ould, I think, be quite surprised to learn ILL .L.F. 518, 536- 37 (pointing out that, unlike the that some day the value of the exclusionary Court's understanding in the fo rmative phases of the rule would be measured by- and the very exclusionary rule's history, in recent years the deterrent function has prevailed as its predom inant justificati on, life of the rule might depend on- an empiri­ and that "until the rule res ts on [returns to?] a princi­ cal evaluati on of its effi cacy in deterring pled basis rather than an empirical proposition," Mapp Police mi sconduct.4 " will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium"). 6. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 357 I. Weeks v . Unitc <l Sta tes, 232 U.S. 38.3 (HH4). (1974) (B re nnan, J., joined b y Douglas and Marshall, 2.· Silverthorn e Lu mher Co. v. United States, 251 JJ ., dissenting). Calandra held that a grand jury witness .s. 385 (1920) may not refu se to answer questi ous on the ground that 3. 1ardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939), they are based on evidence obtained from him b y ~efu sing to all ow the prosecution to avoid an inquiry violating the Fourth Amendment. See also, Schrock and l~to its use of informati ou gain ed b y illegal wiretap­ Welsh, Up From Calandra: Th e E xclusionary Rule as a ~ing, fi rst used the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree." Constitutional Requirem ent, 59 MINN. L. REV. 251 Ree !!~ 11 erally Piti er, 'The Fruit of th e Poisonous Tree' (1974). ev1s1ted a11d Shepardized, 56 CALIF. L. REV. 579 7. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960) l968). (Stewart , J.) (overturning the " silver platter" doctrine), th 4. Space <l oes not permit an extensive evaluation of quoted with approval in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, ,{ recent "empirical studies" of the ex clusionary rule's 656 (196 1) (Clark, J.) (imposin g the exclusionary rule as e ects (if any) on poli ce behavior. But see "Does the to unconstitutionall y seized materi als on state courts as ~ ~l~ sionary rule affect poli ce behavior?" on page 70 of a matter of Fourteenth Am endment Due Process). See is 1s,ue. also United St ates v. Calandra, supra n. 6. 67 police officials."8 Indeed, in the United the judgments of the courts which are charged States Supreme Court, some 35 years were to all times with the support of the Constitution alld pass, as Professor Robert McKay has noted, to which p eople of all conditions have a ri ght appeal for the maintenance of such fundarnent before Wolf v. Colorada9 "introduced the rights. notion of deterrence of official illegality to ... The efforts of the courts and their officiall the debate concerning the wisdom of the to bring the guilty to punishment . .. are not exclusionary rule."10 be aided by the sacrifice of [Fourth AmcndrneniJ As the Weeks justices saw it, if a court principles .... The United States Marshall act ed without sanction of law ... and under color ~ could not "sanction" a search or seizure his office undertook to make a seizure of prh·at before the event-because, for example, the papers in direct violation of the constitutional police lacked sufficient cause to make the prohibition aflinst such action .. .. To s~ncti~ search or were unable to describe the item(s) such procecdmgs would be to affirm by J11dici they sought with the requisite particular­ d ecision a manifest neglect if not an open deS. anee of th e prohibitions of the Constitution, ity-then a court could not, or at least should intended for the protection of the p eople again not, "affirm" or "sanction" the search or such unauthorized action.12 seizure after the event. The courts, after all, are the specific ad­ Ratifying illegal searches dressees of the constitutional command that Although the Fourth Amendment constj. "no Warrants shall issue, but upon" certain tutes a guarantee against unreasonable prescribed conditions. If "not even an order searches and seizures, it does not, of cours of court would have ju stifi ed" the police explicitly state what the consequences of a - action, as it would not have had in Weeks, violation of the guarantee should be. This ' then "much less was it within [the officers'] "specific" of the Bill of Rights turns out, at authority" to proceed on their own "to bring is so often the case, 13 not to be specific abou1 , further proof [of guilt] to ' the aid of the the is sue which confronted the Weeks Court Government." And if the government's and is th e subject of today's debate. agents did proceed on their own, "without This only means that here as elsewhere-­ sanction of law," then the government almost everywhere-the Court "cannot e, should not be permitted to use what their cape the demands of judging or of making agents obtained. The government whose ... diffi cult appraisals." 