The U.S. Constitution provides a criminal defendant with a right to trial by jury, and most states and the federal government require criminal juries to agree unanimously before a defendant may be convicted. But what exactly must a jury agree upon unanimously? Well-established doctrine, pursuant to In re Winship, provides that the jury must agree that the prosecution has proven every element of...
Mitigating Arbitration’s Externalities: A Call for Tailored Judicial Review
Arbitration has changed dramatically since Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. Increasingly, unsophisticated parties are asked to enter into binding arbitration agreements before any dispute has arisen. As a result, mandatory laws are frequently interpreted and enforced by arbitrators rather than judges. Nonetheless, judicial review of arbitration awards is still largely limited...
Taxing Founders’ Stock
Founders of a start-up usually take common stock as a large portion of their compensation for current and future labor efforts. By electing to pay a nominal amount of ordinary income tax on the speculative value of the stock when it is received, founders pay tax on any appreciation at the long-term capital gains rate. This Article argues that the preferential tax treatment of founders’ stock is...
Applying Rules of Discovery to Information Uncovered About Jurors
Once reserved for high profile cases or clients with “deep pockets,” juror investigations have become increasingly common in the digital age. With a couple of keystrokes, attorneys can now uncover a wealth of information about jurors online. This Article examines the positive impact of technology on juror investigations in criminal trials, such as improving the use of peremptory challenges...
Footloose: How to Tame the Tucker Act Shuffle After United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1500, “Pendency of claims in other courts,” is to force upon plaintiffs suing the federal government a mutually exclusive election between either the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) or other courts, so as to minimize jurisdictional conflict and to preclude duplicative claims. Under current precedent, the statute strips the CFC of jurisdiction if the claim before the...
Introduction
Each year, the UCLA Law Review hosts a Symposium featuring cutting-edge scholarship by leading specialists in an emerging legal field. On January 28, 2011, thirteen scholars engaged in a stimulating and productive conversation on contemporary interplay of criminal law and immigration law. Dean Moran opened the Symposium by welcoming the participants and highlighting the key issues and challenges...
A Journey of Faith, Love, and Teaching
Each year, the UCLA School of Law presents the Rutter Award for Excellence in Teaching to an outstanding law professor. On April 7, 2010, this honor was given to Professor Thomas Holm, the director of UCLA Law’s Lawyering Skills Clinical Program. UCLA Law Review Discourse is proud to continue its tradition of publishing a modified version of the ceremony speech delivered by the award recipient...
Why Padilla Doesn't Matter (Much)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky heralds a formal breakthrough in the representation provided to immigrants charged with crimes that trigger deportation, and the decision may signal as well the Court’s recognition of plea bargaining’s dominant role in criminal adjudication. There are good reasons to worry, however, that Padilla’s practical impact will be modest, and for...