DOCSLIB.ORG

The Dean's Message

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Dean’s Message More than a decade ago, at the dedication of what we still somewhat anachronistically refer to as “the new building,” our keynote speaker observed, “The building is magnificent, but as someone said of a library, do not call this the library; the library is inside. So this is not Brooklyn Law School, wonderful as the building is; Brooklyn Law School is inside. It is all of you.” Although in recent issues of LawNotes we have reported on the construction and dedication of Feil Hall, our new residence hall, we have not lost sight of the fact that as wonderful as our growing campus may be, Brooklyn Law School is what is inside the buildings. And so, in this issue of LawNotes, the focus is on faculty. We are proud to introduce some of the newest additions to our faculty constellation. First, you will meet our rising stars — junior faculty members who are already making their mark on the profession and the academy. You will also meet a group of scholars, some of whom, although they are new to the Law School, may already be well-known to you by virtue of their distinguished careers at other schools. I am confident that one of them is very well-known to each and every member of the Brooklyn Law School family: When Professor Aaron Twerski left us two years ago to serve as dean of another school, we were profoundly sorry to see him go; we are now profoundly happy to have him back with us. Back in 1995, when our keynote speaker referred to “all of you,” he was not just talking about the faculty and staff who tend to the Law School on a daily basis. He was also referring to students and graduates. “Brooklyn Law School is all of you who have come through here, all of you who will go through here,” he said. As a former dean himself, he well understood the role that alumni play in maintaining the health and vitality of their school. Our devoted alumni and friends know this, too, and on behalf of all of us here at the Law School, I thank you for your generous support. With all best wishes for a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year, Joan G. Wexler Joseph Crea Dean and Professor of Law 2 • BLSLawNotes Law School Briefs International Business Law Center Named for Dennis J. Block ’67 n September 2007, Brooklyn Law attorneys.” Block says he is confident that School named its International the law students who participate in the Business Law Center in honor of Center’s programs will go on to make their Idistinguished attorney Dennis J. Block, a own marks on the legal profession. longtime supporter of the Law School. In his long and distinguished career, Block, a partner in the New York of- Block has advised numerous high-profile fice of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, clients on a variety of complex issues and is widely recognized as one of the world’s deals, including Procter & Gamble’s ac- leading corporate attorneys. He has been quisition of Gillette; Quaker Oats’ acquisi- called one of the “Most Influential Lawyers tion by PepsiCo Inc.; and the largest hostile in America” by The National Law Journal takeover in U.S. history — Pfizer’s acquisi- and was twice named as a “Dealmaker of tion of Warner Lambert. In addition to his the Year” by The American Lawyer. A 1967 transactional work, Block regularly pro- graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he teach- vides counsel to large publicly-held corpo- es Advanced Corporate Law as an adjunct rations, their boards of directors, and their professor at the Law School. audit and special committees on issues in- “We are honored that the Center, now volving corporate governance, federal se- celebrating its 20th anniversary, will bear Dennis J. Block curities laws, attorney-client privilege, and his name,” says Dean Joan G. Wexler. “His government investigations. support underscores the important work of the influential faculty Block is a former member and co-chair of the Committee members and talented students associated with the Center who on Corporate Counsel of the American Bar Association Section of study and shape international business law and policy.” Litigation and a former member of the Committee on Corporate “My long affiliation with Brooklyn Law School has provided Laws of the ABA Section of Business Law. He is also a member of me with countless valuable experiences, exciting opportunities, the editorial boards of several legal publications as well as an au- and warm friendships,” says Block. “As a student, I was privileged thor and a frequent lecturer. Prior to entering private practice, he to learn from great legal minds, and as a professor, I have had the served as a Branch Chief of Enforcement at the New York Regional pleasure of imparting my knowledge to the next generation of