Contributions

Can the excul­pa­to­ry tes­ti­mo­ny of a wit­ness before a grand jury be entered against the gov­ern­ment under the “For­mer Tes­ti­mo­ny” excep­tion to the ban on hearsay? Rahul Hari (’16) exam­ines this ques­tion, pre­sent­ed at the 2015 Nation­al Moot Court Com­pe­ti­tion. For excul­pa­to­ry tes­ti­mo­ny pro­vid­ed by a wit­ness before the grand jury to be admis­si­ble at a sub­se­quent tri­al in which the same wit­ness is no longer avail­able to tes­ti­fy, the pro­po­nent of that evi­dence must show that the pros­e­cu­tor had a sim­i­lar motive in devel­op­ing that witness’s tes­ti­mo­ny at the grand jury stage as she would have had if the wit­ness were now avail­able to tes­ti­fy at tri­al. This Con­tri­bu­tion argues that the broad inter­pre­ta­tion of “sim­i­lar motive,” as employed by a major­i­ty of the Cir­cuit Courts of Appeals, adheres to the text of the Fed­er­al Rules of Evi­dence, more accu­rate­ly cap­tures the mul­ti­ple motives a pros­e­cu­tor might have in ques­tion­ing a wit­ness, and pro­tects against pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al abuse.

Contributions

The Pro­ceed­ings of the NYU Moot Court Board, or just “Pro­ceed­ings,” is the online jour­nal of the NYU Moot Court Board, doc­u­ment­ing new approach­es to unset­tled legal ques­tions pro­ceed­ing from moot court activ­i­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly law stu­dent com­pe­ti­tions.

Pro­ceed­ings aims to real­ize for the wider legal com­mu­ni­ty a ben­e­fit of moot­ing that has hith­er­to accrued only to par­tic­i­pants. As most appel­late lawyers know, one of the best ways to refine a the­o­ry of a case or an area of law is to argue about it, either with col­leagues or before law school pro­fes­sors. But stu­dent Moot Court com­pe­ti­tions, which con­sid­er some of the most inter­est­ing and intractable prob­lems in law, gen­er­ate hun­dreds of hours of for­mal, inquisi­to­r­i­al analy­sis of those prob­lems by pro­fes­sors, prac­ti­tion­ers, and judges (not to men­tion reams of legal writing)–and then, too often, the results are thrown away when the com­pe­ti­tion is over.

No longer. Pro­ceed­ings is the jour­nal where lawyers and law stu­dents can pub­lish their “test results” from the legal lab­o­ra­to­ry of moot­ing that tests both old and new approach­es to unset­tled areas of law. It aims to real­ize moot­ing’s poten­tial not only as a valu­able edu­ca­tion­al exer­cise, but as a pro­duc­tive forum for legal research.

Contributions

Does a school dis­trict vio­late the First Amend­ment when they ban stick­ers read­ing “Screw Hate, Don’t Dis­crim­i­nate,” and if so, how? Alec Web­ley (’16) exam­ines this ques­tion, pre­sent­ed at the 2015 Seigen­thaler First Amend­ment Moot Court Com­pe­ti­tion at Van­der­bilt Uni­ver­si­ty. Supreme Court doc­trine rec­og­nizes that a school or edu­ca­tor may sup­press stu­dent speech – speech that, in oth­er con­texts, would receive First Amend­ment pro­tec­tions – that is “lewd,” and there­fore incon­sis­tent with a school’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion. This Con­tri­bu­tion cri­tiques this lewd­ness test as imper­mis­si­bly vague, con­tent-based, and over­broad, and pro­pos­es an alter­na­tive method through which schools could pro­duc­tive­ly address and sanc­tion “lewd” speech.