Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1 (2010)

2010-12-14T18:08:54Z 2010-12-14T18:08:54Z 2010 89 Or. L. Rev. 385 (2010) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10905 30 p. This Comment examines how the Uniform Law Commission can essentially eradicate the excess funds provision from state statutes simply by amending the uniform pet trust statutes (specifically section 408 of the Uniform Trust Code and section 2-907 of the Uniform Probate Code). Due to the influence the Commission’s codes have on state legislatures when drafting statutes, such a change will certainly trickle down throughout the states, whether or not each state has adopted the uniform code’s pet trust statute. Part I of this Comment discusses how pet trusts generally operate and describes the kinds of pet trusts that can be implemented in most states. Part II describes the Uniform Law Commission, the creation of the Uniform Trust Code and the Uniform Probate Code, and the effect those codes have on statutory pet trusts. Part III analyzes section 408 of the Uniform Trust Code and section 2-907 of the Uniform Probate Code—two uniform sections that have had the greatest effect on state pet trust statutes. Part III also describes a typical excess funds provision. Part IV analyzes the four main reasons the excess funds provision should be removed from uniform laws. en_US University of Oregon Law School Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 385-414 : Making Pet Trusts Instruments of Settlors and Not of Courts Making Pet Trusts Instruments of Settlors and Not of Courts Article

Stanchi, Kathryn M. 2010-12-14T17:35:09Z 2010-12-14T17:35:09Z 2010 89 Or. L. Rev. 305 (2010) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10903 46 p. The contribution of this Article is the synthesis of legal advocacy and the psychological studies of priming. It shows advocates how priming can help them make better strategic decisions in their briefs and gives specific examples of different ways to use priming in persuasive writing. Part I defines the basic concept of priming and gives examples of different ways that priming works. Part II begins the application of the priming studies to law. The focus of Part II is on priming the reader’s emotional response through theme and story. It also examines how emotions can impact decision making in unexpected ways. Part III moves from emotional priming to semantic priming. It examines how to influence the decision maker’s view of the case by using particular vocabulary and description in key, strategic places in the brief. Finally, Part IV focuses on the risks of priming, as well as the limitations of the priming studies as applied to law. en_US University of Oregon Law School Priming (Psychology) Legal briefs Briefs Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 305-350 : The Power of Priming in Legal Advocacy: Using the Science of First Impressions to Persuade the Reader The Power of Priming in Legal Advocacy: Using the Science of First Impressions to Persuade the Reader Article

Sonenshein, David A. Nilon, Robin 2010-12-08T21:36:43Z 2010-12-08T21:36:43Z 2010 89 Or. L. Rev. 263 (2010) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10885 42 p. It is time to change the law governing lineup eyewitness identification procedures and the admission at trial of eyewitness identifications. Over the last forty years, forensic science has developed considerably while the law governing lineups has remained largely calcified. The advent of DNA typing has underscored the unreliability of lineup identifications. The authors of one study estimate that the convictions of seventy-five percent of those defendants exonerated through the use of DNA evidence were based on erroneous eyewitness testimony. The unreliability of eyewitness identifications is revealed most dramatically in sexual assault cases, which often include both victim identification testimony and physical evidence from which the assailant’s DNA can be determined. DNA evidence has also exonerated many defendants whose convictions for other crimes (some carrying a capital sentence) were based on flawed eyewitness identifications. Improved lineup identification procedures and more stringent admissibility standards can help reduce the number of individuals wrongly convicted through erroneous eyewitness identification. en_US University of Oregon Law School Wrongful convictions Judicial error Eyewitness identification Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 263-304 : Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions: Let’s Give Science a Chance Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions: Let’s Give Science a Chance Article