BLS Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law provides fellowships and an enriched educational experience for students who are interested in pursuing a career in the field. It draws upon the Law School faculty’s depth of scholar- ship and experience and its strong international and business law curriculum. The Center is also known for its outstanding symposia that bring together leading practitioners, government officials, and legal scholars from around the world to discuss legal and public policy issues of concern to the international, financial and trading markets. Winter 2007 – 08 • 3 Law School Briefs New Members Join Board of Trustees he Brooklyn Law School Board As a law student, Barse was a mem- James Baribeau is an associate with of Trustees welcomed three new ber of the Brooklyn Journal of International Kirkland & Ellis LLP, where he focuses on se- members this year. David Barse Law. He also interned with a federal bank- cured and unsecured lending transactions, T’87, president and chief executive officer ruptcy court judge in the Southern District debt restructurings, loan workouts, and of Third Avenue Management LLC, joined of New York. He credits Associate Dean debtor-in possession financings. He previ- the Board in the summer of 2007. And two Michael Gerber and Professor Arthur Pinto ously clerked for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter outstanding recent graduates — James as major academic influences, explain- J. Walsh of the District of Delaware and was Baribeau ’04 and Allie Cheatham ’05 — ing that they helped him find his calling. an associate at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius were appointed in the fall. “My allegiance to the Law School stems LLP. “I am honored to have been selected for Third Avenue, the firm Barse over- in part from what it did to help shape my the Board,” says Baribeau. “I really enjoyed sees, is a premier asset management com- career path,” he says. “My father went my time at Brooklyn Law School and hope pany based in New York that specializes to Brooklyn Law School, and it was very to contribute to its continued success.” in value investing and distressed debt. He meaningful to me to follow in his foot- While at BLS, Baribeau was a notes & comments editor of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, a Richardson Scholar, and an International Business Law Fellow. He received the American Bankruptcy Law Journal Prize and the Regina Crea Memorial Prize, which is given to a mem- ber of the graduating class in recognition of his service to the Law School. He earned a B.A. in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder and graduated from Brooklyn Law School cum laude. Allie Cheatham is an associate at David Barse ’87 Allie Cheatham ’05 James Baribeau ’04 Allen & Overy LLP, where her practice in- cludes international arbitration, complex has grown the company’s assets under steps.” In addition to his J.D., Barse holds a commercial litigation, and regulatory in- management from less than $1 billion to B.A. from George Washington University. vestigations. In April, she was a featured $30 billion and expanded its offerings to Barse has maintained strong ties speaker at the International Law Alumni include several highly-regarded mutu- with the Law School. Each year, he returns Panel sponsored by the International Law al funds, separate accounts, sub-advised to the Law School to talk to students in Society at the Law School. “I am very ex- portfolios and alternative investment ve- Dean Gerber’s Business Reorganizations cited about joining the Board of Trustees,” hicles. He is also the CEO of M.J. Whitman class about distressed debt investing, she says. “This position allows me to build LLC, a full-service broker-dealer affiliated and he has endowed the Barse Family on the wonderful relationship I developed with Third Avenue. Scholarship at the Law School in memory with Brooklyn Law School while I was a Prior to joining Third Avenue, Barse of his late father, Lawrence Barse, Class of student.” practiced bankruptcy and corporate law, 1958. “I was honored to be invited to join Cheatham served as editor-in-chief representing private investors and hedge the Board and become an even more ac- of the Brooklyn Law Review and was a funds that invested in distressed com- tive participant in the BLS community,” summa cum laude graduate. After law panies. He joined Third Avenue in 1991 as says Barse. With the enthusiasm of a busi- school, she clerked for U.S. District Court general counsel. His combined legal and ness development professional, he says Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the Southern financial experience allowed him to make he hopes his own recent gift of $1 mil- District of New York.
Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court

