Oregon Law Review : Vol.102, No.1 (2023)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Oregon Law Review : Vol.102, No.1 (2023) by Issue Date
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Beyond an Unreasonable Inference: Introduction of Gang Evidence and Implicit Bias in Oregon Criminal Courts(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-20) Hooker, Kasey AnneThis Comment’s purpose is to analyze the bias exhibited against gang members and suggest solutions for what Oregon can do to prevent juror bias against gang members from corrupting the integrity of jury verdicts. Part I of this Comment will (1) discuss some of the history of racial bias in the United States’ criminal justice system—including the various forms of systemic racism employed throughout the nation, (2) discuss how those laws were based on public opinion fueled by negative racial stereotypes and attitudes, and (3) examine the modern public’s bias toward gang members and how that bias derives from racial animus. Part II will use a behavioral realism framework to discuss how implicit bias against gang members negatively influences decisions in the jury room. Finally, Part III will discuss two possible alternatives for rectifying this issue in Oregon: a revision to the Oregon Evidence Code or an Oregon Supreme Court rule that would limit the admissibility of gang evidence as character evidence under the prior bad acts rule.Item Open Access Reducing Oregon’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Prioritizing Hydropower and Energy Equity for All Oregonians(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-20) Lowe, DylanOregon created some of the most ambitious carbon-neutral goals of any state in the country. However, Oregon failed to achieve meaningful results in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. This Comment’s thesis states that Oregon’s policies on climate change will continue to have two effects. First, the policies will likely not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ruling the policies ineffective. Second, the policies will increase energy costs with inequitable effects on communities of color, rural communities, and the unhoused population of Oregon.Item Open Access Naked Class Waivers(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-20) Fritz-Mauer, MatthewMandatory arbitration agreements have become commonplace. These contracts bind tens of millions of workers and consumers. The mandatory arbitration agreements typically do two things: (1) force individuals to privately arbitrate all disputes and (2) require them to waive their right to participate in class action lawsuits. Legal scholars and experts have criticized this phenomenon for worsening the access to justice crisis, stymying corporate accountability, depriving the public of oversight, and preventing millions from vindicating their civil rights. Class action lawsuits are often the only way to pursue small, widespread violations of the law. And, without a group mechanism, the fundamental rights of millions of people are systematically foreclosed from a legal claim. But something worse than mandatory arbitration is coming—and in many places, is already here: “Naked Class Waivers” that force individuals to give up their ability to participate in group lawsuits without any accompanying arbitration agreement. This Article is the first to explore the increasing prevalence of these coercive and one sided agreements.Item Open Access The Kids Are Definitely Not All Right: An Empirical Study Establishing a Statistically Significant Negative Relationship Between Receiving Accommodations in Law School and Passing the Bar Exam(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-20) DeVito, ScottUsing data gathered from sixty public law schools relating to the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, this Article demonstrates that there is a statistically significant negative correlation between the percentage of students in a school who receive accommodations and the school’s first-time bar passage rate. In other words, this study shows that as the percentage of accommodated students in a law school increased, its bar passage rate decreased. This Article establishes a prima facie case that something is wrong with the accommodation granting process and argues that state board of bar examiners should provide more data and transparency on examinee accommodations.Item Open Access Lest We Be Lemmings(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-20) Osborn-Wright, ClaireThis Article explains why the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that the Juliana plaintiffs do not possess standing to obtain their requested declaratory judgment is incorrect. Part I addresses the knowledge of climate scientists, the U.S. government, and the fossil fuel industry, of the existence, causes, and effects of global warming. Part II discusses the U.S. government’s failure to regulate the fossil fuel industry, reduce federal subsidies to the industry, and hold the industry accountable for global warming. Part III explains the fossil fuel industry’s strategy for denying responsibility for global warming. Part IV discusses the opinions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and Ninth Circuit in the case of Juliana v. United States. Part V explains the many reasons why the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that the plaintiffs do not possess standing to obtain a declaratory judgment is incorrect.Item Open Access Truth, Lies, and Spelunking: Protecting the Investigative Reporters We Send into the Cave(University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-01) Brogan, Doris DelTostoThis Article begins with a brief discussion of journalism and its purposes. It then describes undercover reporting, positioned as a subset of investigative reporting, through a series of examples where reporters use deceit or engage in tortious conduct such as trespassing to gain access to information. The Article then focuses on the legal actions, usually civil tort claims, brought against journalists—delving in some detail into ag-gag statutes drafted specifically to penalize undercover reporting on the agricultural industry. It explores how courts navigate constitutional questions, nuanced causation issues, and overarching public policy considerations. From this it becomes clear that, while it doesn’t happen often, undercover journalists have been sued and have even faced threats of criminal charges for their actions in pursuing critical information of significant public interest. The very threat of legal actions can have a chilling effect on the willingness of the press to risk undercover investigations that rely on deceit or other similar tactics, especially given the increasingly fragile economic circumstances of most media outlets. Against this background, I argue that we need good investigative reporting that in some instances will involve deceit, trespass, and other minor wrongdoing. Finally, I propose a limited common law or statutory privilege that would protect journalists from tort liability and criminal charges for minor unlawful conduct while pursuing important stories of significant public interest.