Spring 2017 Staff Applications

On Friday, November 18 at 9:00 AM we will release the Spring 2017 Staff Member application on our TWEN page. Only 2Ls & 3L visiting/transfer students are eligible to apply at this time – but day and evening students are both encouraged to consider the opportunity. Students already on the Law Review staff need not re-apply. The completed application is due by 5:00 PM on Sunday, November 27, 2016 through the TWEN Assignment dropbox. We are looking forward to your submissions!

In order to retrieve and submit the Staff Member application, you will need to add CUNY Law Review as a course on your TWEN page. We strongly suggest you register for our TWEN page now and download the materials as soon as they become available so we can troubleshoot issues in advance. You may then submit your application at any time before the deadline. Applications will not be reviewed if submitted after 5:00 PM on 11/27/16.

Detailed instructions for completing and submitting the application are included in the application itself, but you may know in advance that you will need to submit (1) a writing sample, (2) a personal statement, and (3) a diagnostic Bluebook test.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail us at CUNYLR@mail.law.cuny.edu. Members of the Law Review will also be available from 12:00-4:00 PM in the Beacon on Monday, November 21 and again by appointment to answer any process questions you may have regarding the application or any substantive questions you may have about publishing a note or comment in the Law Review.

 

WHAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS DON’T (HAVE TO) TELL THEIR CLIENTS

Steven Zeidman[1]

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

New York State courts, like many other state and federal courts, have seen an increase in cases that pit lawyer versus client; where the lawyer wanted to proceed in one way and the client wanted to go in another direction. The resulting decisions, often inconsistent and irreconcilable, reflect the difficulties in navigating the lawyer-client relationship.

Recently, the New York Court of Appeals again waded directly into the muddy waters of attorney versus client decision-making.[2] On the face of it, the Court was deciding whether counsel needed his client’s consent before telling the prosecutor that his client would not exercise his statutory right to testify in the Grand Jury.[3] However, lurking beneath the surface are the larger and related questions of who, between lawyer and client, has ultimate decision-making power, and what information lawyers must provide clients about their rights.

Continue reading

Morales-Santana Before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gender Discrimination in Derivative Citizenship with Consequences for Gender Equity, Parental Responsibility and Children’s Well Being

Professor Janet Calvo[1]

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

On November 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Lynch v. Morales-Santana.[2] The case directly addresses the constitutionality of gender differences in the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by statute through parentage.[3] But the case is infused with issues about the historical record of discrimination based in gender, non-marital birth, race and imperialism in U.S. law. The outcome of the case will be legally and socially significant because of the standards the Court may apply to gender discrimination and to a remedy for discrimination in the context of citizenship and because of the societal message sent regarding parental responsibility for non-marital children grounded in gender stereotypes.

Continue reading

Vol. 19.2

 

Explore the complete digital version of Volume 19.2.

Public Interest Practitioner Section (PIPS)

Demanding a Race to the Top: The 2015 Strike Against MFY Legal Services in Context by Jota Borgmann and Brian Sullivan, members of the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW Local 2320

Can Reproductive Trans Bodies Exist? by Chase Strangio, Staff Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & AIDS Project

Articles

From Michigan’s Strawberry Fields to South Texas’s Rio Grande Valley: The Saga of a Legal Career and the Texas Civil Rights Project by James C. Harrington, Founder and Director Emeritus of Texas Civil Rights Project

Puerto Rico’s Odious Debt: The Economic Crisis of Colonialism by Natasha Lycia Ora BannanAssociate Counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF

Notes

A Veil of Anonymity: Preserving Anonymous Sperm Donation While Affording Children Access to Donor-Identifying Information by Aliya Shain, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Fast Food Sweatshops: Franchisors as Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Thomas J. Power, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Fall 2016 Events

Join CUNY Law Review for some exciting events this fall in our 20th year of publication!

Bluebook Training

Join us for our semiannual Bluebook Training! We’ll review common errors, oft-forgotten rules, and correct some sample law review citations together. Please bring your Bluebooks, any office supplies you use to mark important pages, and your computers!

