“The Quest to Normalize Questments” explores the use of “questments”—a hybrid of questions and statements—in cross-examination, advocating for their normalization as an effective trial tool. While cross-examination is a vital aspect of the adversarial trial system, governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts remain inconsistent in recognizing questments as valid leading questions. The article […]
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e913/9e9139aeca78ee7bc8452618e01bca7ec9f068f5" alt=""
In response to Professor Melanie C. Regis’s article, Testing the Validity of a Verdict, about the complexities of addressing juror misconduct, Professor Cynara Hermes McQuillan offers a nuanced analysis of the procedural challenges surrounding Remmer hearings. She underscores the urgent need for a uniform standard to resolve the growing circuit split on what constitutes sufficient grounds for such […]
“Standing Beyond Reason” examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, affirming that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone. In doing so, the Court reinforced the principle that Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury—which the plaintiffs failed to establish. The decision curbs judicial […]