Written by: Rachel Sowray
Edited by: Stefanie Herrington, J. Aaron Landau, Amy E. Seely

The capitalist society of the United States glamorizes having money, and lots of it. The media covers the beautiful homes, jewelry, and entire islands owned by celebrities and millionaires around the world, and these stories get airtime because everyone dreams of living that life, too. The glitz and glamor of Las Vegas and other casino cities draw millions of people each year to see the splendor and — more importantly — gamble. The riches are sexy and exciting, so it’s no surprise many dream of hitting it big. Becoming a millionaire by just putting some money on the table, having lady luck smile down, and playing the odds against the casino’s advantage is glamorized even by Hollywood movies like “21.” Besides, who doesn’t want to have the celebrity lifestyle Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey embody?

Gambling isn’t just luck, though. A big part is being smart and knowing the odds so you don’t lose your shirt… but how far can a person go? Count cards? Work with friends? Use wireless earpieces to communicate about which tables are “hot”? How much can a player tip the odds in his or her favor before the casino can complain or even remove that player from the premises? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Jeff Hinman
Researched by: Darci G. Van Duzer and Tom Borton
Edited by: Eric Wasik

Last month, a writer for an Italian website revealed that the end user license agreement (EULA) for the Windows version of Apple’s web browser, Safari, prohibited installation of the software on a PC. Much to the embarrassment of Apple, the attorneys who prepared the Safari-for-Windows EULA overlooked this term while adapting the agreement from the Mac-only version. Apple has since modified the “Mac-only clause” to allow installation and use on “each computer owned or controlled by you.” Apple may have fixed the problem for now, but this slip-up highlights the fact that very few people read EULAs — sometimes not even the attorneys who are paid to write them.

With the click of a mouse, EULAs that accompany software (called click-wrap agreements) can become binding contracts. That “I Accept” button might take away your right to a jury trial, your right to exclusive use of your own work, or even your right to criticize the product that you are downloading. Some EULAs exist just to protect the company offering the product. Users under 18 violate Google’s EULA whenever they use Google’s search engine or login to their Gmail.com accounts, a provision that’s included to protect Google from liability rather than actually prevent underage users. Other EULAs are created with teeth: World of Warcraft’s EULA bans online gamers who violate it by using a program that automates gameplay to hasten “leveling-up” or to generate currency.

The Mac-only provision appears to be a quickly remedied oversight, but before anyone noticed Apple’s mistake, scores of PC users downloaded and installed Safari (as part of an Apple Software Update for iTunes) and were in violation of Apple’s explicit terms of use. If Apple’s Mac-only provision had been intentional, could they have enforced those original terms? In other words, is a click-wrap agreement a binding and enforceable contract?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Nick Caleb
Researched by: Steve Glista
Edited by: Kimberly Brandt

Some documents are just too good to keep to yourself. Recently, the Department of Justice released sections of a second “torture memo” written in 2003 by John Yoo, formerly an attorney at the Department of Justice. This memo supplements the leaked 2002 memo written by Yoo and then-head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the President, Jay S. Bybee. The first memo argued that torture only occurs if an interrogator actually intends — and causes — organ failure or death during interrogation. Anything less may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (which are all flatly banned by international treaty and the Geneva Conventions), but not torture.

The second memo took it one step further, discussing possible defenses for those accused of torture, as well as the idea that “[their] Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” The authors of the memos undoubtedly intended to keep them private… how did they end up all over the media?

In fact, this memo would never have been publicly released if it weren’t for a law called the Freedom of Information Act, or “FOIA.” In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) utilized FOIA and fought a legal battle for almost four years to compel the Department of Justice to release the documents.

FOIA has been used to obtain government information on a wide range of issues, including everything from FBI information on pop culture icons (like Elvis and Frank Sinatra), to notorious criminals (such as Bonnie & Clyde and Al Capone), to famous scientists (like Einstein), and even paranormal activity (UFOs, Roswell, and ESP).

What exactly is this tool and how does it help the public acquire the necessary knowledge to participate effectively in democracy?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Ed Bushnell
Researched by: Jeff Richards
Edited by: John Deininger

On March 30, six teenage girls in Lakeland, Florida, allegedly took turns beating 16-year old Victoria Lindsay for half an hour while two teen boys acted as lookouts. Planning to broadcast the beating on YouTube and MySpace as an apparent retaliation for insults Lindsay posted on her own MySpace page, the girls took turns videotaping the attack.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd was upset about the incident, and upset about the way the teens reacted to their subsequent arrest: “They were laughing and joking,” he said. In fact, Grady was so appalled at the alleged behavior that he released parts of the videotaped beating. Within days of its release, the video and the sheriff’s statements were broadcast in print, television, and online sources around the country.

The media blitz was stymied on April 9, when a Florida judge issued a gag order, restricting lawyers, law enforcement and witnesses from releasing information about the case. Rusty Franklin, who is representing one of the alleged lookouts, requested the order in response to what he described as the “barrage of inflammatory, prejudicial information” pertaining to the case.

Why does it matter if parties affiliated in the case release information to the general public? Isn’t it their First Amendment right? A gag order represents the clash and compromise between two fundamental rights: the right to free speech, and the right to a fair trial.
Read the rest of this entry »

Oregon Law Review has published Volume 86, No. 1. In operation since 1921, the journal is the largest at the University of Oregon.