Tuesday, Sept. 13 | 7:30-8:30 PM
Room 1/205
Note: a makeup training for evening students and others with immovable conflicts will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 14 from 8:00-9:00 PM in Room 1/204.

bluebook-training-event-poster

Welcome Back Happy Hour

We invite the whole CUNY School of Law community to join us for our annual welcome back happy hour! Help us kick off a new school year and celebrate the beginning of our 20th publication year.

Friday, Sept. 16 | 6:00-9:00 PM
The Beast Next Door
47-51 27th St
Long Island City, NY

CUNY Law Review Welcome Back Happy Hour

SCOTUS Preview

Save the date! Join CUNY School of Law Professors Janet Calvo, Jeffrey Kirchmeier, Stephen Loffredo, and Ruthann Robson for an evening discussion about the Supreme Court’s docket for the upcoming term. Learn about contested public interest cases and hear predictions for when the 8-member Court might deadlock this term. This event is open to the public!

Thursday, September 29 | 6:00-7:30 PM
Community Room @ CUNY School of Law (3rd Floor)

Lunch with Law Review

Join us to learn more about publishing as a student author! CUNY alums and current students will discuss how to navigate the process of preparing your scholarship for publication. Featuring Allie Robbins (CUNY Law ’09, Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs), Tom Power (CUNY Law ’16, CUNYLR Managing Editor ’16), Navid Khazanei (3L, CUNYLR Executive Articles Editor ’17), Shawn Simpson (Writing Fellow).

Wednesday, October 5 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM
Community Room, 3rd Floor
LUNCH PROVIDED (Taco Bar)

lunch-with-cuny-law-review

Perspectives on the Fight for Black Lives

Join us to learn about how and where to get involved in supporting the #BlackLivesMatter movement as a legal advocate. Panelists will include Erin Cloud of the Bronx Defenders, Carl Lipscombe of Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Thenjiwe McHarris of Blackbird and Vision for Black Lives, Victoria Phillips of the Urban Justice Center, and Anthonine Pierre on behalf of Communities United for Police Reform. Moderated by Chaumtoli Huq of Law@theMargins & CUNY Law’s own Nicole Smith of the Criminal Defenders Clinic.

Monday, November 7 | 4:00 – 6:00 PM
Community Room, Room 3-115 [3rd Floor] 2 Court Square, Long Island City, NY

Sponsored by CUNY Black Law Students Association [BLSA], Law@theMargins, and CUNY Law Review.

Food will be provided. This event is open to the public & will be live-streamed (link forthcoming).

REGISTER HERE

2016-10-29-perspectives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Street & Graffiti Art, Copyright, and Justice

Please join the CUNY Law Review and the Sorensen Center for International Peace & Justice for an exciting presentation and conversation with Dr. Enrico Bonadio, Visiting Scholar from City Law School in London.

Dr. Bonadio will discuss his research on graffiti, street art, and copyright law. He will address how corporations have used the work of street artists without compensating them for their work.

Thursday, November 17, 2016
Beacon Atrium (1st Floor at CUNY School of Law)
Reception: 4:30 PM (cannolis & coffee provided)
Presentation: 5:00– 6:00 PM

Join us afterwards for a Happy Hour at the Beast Next Door Cafe & Bar:
42-51 27th St, Long Island City, NY 11101

REGISTER HERE

graffitiartcopyrightjpeg

 

THE MANY MEANINGS OF MONTGOMERY V. LOUISIANA: HOW THE SUPREME COURT REDEFINED RETROACTIVITY AND MILLER V. ALABAMA

Brandon Buskey*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

Henry Montgomery has survived the remarkable arc of the Supreme Court’s evolution juvenile sentencing. In 1970, Louisiana sentenced him to die in prison for the murder of a police officer, a crime he committed when he was seventeen years old.[1] The sentence was mandatory, and it was perfectly legal. At that time it was also perfectly legal to execute juveniles. A generation later, the Supreme Court barred the execution of children under age sixteen in 1988,[2] but the next year refused to extend the bar to all juveniles.[3] Not until 2005 did the Court exempt all juveniles from the death penalty.[4] In half a decade, the Court ruled that juveniles could not be imprisoned for life without any possibility of release for non-homicides.[5] A mere two years later, yet forty-six years after Mr. Montgomery’s conviction, the Court declared, in Miller v. Alabama,[6] that mandatory life sentences like Mr. Montgomery’s were unconstitutional.

