DOCSLIB.ORG

Pr-Sum-11.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pr-Sum-11.Pdf Exam Memo, Professional Responsibility Professor Griffin, Summer 2011 I awarded grades according to the law school’s grading curve, which requires a class average between 2.9 and 3.1. The average for this class was 3.10. The curve was as follows, based on a total possible 100 points. The number in parentheses indicates the number of students who received that letter grade. 93 A (2) 86-88 A- (4) 80-85 B+ (19) 70-79 B (36) 65-68 B- (6) 60-63 C+ (3) You are welcome to pick up your exams and answers at the front desk of the Health Law & Policy Institute. You will need to know your exam number in order to get the exam. You must sign out your exam and you do not need to return it. Please read over this memo and your exam before asking me any questions about your grade. For Question I, it was important to read the question and both 1) identify what Norris should do now and 2) assess Keany and Peppers. If you just skipped Norris you missed a lot of points. A key part of your analysis of Norris should have involved the Bevill test, CB 517, 522, applied in the Grand Jury Subpoena case (Roe and Moe), CB 513. This was Norris’ chance to try to get back the documents that had been turned over to the S.E.C. Whenever you learn a multi-factor test, however, you must apply it to the facts in the question. The immigration and F.T.C. representations were included in the question so you could include them in the Bevill factors. For Keany, it was important to address whether Keany should have known that illegal conduct was going on about him and even to ask if Keany was appropriately responding to the original subpoena. What should Keany have done once he realized something illegal was happening? Gone up the ladder, at least! A simpler way to think about Question I was that I was testing whether you had learned the practical lessons of Professor Hill and Mr. Ponder as well as the materials in your casebook. In other words, did you know how to be savvy about complying with a request for information and in dealing with clients who might be committing securities fraud? The facts of Question I were based on U.S. v. Norris, 2011 WL 1035723 (3rd Cir. 2011), where the district court applied the Bevill factors to conclude that Keany did not represent Norris personally. In Question II you got most of the points if you discussed 1) possible malpractice suits by G.K. and Nism; 2) the ineffective assistance of counsel claim by Nism, and 3) disciplinary violations, especially violations of Rule 1.9, the former client conflict of interest rule. Too many of you forgot that an underlying conflict of interest is important to prong one of Strickland because of Sullivan and Mickens. And you should have remembered Togstad by facts if not by name. An attorney was disciplined for unprofessional conduct on similar facts in In re Kostich, 793 N.W.2d 494 (Wisc. 2010). 1 For Question III, the multiple choice answers are as follows. 1. D 7. D 13. B 2. A 8. D 14. D 3. C 9. D 15. B 4. D 10. B 5. B 11. D 6. C 12. B For Question IV, you received five points for your decision to charge (based on what standard?) and five points for applying Brady. The best student answers to Questions I, II, and IV are included below. They do not include everything but they will give you a good idea of how the curve was set. Please read through them before asking me questions about your own exam. 2 Model Answer 1, Question I 1. What should Norris do now? 1.1 5th Am: In response to a subpoena from the SEC, Norris should cite Hubbel against an SEC subpoena in asserting his 5th Amendment right not to produce the corporate documents, transcripts (although they should find their lawyer's paralegal to claim it was all her idea to potentially assert work product as a Dallas firm did in the asbestos cases), or "notes" because the act of production would be incriminating and testimonial. Essentially, he is not required to do the government's job for them unless they ask for the document with reasonable particularity. Although the SEC brings civil charges against people, here, there is the potential that criminal charges could be brought against Norris for perjury or even obstruction of justice or some sort of evidence tampering for having people destroy documents if it is found that these were not regular business practices (as was found in Arthur Anderson case) and the requisite level of intent was met. Moreover, he was potentially suborning perjury in a way by advising people essentially lie in the internal investigations. Here he should assert that the documents are like a "password" and he should not do the SEC's job for them. The SEC will assert the documents, as in Fisher, are merely a "key," moreover, these documents are reasonably particularized in the communication Keany provided the SEC. Here, the government knows about the documents. Moreover, like in Fisher, the SEC could argue these documents were preexisting and voluntarily drafted. Here, Norris will likely lose because they will be found to be preexisting documents particularized in requests by his attorney. Moreover, these were documents probably produced by accountants, as in Fisher, pertaining to an IPO that were voluntarily produced. 1.2 Norris should try to assert Attorney-Client privilege over any documents clearly suggesting he was asking his company to openly lie to the SEC. ACP is created when communication between privileged peoples concerning confidential information occurs as a part of giving legal advice. He should assert that under the Bevill test, he approached Keany to discuss legal advice about his individual capacity, the counsel saw there was a conflict but allowed him to speak anyway (also did not give him Upjohn warning), the conversation/communication was confidential and that the substance of the conversations did not concern the company's general affairs. As Ms. Worley pointed out, there must be evidence that the communication's substance was not about the general affairs of the company even if the lawyer never gave her an "Upjohn warning" to pass the fifth prong. He probably will not meet the fifth prong of Bevill. He will argue he thought Keany was representing him individually because Keany represented him against the FTC and there was an implied relationship between them because the law firm never gave him an Upjohn warning and he reasonably believed he was receiving advice about his documents. He was given no Upjohn warning and Keany purports to represent the corporation and himself. If Morgan turns around and sues him like EW Hutton did to Brown, he can assert this as well, that there was an ACP based on implied actions. 