    In the United States District Court

    Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-06802-WHP Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Companies, Plaintiffs, v. NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF STEVEN F. BENZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 17 I, Steven F. Benz, declare as follows: 1. I submit this declaration in support of preliminary approval of the settlement reached on behalf of the certified Class and Defendants News Corporation, News America, Inc., News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., and News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). 2. I am a partner with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg Huber”), which is Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of plaintiffs certified by the Court on June 18, 2015. I am a member of good standing of the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota bars, and am admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. I became involved in this case at its inception in 2011 and am closely familiar with all aspects of this case since that time. 3. Both Kellogg Huber and I personally have significant experience with antitrust litigation and class actions, including settlements thereof. Copies of my firm’s resume and my personal profile are annexed to this declaration as Exhibit A.
  • Regulating Local Variations in Federal Sentencing

    Regulating Local Variations in Federal Sentencing

    BIBAS LOCAL VARIATIONS IN FEDERAL SENTENCING 58 STAN. L. REV. 137 10/28/2005 1:29:23 PM REGULATING LOCAL VARIATIONS IN FEDERAL SENTENCING Stephanos Bibas* INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 137 I. TYPES, COSTS, AND SOURCES OF LOCAL VARIATION.................................. 139 A. Justified and Unjustified Types of Local Variation............................. 139 B. Sources of Local Variation.................................................................. 141 II. A CASE STUDY OF UNJUSTIFIED VARIATION: FAST-TRACK PROGRAMS.... 145 III. A MIXED BAG: SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTURES ........................ 148 A. How Substantial Assistance Works in Practice................................... 148 B. How To Achieve the Right Blend of Uniformity .................................. 151 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 154 INTRODUCTION While federalism justifies variations among state laws, federal criminal law is supposed to be a uniform national response to crimes of national import. On paper, a single set of federal criminal statutes and Federal Sentencing Guidelines applies uniformly throughout the United States. But in practice, federal criminal charges and sentences vary greatly from state to state and from district to district. For example, some districts regularly prosecute low-level drug offenders. Others set high drug-quantity thresholds for charging and refer less significant cases
  • Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 2 Article 7 2016 Neuroscience and Sentencing Nancy Gertner Harvard Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Nancy Gertner, Neuroscience and Sentencing, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 533 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEUROSCIENCE AND SENTENCING Nancy Gertner* INTRODUCTION This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career.1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposed were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate.2 Everything that I thought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by the insights of science. The question is how to do that: How can neuroscience contribute to the enterprise and what are the pitfalls? This Article represents a few of my preliminary conclusions, but my retrospective analysis is not complete.
  • Mattos Chassidus on the Massei ~ Mattos Chassidus on the Parsha +

    Mattos Chassidus on the Massei ~ Mattos Chassidus on the Parsha +

    LIGHTS OF OUR RIGHTEOUS TZADDIKIM בעזרת ה ' יתבר A Tzaddik, or righteous person , makes everyone else appear righteous before Hashem by advocating for them and finding their merits. Kedushas Levi, Parshas Noach (Bereishis 7:1) MATTOS ~ MASSEI _ CHASSIDUS ON THE PARSHA + Dvar Torah – Mattos Keep Your Word The Torah states (30:3), “If a man takes a vow or swears an oath to G -d to establish a prohibition upon himself, he shall not violate his word; he shall fulfill whatever comes out of his mouth.” In relation to this passuk , the Midrash quotes from Tehillim (144:4), “Our days are like a fleeting shadow.” What is the connection? This can be explained, says Rav Levi Yitzchok, according to a Gemara ( Nedarim 10b), which states, “It is forbidden to say, ‘ Lashem korban , for G-d − an offering.’ Instead a person must say, ‘ Korban Lashem , an offering for G -d.’ Why? Because he may die before he says the word korban , and then he will have said the holy Name in vain.” In this light, we can understand the Midrash. The Torah states that a person makes “a vow to G-d.” This i s the exact language that must be used, mentioning the vow first. Why? Because “our days are like a fleeting shadow,” and there is always the possibility that he may die before he finishes his vow and he will have uttered the Name in vain. n Story The wood chopper had come to Ryczywohl from the nearby village in which he lived, hoping to find some kind of employment.
  • 17-15016 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 1 of 104

    17-15016 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 1 of 104

    Case: 17-15016 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 1 of 104 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15016 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:14-mc-00002-MTT MARION E. PITCH, The Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony S. Pitch, Plaintiff – Appellee, LAURA WEXLER, Intervenor, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (March 27, 2020) Case: 17-15016 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 2 of 104 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, TJOFLAT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.* TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: The grand jury, as an institution, has long been understood as a “constitutional fixture in its own right,” operating independently of any branch of the federal government. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 1742 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). That independence allows the grand jury to serve as a buffer between the government and the people with respect to the enforcement of the criminal law. But the ability of the grand jury to serve this purpose depends upon maintaining the secrecy of its proceedings. The long-established policy of upholding the secrecy of the grand jury helps to protect the innocent accused from facing unfounded charges, encourages full and frank testimony on the part of witnesses, and prevents interference with the grand jury’s deliberations. See Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S.
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys

    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.
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
  • March 12, 2013

    March 12, 2013

    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 12, 2013 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2013, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch Judge Paul J. Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee Judge Joel A. Pisano,1 District of New Jersey Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, District of Maryland 1Designated by the Chief Justice as a substitute for Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster, Western District of Pennsylvania, who was unable to attend. Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Judge Thomas A. Varlan, Eastern District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Judge Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge William Jay Riley Judge Rodney W. Sippel, Eastern District of Missouri Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of Washington Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe Judge Dee V. Benson, District of Utah Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina Judge W. Louis Sands, Middle District of Georgia 2 Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 District of Columbia Circuit: Chief Judge Merrick B.
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†