14 But " ·hat · agents violated the Constitution should be wrong with the Weeks Court's appraisal? in no better position than the government Does its reading of the Fourth Amendment whose agents obeyed it; "the efforts of the do violence to the language or purpose of th courts and th eir officials to bring the guilty guarantee against unreasonable search and to punishment ... are not to be aided by the seizure? Does its interpretation of this con­ sacrifice of [Fourth Amendment] princi­ stitutional provision require an active imagi• I ples." Is any of this really so hard to follow? nation? Is the interpretation straii1ed, illogi• .11 Since so many commentators lately have cal or implausible? 'I emphasized the efficacy (or inefficacy) of the It is plain that Holmes and Brandeis exclusionary rule in preventing illegal thought not. In the Silverthorne ca ei searches and seizures,1 1 it may be profitable Holmes, joined by Brandeis and fi,·e other to take a fresh look at the key passages in the justices, observed: old Weeks case: The essence of a provision forbidding the acqui­ ... The tendency of those who execute the crimi­ sition of evidence in a certain way is that nol , nal laws [to) obtain convictions by means of 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ·-"t-·~\ ,0 li 1f' 1.;. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (",.~ ,.-_ >_J \ ~ncJ,rs-----i:il'~'~ u.s. Department of Justice t 1 : j !. :I .J j This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base, Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary, The resolution chart on Attorney General's this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality, Task Force on Violent Crime 2 5 :; 111112.8 . 11111 . 1.0 3 2 I~ Illil . I . \ W < ,0 w n~~ ~ Final Report :i I~ ... ~ 1.1 1.i.IL:.~ I August 17, 1981 , ) 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 i I' MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A ~l , r~' "~ ~.,. , .. ',",' '~, Microfilming' proc~d~~e~ used to create this fiche comply with . the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official , I .DATE FILMED! position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ~. ". ~':I.....:-.~:y~:-:"" ""'-...c~-~ '."" ___""" b'""' "~' . (;F J~... .' . .. .. -.:-- ! TNati~nal i~stitut~-orJustice .. .. :lA.:· ~ . 12/01/811 .' t··· .. -, ,. .. ,. ,. ---.. -.-.~. --'-'--~ .~.~ ....~.. I , i l}nited States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 g L ..... .. i 1 I I , i~' " J ..... 1·.. " .~_)... ... r / / .. ' ...... r U.S. Department of Justice : Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime Final Report Task Force Members: GRIFFIN B.
    [Show full text]
  • Purposefully Restructuring the Law School Curriculum Malcolm Richard Wilkey
    BYU Law Review Volume 1981 | Issue 1 Article 15 3-1-1981 What Role for the Law School in American Legal Education? Purposefully Restructuring the Law School Curriculum Malcolm Richard Wilkey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Legal Education Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Malcolm Richard Wilkey, What Role for the Law School in American Legal Education? Purposefully Restructuring the Law School Curriculum, 1981 BYU L. Rev. 1 (1981). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol1981/iss1/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Role for the Law School in American Legal Education? Purposefully Restructuring the Law School Curriculum Malcolm Richard Wilkey* I. INTRODUCTION:HOWWE GOT WHEREWE ARE .... 11. THE OBJECTIVEOF LEGALEDUCATION: PRODUCING COMPETENTLAWYERS ........................... A. Delivery of Competent Legal Services. ...... B. Fields of Competence. ..................... C. Skills Essential to the Competent Practicing Lawyer ................................... 111. THELOCUS OF LEGALEDUCATION: WHERE LAWYERS SHOULDDEVELOP THESE SKILLS. ................. A. Skills Best Acquired Outside a Legal Setting B. Skills Best Acquired Within a Substantive Legal Setting ............................. C. The English Alternative: Responsibility for Legal Training Borne by the Legal Profession IV. THEPROPER ROLE OF THE LAWSCHOOL IN THE CON- TINUUM OF AMERICANLEGAL EDUCATION .......... A. Present Defects ........................... B. Two Remedies ............................ 1. A Radical Solution: Two Tiers of Legal Education ............................. 2. A Moderate Solution: Restructuring the Third Year.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Winter 2002 Vol
    NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Winter 2002 Vol. 15, No. 1 Articles 1 Acceding to the WTO: Advantages for Foreign Investors in the Ukrainian Market Daniil E. Fedorchuk 61 Bank Holiday: The Constitutionality of President Mahuad’s Freezing of Accounts and the Closing of Ecuador’s Banks Jorge J. Pozo 99 External Competence of the European Community in the Hague Conference on Private International Law: Community Harmonization and Worldwide Unification Charles T. Kotuby, Jr. Recent Decisions 131 Haywin Textile Products, Inc. v. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank, Ltd. United States District Court grants summary judgment to plaintiff, holding defendant to be a successor in interest despite controlling Bangladeshi law denying third-party beneficiaries standing to sue for enforcement of a contract. 135 United States v. Charles Kim Second Circuit Court holds that jurisdiction over defendant is proper although the act of fraud and conspiracy was not committed in the United States. 141 The European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. The revenue rule is a discretionary rule, not a constitutional rule or one imperative under international law, but the European Community lacks standing to sue under RICO for injury to the revenues of its member states. 149 Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal Express Corp. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, application of the Warsaw Convention is not terminated by the Hague protocol but continues in force until the latter takes effect for the country in question. 157 Armiliato v. Zaric-Armiliato United States District Court holds that relief under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, was appropriate once it is determined that the minor child had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Selection in the States: a Critical Study with Proposals for Reform Patrick Winston Dunn
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 4 | Issue 2 Article 3 1976 Judicial Selection in the States: A Critical Study with Proposals for Reform Patrick Winston Dunn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Dunn, Patrick Winston (1976) "Judicial Selection in the States: A Critical Study with Proposals for Reform," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 4: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol4/iss2/3 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dunn: Judicial Selection in the States: A Critical Study with Proposals NOTES AND COMMENTS JUDICIAL SELECTION IN THE STATES: A CRITICAL STUDY WITH PROPOSALS FOR REFORM* I. INTRODUCTION The basic consideration in every judicial establishment is the caliber of its personnel. The law as administered cannot be better than the judge who expounds it .... We need judges learned in the law, not merely the law in books but, something far more difficult to acquire, the law as applied in action in the courtroom; judges deeply versed in the mysteries of human nature and adept in the discovery of the truth in the discordant testimony of fallible human beings; judges beholden to no man, independent and honest and-equally important-believed by all men to be indepen- dent and honest; judges, above all, fired with consuming zeal to mete out justice according to law to every man, woman, and child that may come before them and to preserve individual freedom against any aggression of government; judges with the humility born of wisdom, patient and untiring in the search for truth and keenly conscious of the evils arising in a workaday world from any unnecessary delay.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reporterpublished by the American Law Institute
    VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 1 FALL 2009 The ReporterPublished By The American Law Institute DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING AND IMPROVING THE LAW XX The President’s Letter Capital Punishment and Other Matters Last May at the Annual Meeting, after (The Council report, dated April 15, At both the Council meeting and the thoughtful debate our members voted in 2009, is accessible on the Institute’s web- earlier Program Committee meeting, the favor of an amendment to a recommenda- site at http://www.ali.org/doc/Capital%20 general discussion about § 210.6 led to a tion of the Council that § 210.6 of the Punishment_web.pdf.) Because it was not look at other sections of the Model Penal Model Penal Code dealing with the death the exact recommendation of the Council, Code that also seem out of date and in penalty be withdrawn. The exact language of the motion that passed, with some members abstaining, was: …the Institute withdraws Section 210.6 of the Model Penal Code in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to For reasons stated in Part V of the ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment. Council’s report to the membership, the Institute withdraws Section 210.6 of the Model Penal Code in light of the current intractable institutional and structural this motion did not become ALI policy need of revision. That certainly applies to obstacles to ensuring a minimally ade- but was referred back to the Council for its the sections addressing the crime of rape quate system for administering capital further deliberation and vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy
    Why the Local Matters: Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy !"#$%"&$'()*+$,*%%&-./$$ 0&1&-*+2.34$'()*+2.34$*51$$ 678+2)$95%&-&.%$:1;()*)# Papers from the Eleventh Annual Liman Colloquium! at Yale Law School, 2008 Published by the Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School and the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School CONTENTS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS..............................................................................iii INTRODUCTION: ACTION ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE OF FEDERALISM ........ 1 Kathleen Claussen Class of 2010, Yale Law School; Member, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board Adam Grogg Class of 2010, Yale Law School; Member, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board Sarah French Russell Associate Research Scholar in Law and Clinical Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School; Director, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program I. THE ROLE OF LOCAL LEADERSHIP: REVISING THE HISTORY AND UNDERSTANDING THE PRESENT Civil Rights History Before, and Beyond, Brown ............................11 Risa Goluboff Professor of Law, Professor of History, Caddell & Chapman Research Professor, University of Virginia School of Law American Federalism and the American Civil Liberties Union ..... 21 Norman Dorsen Stokes Professor of Law, and Co-Director, Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program, New York University Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union Susan N. Herman President, American Civil Liberties Union; Centennial Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School II. STATES AND CITIES AS ADVOCATES FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST The Progressive City ........................................................................39 Richard C. Schragger Professor of Law, Class of 1948 Professor in Scholarly Research in Law, University of Virginia School of Law !"#$%"&$'()*+$<%2++$,*%%&-./$$ San Francisco and the Rising Culture of Engagement$ in Local Public Law Offices0&1&-*+2.34$'()*+2.34$*51$678+2)$95%&-&.%$:1;()*)#........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O
    Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 203 432 4932 [email protected] Employment: 2013- Sterling Professor of International Law, Yale Law School (Procedure, Public and Private International Law, Human Rights, Law and U.S. Foreign Policy, Law and National Security, Brexit and the Law, International Business Transactions, Constitution and Foreign Affairs, International Trade, International Organizations, Law of Climate Change, International Law and Political Science) 2014- Nonresident Member, Blackstone Chambers, London 2009-13: Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (on leave as Martin R. Flug ’55 Professor of International Law at Yale Law School) (awarded Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award 2013); Head of Delegation for U.S. Government: U.N. Human Rights Council, Assembly of States Parties International Criminal Court (Kampala 2010) 2004-2009: Dean of Yale Law School & Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School 1998-2001: Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor United States Department of State; Commissioner, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe; U.S. Delegate or Head of Delegation to United Nations General Assembly (Third Committee), the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, Inaugural Community of Democracies Meeting (Warsaw 2000); U.N. Conference on New and Restored Democracies (Cotonou, Benin 2000) 1993-2009: Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School 1998-2004: Director, Orville H. Schell Jr., Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School 1990-93: Professor, Yale Law School 1985-90: Associate Professor, Yale Law School 1983-85: Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice 1982-83: Associate, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC 1981-82: Law Clerk to Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Attorneys Department of Justice Washinlton
    Published by Executive Office for United States Attorneys Department of Justice WashInlton September 23 1960 United States DEPARTMENT OF cJUSTICE Vol.8 No.20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS BULLETIN 617 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS BULLETIN Vol Sptcmber 23 1960 No 20 1DNTLT TAI The aggregate total of cases and matters pning on June 30 1960 the end of the fiscal year was 11.5087 reduction of 2226 fr the previous month While this was very encouraging reduction the drop in the number of cases terminated particular..y civil cases and the rise in the number of cases pending were not so encouraging continuation of this rise was indicated in the totals for July 31 1960 the first nth of the new fiscal year Totals in all categories of work were up and the aggregate of cases and matters pending had increased by 1690 items During July fewer cases were filed fewer cases were terminated and more cases were pending at the end of the month Set out below is cparison of the cases filed termi nated and pending during July 1959 and July 1960 July July Increase or Decrease 1959 1960 Number Filed CrIminal 1916 1709 207 10.8 Civil 2151 1863 288 13.11 Total 11067 3572 1195 -12.2 Terminated Crim1nl 1896 1600 296 156 Civil 1639 1463 176 107 Total 3535 3063 1172 13.11 Penilng Criminal 7769 7920 151 1.9 Civil 18877 19657 780 1i.i Total 266146 27577 /93i /3.5 Results in the field of collections were much more encouraging than In the area of litigation For the month of July 1960 United States Attorneys reported collections of $3162585 This is $1169816 or 58.7 per cent more then