3 Assuming, arguendo, that he could prove some sort of joint representation existed based on implied actions of Keany and Keany's letters to the SEC and representations to Norris, he probably cannot overcome the "imputed knowledge doctrine" that corporation constituent's knowledge given to attorney as a part of the attorney representing the company as a whole. As found in EW Hutton and In re Jury, the "imputed knowledge doctrine" overcomes any joint representation (as he could assert based on Keany's response to SEC). The corporation, through Keany, waived its attorney-client privilege through its June letter to SEC. The corporation's waiver overrides anything Norris can assert. Moreover, disputes between organizational client and its constituents, under the Garner doctrine, is an exception to attorney-client privilege. If the Court finds that the securities fraud crime was "ongoing," then the crime fraud exception to ACP may apply. Here, under Zolin, a judge might view the documents obtained from Keany in camera to determine whether the privilege should evaporate. If the SEC asks for documents from Keany, however, they may determine that the crime was a past crime being investigated much like the case in Upjohn for advice on what to do about past securities fraud and how to comply. Again, here Keany was retained to conduct an internal investigation to see how the company should proceed. If anyone asserted the work product doctrine, claiming these scripts or other documents were produced in anticipation of litigation, that probably would not fly as a lot of the shredded documents might meet the exception under FRCP 26(b)(3) that the SEC had a substantial need and undue hardship in discovering facts of case because a lot of them had been shredded. In Upjohn, the interviews with the corporate execs were found to be work product because they contained mental impressions, opinions and legal theories. Moreover, in the asbestos case, any scripts were also WP. 2. Ethical behavior of Keany (associate) Conflict of Interest Under MR 1.13 comment 10, Keany should have given an Upjohn warning to the corporation's constituents and advised them to get separate counsel and informed constituents like Coker and Norris that the ACP belonged corporation and existed between attorney and the corporation, not Norris and corporation. Moreover, under Upjohn, the principal may not be liable for the actions of its subsidiaries so Keany should know a potential conflict of interest exists there. Here, under MR 1.7, a concurrent conflict of interest existed because Keany was representing a third party such as Norris (assumed from Keany's response to SEC he will represent Norris in the future) while representing the corporation is clearly a conflict of interest because Norris behavior potentially creates a divergent interests between Norris and the company.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scientific Evidence and Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Paul Giannelli* the Need for Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases Is Critical
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2009 Scientific videnceE and Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Paul C. Giannelli Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Repository Citation Giannelli, Paul C., "Scientific videnceE and Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" (2009). Faculty Publications. 95. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/95 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Forensic Science: Scientific Evidence and Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Paul Giannelli* The need for pretrial discovery in criminal cases is critical. 1 An advisory note to the federal discovery rule states: "[l]t is difficult to test expert testimony at trial without advance notice and preparation." 2 A defendant's right to confrontation, effective assistance of counsel, and due process often turns on pretrial disclosure. This essay discusses a case that demonstrates this point. What came to be known as the "Duke Lacrosse Case" began with a student party and a false accusation of rape. 3 On March 14, 2006, Crystal Mangum claimed that she had been sexually assaulted at the party. As is common in rape cases, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) used what is known as a "rape kit" to collect evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortis SE-S2642ACD.MAG
    STATE OF NORTH CAROL OF THE WAKE COUNTY CAROLINA STATE BA Plaintiff, AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF DISCIPLINE MICHAEL B. NIFONG, Attorney, Defendant. The Hearing Committee on its own motion pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) enters the following Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline in order to correct a factual mistake in Findings of Fact Paragraph 43 of its original Order in this cause, and to add an additional Conclusion of Law (b): A hearing in this matter was conducted on June 12 through June 16, 2007, before a Hearing Committee composed of F. Lane Williamson, Chair, and members Sharon B. Alexander and R. Mitchel Tyler. Plaintiff, the North Carolina State Bar, was represented by Katherine E. Jean, Douglas J. Brocker, and Carmen K. Hoyme. Defendant, Michael 3. Nifong, was represented by attorneys David B. Freedman and Dudley A. Witt. Based upon the admissions contained in the pleadings and upon the evidence presented at the hearing, this Hearing Committee makes, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, the North Carolina State Bar, is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Chapter 84 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar (Chapter 1 of Title 27 of the North Carolina Administrative Code). 