To read their newest and past issues online, or for subscription information, visit their website.

Written by: Alexander JL Theoharis
Researched by: Jay D. Hall
Edited by: Peter Fehrs

Despite his untimely death in 1995, formerly prolific rap artist Tupac Shakur has continued to influence the world from beyond the grave. The most recent ripple came from a set of supposed FBI documents implicating Sean “Diddy” Combs in Tupac’s 1994 murder attempt. Mr. Combs has long claimed no involvement in the attack, and the new revelations caused him to issue a press release calling the entire thing an utter fabrication. The LA Times’ veteran reporter Chuck Phillips wrote a story based on the documents that garnered more than a million visitors — more than any other story on the site.

The problem? As it turns out, the supposed FBI documents were flat-out fakes. In a scathing analysis of the alleged documents, the Smoking Gun reveals that the LA Times’ “informant” is a known con man currently serving time. What’s worse for the Times: its failure to properly check facts leaves them open to a potentially damaging defamation lawsuit. “I would suggest to Mr. Phillips and his editors that they immediately print an apology and take out their checkbooks - or brace themselves for an epic lawsuit,” Sean “Diddy” Combs’ lawyer said Wednesday.

Subsequent to these details coming to light, the LA Times has done an excellent job of purging the story from the internet — any former links to it redirect to an apology, and the paper published a retraction. With the Times licking its wounds and admitting its mistakes, is there any ground left to sue the country’s fourth-largest newspaper? If so, what can Mr. Combs expect to receive as damages? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: J. Aaron Landau
Researched by: Darci G. Van Duzer
Edited by: Stefanie Herrington

For the better part of twenty-five years, emotions have run high on the subject of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Convicted in 1982 for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, Abu-Jamal is to some an unrepentant cop-killer, and to others a gifted and misunderstood champion of justice. Observers on both sides were handed a new development last Thursday when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an unusual ruling on the latest appeal in Abu-Jamal’s case.

The court upheld Abu-Jamal’s conviction, and rejected his call for a new trial. However, the court also held that a particular jury instruction in the latter phase of that trial — during which a jury decided that Abu-Jamal would be sentenced to death rather than life in prison — was improper and constituted a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. As a result, Abu-Jamal’s sentencing must be held anew. For the time being, he’s effectively no longer on death row, and will await yet another stage in what has become an exceptionally long process of appeal.

To observers, the court’s decision raises some vexing questions: how could a jury instruction be so improper that an entire phase of trial must be held again? Why did it take more than a quarter-century to examine the jury instruction? And why is a simple jury instruction so important, anyway?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Kimberly Brandt
Researched by: Jeff W. Richards
Edited by: Amy E. Seely and Jay D. Hall

On Halloween, 2007, the Muggle world was ablaze with news that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and movie studio Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. had filed suit against RDR Books. Their goals? To prevent the publication of an unofficial Harry Potter companion, as well as collect damages for copyright and trademark infringement, and any profits the book generates.

The Harry Potter Lexicon (”Lexicon“) is a reference book based on author Steve Vander Ark’s website of the same name. While the site is popular among Harry Potter fans (and even the author herself), Rowling and Warner Bros. claim that the Lexicon book exploits Rowling’s literary works. This leaves fans to wonder: will the Lexicon book be Avada Kedavra‘d before it hits the shelves?

Although Warner Bros.’ periodically cracks down on certain Harry Potter fan sites, it’s important to note that the Lexicon suit is seeking to halt publication of the book, not the website. The Lexicon website, according to the First Amended Complaint, is a free-of-charge site that contains over 700 internet pages. It includes such information as the recipe and effects of Polyjuice Potion, original artwork by Harry Potter fans, essays, a discussion board, and more. By comparison, the Lexicon book is allegedly a 400-page encyclopedia listing elements from all the Harry Potter books and Rowling’s companion books, “without any analysis or commentary.” Supposedly the Lexicon provides plot summaries and character descriptions, but does not contain the fan fiction, art, and trimmings from the website. The questions that remain are: (1) does the Lexicon infringe on Rowling and Warner Bros.’ copyrights, and (2) if it does, can RDR sell the book anyway?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Steve Glista
Researched by: Matt Schroettnig
Edited by: Lauren E. Trent

When Michael Righi heard someone running up behind him, he thought he knew what would come next. He expected a difficult conversation, maybe even some shouting or threats. He certainly didn’t expect to get handcuffed — but that’s exactly what happened after Righi walked out of a Circuit City in Cleveland, Ohio without showing his receipt to the security guard at the exit. He’s not the only shopper in recent months who has experienced frustration or met with open hostility after refusing to show a receipt on the way out of a store. Customers like Righi claim that the Fourth Amendment protects them from unreasonable searches, that it’s wrong for stores to treat all customers as suspected criminals, and that stores have no right to demand a receipt or anything else from every customer. Since so many stores are checking receipts, it can’t be illegal…can it?

The American system of law values few things more highly than the freedom for people to come and go as they please. The idea that retailers may deny that freedom to paying customers over a simple matter such as refusing to show a receipt offends privacy advocates in a fundamental way. One of the beautiful things about the law is that it seldom identifies an offense without creating a corresponding legal remedy. When a person is wrongly held prisoner, the victim can seek redress against his captor in a civil suit for false imprisonment. Read the rest of this entry »