Washington College of Law
Home Archive Volume 64 Volume 64, Issue 2
Volume 64, Issue 2

The editors of the American University Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Professor Andrew Taslitz.


In Memoriam

Reforming the Grand Jury to Protect Privacy in Third Party Records

By Andrew E. Taslitz & Stephen E. Henderson 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 195 (2014)

In late 2014, two grand juries returned controversial no bill decisions in police killings, one in Ferguson, Missouri, and one in New York City. These outcomes have renewed calls for grand jury reform, and whatever one thinks of these particular processes and outcomes, such reform is long overdue. One logical source of reform to better respect privacy in records, which would have incidental benefits beyond this privacy focus, would be the newly enacted American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR).

Battered by Law: The Political Subordination of Immigrant Women

By Mariela Olivares | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 231 (2014)

The Article explores the state of immigrant battered women in the United States, focusing on how their identity as a politically and culturally marginalized community impacts the measure of help that they receive. Specifically, the Article examines the 2012–2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization debate as an example of how membership in a marginalized community affects legislative successes and failures.

COMMENT: They Could Be Back: The Possibility of Termination Rights for Session Musicians

By Alexandra El-Bayeh | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 285 (2014)


Beginning in 2013, many musicians became eligible to regain rights they assigned to recording companies thirty-five years ago.  Through a provision of the Copyright Act, artists can “terminate” these rights and regain control of their work as long as the work was not a “work for hire.”  This Comment focuses on session musicians’ ability to claim termination rights in their creative contributions to sound recordings. Session musicians have been the focus of increased attention because many of them signed away their rights for little payment and control and without knowing the future possible uses of their works, particularly in digital sampling.

COMMENT: A Slow March Towards Thought Crime: How the Department of Homeland Security’s FAST Program Violates the Fourth Amendment

By Christopher A. Rogers | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 337 (2014)

The United States Government is currently developing a system that can read minds—a situation that George Orwell envisioned when he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Future Attribute Screening Technology ("FAST"), currently being tested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), employs a variety of sensor suites to scan a person's vital signs, and based on those readings, to determine whether the scanned person has "malintent"—the intent to commit a crime.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2