2. Defendant, Michael B. Nifong, (hereinafter "Nifong"), was admitted to the North Carolina State Bar on August 19, 1978, and is, and was at all times referred to herein, an attorney at law licensed to practice in North Carolina, subject to the laws of the State of North Carolina, the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar and the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID F. EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; READE SELIGMANN, PETITIONERS v. CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID S. RUDOLF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE Counsel of Record & FIALKO CHRISTOPHER N. MANNING 225 East Worthington JAMES M. MCDONALD Avenue #200 LUKE MCCLOUD Charlotte, NC 28203 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. RICHARD D. EMERY Washington, DC 20005 ILANN M. MAAZEL (202) 434-5000 EMERY CELLI [email protected] BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether police officers who conspire with a prosecu- tor to fabricate evidence for subsequent use are immune from liability as a matter of law by virtue of the conspir- ing prosecutor’s decision to use the evidence. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are David F. Evans; Collin Finnerty; and Reade Seligmann. Respondents are the City of Durham, North Carolina; David Addison; Patrick Baker; Steven W. Chalmers; Beverly Council; Mark Gottlieb; Benjamin Himan; Ronald Hodge; Jeff Lamb; Michael Ripberger; and Lee Russ. (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?
    STUDY GUIDE ARE 1 IN 5 WOMEN RAPED AT COLLEGE? KEY TERMS: rape assault feminist activist cultural norm epidemic evidence affirmative consent NOTE-TAKING COLUMN: Complete this section during the CUE COLUMN: Complete this section after video. Include definitions and key terms. the video. What is happening to the rate of rape crime in the U.S.? What is the truth about rape culture on college campuses? In the unscientific survey that Vice President Biden cited, who determined the number of respondents that had been victimized? What contributes to the deceptions regarding the topic of a rape culture on college campuses? According the BJS data, who is safer from rape: women in college or women not attending college? WWW.PRAGERU.COM DISCUSSION & REVIEW QUESTIONS: • At the beginning of the video, Miss Kitchens asks, “Are American college campuses “rape cultures?” Are they dangerous places where sexual assaults against women are happening at an alarming rate? According to many feminist activists, academics and politicians, the answer is yes.” How would you answer her questions? What is the evidence to support your answer? Where do you think that activists and the like are getting such an idea that this fictitious problem is real? • To the contrary, Miss Kitchens then states, “…while rape is certainly a serious problem, there is simply no evidence of a national campus rape epidemic, and there’s certainly no evidence that sexual violence is a “cultural norm” in 21st century America. In fact, rates of rape in the US are very low and have been declining for decades.” Considering the glaring lack of evidence for such claims of a rape epidemic, etc…, why do you think that some groups are attempting to promote such a deception? How do you think that such a false narrative fits into their political agenda? • We learn in the video that one result of some ill-informed and misguided people on the subject was that, “At Scripps College, Pulitzer-Prize winning commentator George Will was disinvited from giving a speech.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Lacrosse Case and the Blogosphere
    07__JOHNSON__CONTRACT PROOF.DOC 11/18/2008 11:42:21 AM THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE AND THE BLOGOSPHERE KC JOHNSON* I INTRODUCTION On December 28, 2006, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong filed his initial response to the North Carolina State Bar grievance committee’s complaint that he had unethically withheld exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case. Nifong concluded his missive with a swipe at the blogosphere: A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals—most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina—have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s www.friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent.)1 A few months earlier, the District Attorney had similarly complained about the blogosphere. Asked in June 2006 by Newsweek reporter Susannah Meadows to comment on the mounting evidence of actual innocence, Nifong replied, “I have seen quite a bit of media speculation (and it is even worse on the blogs) that either starts from a faulty premise or builds to a demonstrably false conclusion. That is not my fault.”2 Nifong was hardly the only prominent figure associated with the case who read the blogs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System Dan Subotnik
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System Dan Subotnik Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Subotnik, Dan (2012) "The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System," Akron Law Review: Vol. 45 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Subotnik: The Duke Rape Case 10- SUBTONIK_MACRO.DOCM 10/12/2012 3:01 PM THE DUKE RAPE CASE FIVE YEARS LATER: LESSONS FOR THE ACADEMY, THE MEDIA, AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Dan Subotnik∗ If engagement is the first step in healing, then the second is pure unadulterated struggle. We will never achieve racial healing if we do not confront one another, take risks. say all the things we are not supposed to say in mixed company.