    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†

    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
  • Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

    Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules

    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES November 2, 2020 AGENDA Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules November 2, 2020 1. Opening Business A. Chair’s Remarks and Administrative Announcements (Oral Report) B. ACTION: Review and Approval of Minutes • Draft Minutes of the May 5, 2020 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules .......................................................23 C. Report of the Rules Committee Staff • Report on the June 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure • Draft Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure ...............49 • Report on the September 2020 Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States • September 2020 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States (appendices omitted) ............................79 • Rules and Projects Pending Before Congress, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Conference, and the Rules Committees • Chart Tracking Proposed Rules Amendments ...............103 • Legislative Update • Legislation That Directly or Effectively Amends the Federal Rules (116th Congress) ...............................109 2. Draft New Rule 62 (Rules Emergency) A. Reporters’ Memorandum (October 14, 2020) ............................................121 B. Supporting Materials • Draft New Rule 62 and Committee Note .....................................141 • Chart Comparing Draft New Rule 62 with the CARES Act .......153 • Memorandum from Kevin Crenny, Rules
  • Neuroscience and Sentencing

    Neuroscience and Sentencing

    NEUROSCIENCE AND SENTENCING Nancy Gertner* INTRODUCTION This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career.1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposed were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate.2 Everything that I thought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by the insights of science. The question is how to do that: How can neuroscience contribute to the enterprise and what are the pitfalls? This Article represents a few of my preliminary conclusions, but my retrospective analysis is not complete. I approach the issue of neuroscience and sentencing from three vantage points. First, I look at the sentencer’s brain. I ask who the sentencing decision maker is and what cognitive and other pressures the sentencer experiences.3 The insights of neuroscience will be a nullity if they are filtered through a system—like the one I labored under—that makes them irrelevant, ignored, and even trivialized. Likewise, science will be irrelevant if decades of a mandatory sentencing system has affected the cognitive lens through which judges today see the sentencing task, as I believe it has. Nearly thirty years of sentencing by a flawed formula—of avoiding the exercise of meaningful discretion; of major changes in the division of labor on * Senior Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; Judge (Ret.), U.S.
  • September(27+29,(2013( Hon

    September(27+29,(2013( Hon

    Jus4ces(and( Judges( Women&Transforming&Our& Communi1es&and&the&World& September(27+29,(2013( Hon. Ruth I. Abrams Class of 1956 “… it was clear one judge didn’t want me in the courtroom [even though I was the Assistant DA in Middlesex County]. He said I could not be in the courtroom without a hat and white gloves. The white hat and gloves were an excuse. Do you know how dirty the old Middlesex County courthouse was?” Honorable Ruth I. Abrams (Ret.) Justice, First Female Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Harvard Law School Class of 1956 Radcliffe College (A.B., 1953) Hon. Cynthia G. Aaron '84 Hon. Sharon V. Burrell '82 Hon. Mary Grace Diehl '77 Hon. Justice Arden '70 Hon. Zoe A. Bush '79 Hon. Raya S. Dreben '54 Hon. Christine M. Arguello '80 Hon. V. Buthelezi-Khampepe '82 Hon. Fernande R. V. Duffly '78 Hon. Deborah A. Batts '72 Hon. Diane O. Campbell '76 Hon. Antoinette L. Dupont '54 Hon. Carol Berkman '67 Hon. Yvonne E. Campos '88 Hon. Jacquelyn P. Eckert '94 Hon. Marie-France Bich '80 Hon. Susan L. Carney '77 Hon. Maryanne E. Elliott '90 Hon. Cathy Bissoon '93 Hon. Denise Jefferson Casper '94 Hon. Christine C. Ewell '86 Hon. Catherine C. Blake '75 Hon. Shelley C. Chapman '81 Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer '84 Hon. Karen J. Brandt '79 Hon. Dorothy Chin-Brandt '75 Hon. Dale S. Fischer '80 Hon. F. S. Brenneman '53 Hon. Cynthia J. Cohen '75 Hon. Fern Fisher '78 Hon. Eileen M. Brewer '87 Hon. Laura A. Cordero '88 Hon.