Peters, Amanda 2010-12-08T20:53:15Z 2010-12-08T20:53:15Z 2010 89 Or. L. Rev. 133 (2010) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10883 42 p. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 created a federally funded, national system of patient advocacy that gave lawyers, known as “patient advocates,” the authority to investigate patient allegations of neglect, abuse, and civil rights violations. PAIMI was also designed to protect individuals with mental illness who live and receive treatment outside inpatient treatment facilities. It is a wide-reaching Act that has protected countless individuals who are unable to defend themselves due to their circumstances or who might otherwise have died or suffered abuse in secret. Patient advocates have a demanding job. In 2008, patient advocates investigated nearly 19,000 allegations of abuse, neglect, or rights violations on behalf of their clients.6 In 2009, Congress allotted $35.8 million to patient advocacy groups to carry out these investigations. It is projected that Congress will review PAIMI next year. Despite the additional funding and PAIMI’s simple mandate, several problems exist with the patient advocacy system. In the past decade alone, the Department of Justice investigated and uncovered numerous incidents of widespread neglect and abuse in hospitals and institutions throughout the United States. What was said during congressional hearings twenty-five years ago—that “[p]rotection for these frailest of our society exists largely on paper”10—is unfortunately still true today, despite PAIMI’s enactment. The federal investigations raise concerns about why PAIMI’s patient advocacy system has been unable to stop the abuse, neglect, and civil rights violations it was created to prevent. One reason is that patient advocates have taken on additional and legally impermissible responsibilities that Congress never envisioned or authorized. These activities have taken them away from their core mission. The purpose of this Article is to examine these prohibited activities and suggest changes to PAIMI that Congress should consider when it revises and reenacts the Act next year. This Article begins by examining the genesis of modern-day patient advocacy and the conflicting legal theories that underlie the field of mental health law. It then explores relevant provisions of PAIMI and its legislative intent. Finally, this Article examines the legally impermissible activities in which patient advocates have engaged, the problems these activities present, and potential solutions to these problems. In the end, the author hopes that patient advocates will be held accountable to PAIMI, which governs their role as advocates and protectors of individuals with mental illness. en_US University of Oregon Law School Patient advocacy -- Law and legislation Mental health laws People with mental disabilities Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 133-174 : Lawyers Who Break the Law: What Congress Can Do to Prevent Mental Health Patient Advocates from Violating Federal Legislation Lawyers Who Break the Law: What Congress Can Do to Prevent Mental Health Patient Advocates from Violating Federal Legislation Article

Benforado, Adam 2010-12-08T20:22:38Z 2010-12-08T20:22:38Z 2010 89 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2010) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10881 80 p. African Americans face a significant and menacing threat, but it is not the one that has preoccupied the press, pundits, and policy makers in the wake of several bigoted murders and a resurgent white supremacist movement. While hate crimes and hate groups demand continued vigilance, if we are truly to protect our minority citizens, we must shift our most urgent attention from neo-Nazis stockpiling weapons to the seemingly benign gun owners among us—our friends, family, and neighbors—who show no animus toward African Americans and who profess genuine commitments to equality. Our commonsense narratives about racism and guns—centered on a conception of humans as autonomous, self-transparent, rational actors—are outdated and strongly contradicted by recent evidence from the mind sciences. Advances in implicit social cognition reveal that most people carry biases against racial minorities beyond their conscious awareness. These biases affect critical behavior, including the actions of individuals performing shooting tasks. In simulations, Americans are faster and more accurate when firing on armed blacks than when firing on armed whites, and faster and more accurate in electing to hold their fire when confronting unarmed whites than when confronting unarmed blacks. Yet, studies suggest that people who carry implicit racial bias may be able to counteract its effects through training. Given recent expansions in gun rights and gun ownership—and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of private citizens who already use firearms in self-defense each year—this is reason for serious concern. While police officers often receive substantial simulation training in the use of weapons that, in laboratory experiments, appears to help them control for implicit bias, members of the public who purchase guns are under no similar practice duties. In addressing this grave danger, states and local governments should require ongoing training courses for all gun owners similar to other existing licensing regimes. Such an approach is unlikely to run into constitutional problems and is more politically tenable than alternative solutions. Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.1 – Bob Herbert en_US University of Oregon Law School Race discrimination -- United States African Americans -- Civil rights Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 001-080 : Quick on the Draw: Implicit Bias and the Second Amendment Quick on the Draw: Implicit Bias and the Second Amendment Article