    [Show full text]
  • Fantastic Allegations Defending the Police Supervisors in the Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits Tricia Shields Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe &A
    Fantastic Allegations Defending the Police Supervisors in the Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits Tricia Shields Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP [email protected] Introduction: On March 25, 2006, a story that would soon consume the community and fascinate the nation appeared on the front page of the local newspapers in Raleigh and Durham, North Carolina. Both reported that a young woman – an exotic dancer – had been raped and sodomized by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team, when performing at a party. The dancer was described as the mother of two and a student at North Carolina Central University, a historically African American university in Durham. A neighbor reported that he had seen the woman and another dancer entering the house where the party was held, and when she left a short time later, he heard a man yell at her, "’Thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt.' " Samiha Khanna, Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal, News & Observer, March 25, 2006, at A1. In the following weeks, protests, vigils, and rallies were held on the Duke and NC Central campuses. The lacrosse season was cancelled, and the coach forced to resign. The national media descended onto Durham, where District Attorney Michael Nifong stepped into the limelight, making dozens of inflammatory statements about the case and the players. Nifong subsequently recused himself from the prosecution amidst a State Bar proceeding that resulted in his disbarment, was convicted of criminal contempt for failing to turn over critical evidence in the case, and filed for bankruptcy. Three players were indicted, but were ultimately declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Lacrosse Matter As a Case Study of the Right to Reply to Prejudicial Pretrial Extrajudicial Publicity Under Rule 3.6(C)
    Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 The Duke Lacrosse Matter as a Case Study of the Right to Reply to Prejudicial Pretrial Extrajudicial Publicity under Rule 3.6(c) James R. Devine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons Recommended Citation James R. Devine, The Duke Lacrosse Matter as a Case Study of the Right to Reply to Prejudicial Pretrial Extrajudicial Publicity under Rule 3.6(c), 15 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 175 (2008). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol15/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Devine: The Duke Lacrosse Matter as a Case Study of the Right to Reply to Articles THE DUKE LACROSSE MATTER AS A CASE STUDY OF THE RIGHT TO REPLY TO PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL EXTRAJUDICIAL PUBLICITY UNDER RULE 3.6(c) JAMES R. DEVINE* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................. 176 RULE 3.6(c): AN OUTGROWTH OF GENTILE V. STATE BAR OF N EVADA .............................................. 179 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF RULE 3.6(c) .................... 183 THE FACTS OF THE DUKE CASE .................................. 185 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIA INVOLVEMENT ................ 189 THE DUKE CASE AND EXTRAJUDICIAL COMMENT ............... 189 COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED CRIME: THE STATE'S SIDE ... 191 COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED CRIME: THE DEFENSE SIDE .. 194 COMMENTS ABOUT STONEWALLING OR SILENCE BY THE PLAYERS: THE STATE'S SIDE ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Journalism Licensing Program: a Solution to Combat the Selective Exposure Theory in Our Contemporary Media Landscape
    LOBELLO NOTE (Do Not Delete) 4/15/2018 4:06 PM THE JOURNALISM LICENSING PROGRAM: A SOLUTION TO COMBAT THE SELECTIVE EXPOSURE THEORY IN OUR CONTEMPORARY MEDIA LANDSCAPE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 509 I.IDENTIFYING THE SELECTIVE EXPOSURE THEORY IN MEDIA: DUKE LACROSSE CASE STUDY ......................................................... 512 A. Duke’s Existential Conflict ............................................. 512 B. The Alleged Rape............................................................ 513 C. The Subsequent Investigation ......................................... 517 D. Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong ..................... 518 E. The Media and Duke’s Response ................................... 520 F. The Aftershock ................................................................ 523 II.WHY PROTECTION AGAINST THE SELECTIVE EXPOSURE THEORY MATTERS NOW ....................................................................... 524 III.THE JOURNALISM LICENSING PROGRAM ...................................... 525 A. JLP Committee Member Composition and Selection ..... 526 B. Defining the Standard of Review .................................... 528 IV.DECIDING BETWEEN A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LICENSING ADMINISTRATION ................................................................... 529 A. Assessing the Constitutionality of a Public JLP ............. 529 B. Disproving a Public JLP ................................................ 537 C. Arguments for a Private JLP .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Race to Judgment: Stereotyping Media and Criminal Defendants*