Miller confirmed the lessons of these prior decisions that children’s youth and immaturity make them categorically different for sentencing purposes, and that life imprisonment without parole is akin to the death penalty for juveniles. Thus, automatically sentencing children to a lifetime of imprisonment “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.”[7] The Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and usual punishments” therefore prohibits such sentences.

Continue reading

CUNY Law Review’s Spring Symposium: “Reimagining Family Defense”

On Friday, April 8th, we hosted our 2016 Symposium, Reimagining Family Defense. More than 100 people attended the half-day event to engage in a discussion of how family defense can become more available throughout the U.S.

The plenary panel featured contributions from Professor Kara Finck of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Diane Redleaf, Founder and Executive Director of the Chicago based Family Defense Center; and Lauren Shapiro, Director of the Brooklyn Family Defense Project.

Marty Guggenheim, Director of NYU Law School’s Family Defense Clinic, moderated the plenary session, which focused heavily on the need to increase legal representation for parents in child welfare cases. Professor Guggenheim was presented with the CUNY Law Review Scholarship for Social Justice Award.

Making parental voices more prominent in child welfare cases was a focus of the symposium. Members of Rise Magazine, a publication written by and for parents involved in the child welfare system, were invited to share their thoughts on how attorneys and judges can make parents’ family court experiences more empowering.

Continue reading

2016 First Toast!

Come join us and toast to all of the hard work the outgoing 2015-2016 CUNY Law Review Board did this year and send well wishes to the incoming 2016-2017 CUNY Law Review Board!

 

CUNY Law Review Spring Symposium

Reposted from Public Square Logo

 

 

CUNY LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM BRINGS FAMILY DEFENSE TO THE FOREFRONT

April 11, 2016

Making parental voices in child welfare cases more prominent was the focus of CUNY Law Review’s recent symposium.

“We are the professionals, but [parents] are the experts,” Angela Burton, a former CUNY Law professor and now with the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services, said in her opening remarks.

More than 100 people attended the half-day symposium on Friday to engage in discussions of how family defense can become more available throughout the U.S.

CUNY Law Review members invited representatives from Rise Magazine, a publication written by and for parents dealing with the child welfare system to ensure that parents’ voices were included.

The plenary panel featured contributions from family law professors from NYU and University of Pennsylvania, along with legal defenders from Brooklyn Defender Services and the Family Defense Project (based in Chicago).

“All of the presenters today start from one basic premise—families matter. Every family matters,” Burton added.

Continue reading

I Am a Victim Too: Applying the “Dual Victim-Offender” Framework to Reform New York’s Family Court System

Nikki Whetstone*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

New York has two separate judicial systems within Family Court: one for children who are considered “victims,” and another for those who are considered “offenders.” Children whose parents are suspected of abuse/neglect are placed in dependency court, under the guise that the state must step in as parens patriae to protect the well-being of the child.[1] On the other hand, children who are accused of committing a crime are placed in delinquency court, with the purpose of protecting society and holding the youth accountable for their actions, while also attempting to rehabilitate them.[2] However, often the same social and familial circumstances lead children to become involved in both systems, simultaneously yet separately becoming both the “victim” and the “offender” in the eyes of the court. Despite recent efforts to reform the family court system, New York fails to address the needs of youth who are involved in both delinquency and dependency court.

This paper first examines the separate theoretical and historical foundations of both New York dependency and delinquency court, including their differing rationales and treatment of children. Part II of this paper evaluates the correlation between victimization and offending, and the connection between dependent youth and their subsequent involvement in the delinquency system (“dual-status youth”). Finally, part III explores the “dual victim-offender” framework and offers this as a lens to be used by Family Court to inform their view of children and, in turn, reform the way children are treated in the system.

Continue reading