    [Show full text]
  • Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O
    Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 203 432 4932 [email protected] Employment: 2013- Sterling Professor of International Law, Yale Law School (Procedure, Public and Private International Law, Human Rights, Law and U.S. Foreign Policy, Law and National Security, Brexit and the Law, International Business Transactions, Constitution and Foreign Affairs, International Trade, International Organizations, Law of Climate Change, International Law and Political Science) 2009-13: Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (on leave as Martin R. Flug ’55 Professor of International Law at Yale Law School) (awarded Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award 2013); Head of Delegation for U.S. Government: U.N. Human Rights Council, Assembly of States Parties International Criminal Court (Kampala 2010) 2004-2009: Dean of Yale Law School & Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School 1998-2001: Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, United States Department of State; Commissioner, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe; U.S. Delegate or Head of Delegation to United Nations General Assembly (Third Committee), the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, Inaugural Community of Democracies Meeting (Warsaw 2000); U.N. Conference on New and Restored Democracies (Cotonou, Benin 2000) 1993-2009: Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School 1998-2004: Director, Orville H. Schell Jr., Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School 1990-93: Professor, Yale Law School 1985-90: Associate Professor, Yale Law School 1983-85: Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice 1982-83: Associate, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC 1981-82: Law Clerk to Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Federal Judiciary Dinner (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 67, folder “White House - Social Federal Judiciary Dinner (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 67 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library WHITE HOUSE RECEPTION FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY Guest List No. 1 (Active Federal Judges -- Washington, D. C. Area) SUPREME COURT The Chief Justice 311 N. Rochester Street Arlington, Virginia 22213 Mr. Justice Douglas 4852 Hutchins Place, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20007 Mr. Justice Brennan 3037 Dumbarton Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20007 Mr. Justice Stewart 5136 Palisade Lane, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20016 Mr. Justice White 6801 Hampshire Road McLean, Virginia 22101 Mr. Justice Marshall Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20543 Mr. Justice Blackmun Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20543 Mr. Justice Powell 550 N Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20024 Mr. Justice Rehnquist 7004 Arbor Lane McLean, Virginia 22101 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 1959 Journal
    : I OCTOBER TERM, 1959 STATISTICS Original Appellate Miscella- Total neous Number of cases on dockets 12 1,047 1, 119 2, 178 Cases disposed of 0 860 962 1,822 Remaining on dockets. 12 187 157 356 Cases, disposed of—Appellate Docket: By written opinions 110 By per curiam opinions or orders 101 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation (merits cases) 4 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 645 Cases disposed of—Miscellaneous Docket By written opinions 0 By per curiam opinions or orders 21 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 743 By denial or withdrawal of other applications 146 By dismissal of appeals 17 By transfer to Appellate Docket 35 Number of written opinions 99 Number of printed per curiam opinions 20 Number of petitions for certiorari granted 122 Number of appeals in which jurisdiction was noted or post- poned 24 Number of admissions to bar 3,495 REFERENCE INDEX Page Court convened October 5, 1959, and adjourned June 27, 1960. Reed, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 36 Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Claims 90 Burton, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 36 Format of Order List aud Journal changed, October 12, 1960_ _ 3 Court met at 11 :00 a.m. (Argument of Steel Case) (504) _ _ _ , _ 68, 69 Conferences to convene at 10:00 a.m., rather than 11:00 a.m., with luncheon recess at 12:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]