    05__ENTMAN & GROSS__CONTRACT PROOF_UPDATE.DOC 12/1/2008 3:14:01 PM RACE TO JUDGMENT: STEREOTYPING MEDIA AND CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS* ROBERT M. ENTMAN** KIMBERLY A. GROSS*** I INTRODUCTION The media’s coverage of the Duke lacrosse story generated controversy from the very beginning. Early on, criticism came from those who felt that the media mistreated the accuser; later, critics wondered why coverage failed to direct more attention to the weakness of the prosecution’s case. And throughout, critics suggested that the media mistreated the accused, rushing to judge them, abandoning the credo of innocent until proven guilty. What happened to these young men was indubitably a travesty of justice, and there are important lessons to be drawn regarding how standard media routines and practices can undermine the presumption of innocence. However, these lessons do not support critiques that trace media derelictions to “liberal bias” or “political correctness.”1 Nor should coverage as a whole be characterized as consistently slanted against the defendants. Just as it was unfair to jump to the conclusion that the prosecutor’s emphatic insistence on the defendants’ guilt Copyright © 2008 by Robert M. Entman and Kimberly A. Gross. This Article is also available at http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp. * An earlier version of this article was presented at the symposium conference, The Court of Public Opinion: The Practice and Ethics of Trying Cases in the Media, at Duke University School of Law, September 28–29, 2007. The authors would like to thank Gerard Matthews and Eric Walker for research assistance. ** J.B. & M.C. Shapiro Professor of Media and Public and International Affairs, School of Media and Public Affairs, The George Washington University.
    [Show full text]
  • DUKES & DUCHESSES Recruitment
    DUKES & DUCHESSES Recruitment 2019 Test Study Guide & History Manual As of January 1, 2019 A note about the test: The D&D test is intended to assess your familiarity of Duke University, its history, and current events around the world, as we desire candidates that can speak knowledgeably with University leaders and campus guests. The test consists of two parts: Part I covers Duke administration. These questions ensure a capable grasp of the names and titles of the leadership of our University. Part II focuses on the history of Duke as outlined in this guide. These questions are factual and require an extensive knowledge of the information, including but not limited to important historical events, information about past presidents, and developments in facilities. Part III is on current events, both here at Duke and outside of our community. This section is crucial to the ability of a D&D to engage in intelligent, meaningful conversation with guests on campus who enjoy chatting with undergraduates about the events in the world. Questions in this section pertaining to Duke ​ ​ are liable to stretch to the early 2000s, while general questions not pertaining to Duke will be more recent, in the past year or so. Much of the information in this section about Duke can be found in this guide, although we advise that you read The Chronicle and study general events through external sources. Part IV contains questions about Duke data and facts, all of which can be found in this packet. Having a firm understanding of the statistics supporting our university further smooths interactions at events, and ensures that applicants have taken time to browse this guide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perplexing Problem of Client Perjury, 76 Fordham L
    Fordham Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 3 Article 15 2007 The eP rplexing Problem of Client Perjury L. Timothy Perrin Recommended Citation L. Timothy Perrin, The Perplexing Problem of Client Perjury, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 1707 (2007). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss3/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PERPLEXING PROBLEM OF CLIENT PERJURY L. Timothy Perrin* INTRODUCTION: THE TRUTHFULNESS DEFICIT Truth plays a prominent role in every trial. Or, at least it should. Witnesses raise their right hand and take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."1 Jurors promise that they will fairly and impartially decide the case based upon the facts and the law. 2 Judges rule on the parties' objections based upon the applicable Rules of Evidence, interpreting the Rules in such a way "that the truth may be ascertained."' 3 Indeed, the trial itself is typically described as nothing less than a search for 4 the truth. But what about the other major participants in the trial-the lawyers? Do they have responsibility to ensure that the truth is discovered? On the one hand, trial lawyers serve as partisan advocates for their clients, and seek to persuade the fact-finder that their clients' claims or defenses should prevail.
    [Show full text]