Last week, lawyers for Brendan Dassey, whose conviction was documented in the Netflix series “Making a Murderer,??? asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court decision that ruled a young Dassey’s confession was voluntary. He was 16 years old at the time he confessed to helping his uncle, Steven Avery, rape and murder photographer Teresa Halbach in 2005, and according to court filings, he has suffered from intellectual disabilities most of his life. Dassey’s attorneys claim investigators took advantage of his youth and mental deficiencies to coerce a false confession, and now, the case that became a

On Native Americans, Patent Trolls, And One Hugely Important Upcoming Supreme Court Decision Julie Blackman, Ph.D. Senior Vice President The best way to determine the validity and so the value of patents is in play.  In 2012, the AIA changed the rules of the game, and the value of patents changed abruptly.  An upcoming Supreme Court decision may roll back the changes that have followed from the AIA.  In the meantime, certain Native American tribes have profited more; patent trolls less. Native Americans:  The AIA Does Not Apply (Source:  New Yorker, November 20, 2017, “The Financial Page:  Patently Odd” by

On August 23, 2017, I saw something historic happen.  I saw jurors receive instructions about how to take steps to prevent the Internet from pushing case-relevant information to them.  This instruction was of no small moment since the trial was certain to generate a great deal of media attention.  New Jersey’s senior Senator, Robert Menendez, was about to be tried in a Newark, New Jersey federal courtroom for allegedly exerting political influence in exchange for gifts and favors from his co-defendant, ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen. Abbe David Lowell of Norton Rose Fulbright, Menendez’ attorney, raised this issue with Judge William Walls,

As internet use and social media become more and more prevalent,[1] the threat of jurors being biased by – or improperly sharing – internet information, has become a greater concern. Over the past several years, the legal community has been buzzing about Google mistrials and juror internet misconduct – but one problem remains – lots of hype and not a lot of data. Click here to view Respondent Demographics and Social Media Preferences In a prior study,[2] jurors in 15 criminal and civil trials completed questionnaires distributed by the judge after the conclusion of the trial. These questionnaires assessed jurors’

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the 10th and final piece in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week, we have offered a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. These innovations have been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and are not prohibited in most jurisdictions.

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the ninth piece in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week, we offer a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. Each innovation has been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and is not prohibited in most jurisdictions. Most importantly, each

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the eighth in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week we offer a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. Each innovation has been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and is not prohibited in most jurisdictions. Most importantly, each innovation

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the seventh in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week we offer a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. Each innovation has been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and is not prohibited in most jurisdictions. Most importantly, these innovations

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the sixth in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week we offer a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. Each innovation has been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and is not prohibited in most jurisdictions. Most importantly, each innovation

Stephen Susman In a series of articles on Law 360, Steve Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and DOAR Jury Consultant Roy Futterman provide the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations for improved jury trials:     This is the fifth in a series of articles on the Civil Jury Project’s proposed innovations that can resuscitate the American jury trial. Each week we offer a summary of a different innovation, the legal support for its use, and empirical studies on its popularity. Each innovation has been proposed by academics and practitioners, implemented by state and federal judges, and is not prohibited in most jurisdictions. Most importantly, each innovation