Kavanaugh’s First Opinion: Further Solidifying the Federal Arbitration Act

Photo Credit: http://altalaw.ca/areas-of-practice/arbitration/

By: Nick Jackson
Associate Editor, American Journal of Trial Advocacy


In January 2019, Brett Kavanaugh, a newly confirmed justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered his first opinion, one that was unanimously confirmed by the Court.[1] In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.,[2] the Court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, stating “arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms.”[3] In recent years, arbitration agreements have become a controversial aspect of the American legal system.[4] Accordingly, many individuals have brought forth challenges to contest unfavorable arbitration results.[5] One of the most criticized aspects of arbitration deals with forced arbitration agreements.[6] However, the controversial nature of arbitration agreements has failed to limit their use in industries where the use of arbitration is increasing such as the credit card, banking, insurance, and mobile phones services industries.[7] 

Continue reading “Kavanaugh’s First Opinion: Further Solidifying the Federal Arbitration Act”

302 Pages of Hope

“Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.” The Shawshank Redemption (Castle Rock Entertainment 1994).

Senior Research and Writing Editor: Amanda L. B. Wineman

302 pages. 302 pages is what it took District Court Judge Myron Thompson to fully explain his ruling in Braggs v. Dunn.[1] He wrote 302 pages detailing the inadequacies and failures of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) in providing mental health care to its prisoners.[2] In a multi-faceted set of cases, the Southern Poverty Law Center, along with attorneys from other Alabama firms, brought suit on behalf of a class of prisoners from fifteen ADOC facilities against ADOC.[3] The first phase involved American Disability Act (ADA) claims that ADOC discriminated on the basis of physical disabilities and that they failed to make accommodations for disabilities.[4] Continue reading “302 Pages of Hope”

Could Rondini Spark Reform for Rape Laws?

By Mallory Bullard, Senior Research and Writing Editor

Ask yourself, “What do rape cases have in common?” Many responses might be racing through your mind. You may be thinking of words such as: victim, consent, or maybe even force. While those words are all associated with rape cases, the uniqueness of the crime is a commonality that is often overlooked. Rape is distinguishable because “[n]o other violent crime is so fraught with controversy, so enmeshed in dispute and in the politics of gender and sexuality.”[i] Continue reading “Could Rondini Spark Reform for Rape Laws?”

Improper Grammar and Our Modern-Day Vernacular Collide Raising Questions About Whether One Louisiana Man’s Fifth Amendment Rights Were Violated

Photo Credit: Jeff Reeves, WATE CBS North Carolina

By: Holly Howell

Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

“If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ‘cause this is not what’s up.”[1]  This request, made by then-22-year-old Warren Demesme, may seem straightforward on its face, but it has proved controversial, requiring Louisiana law enforcement and, later, the Louisiana Supreme Court to analyze Demesme’s vernacular, what he was actually asking for, and whether or not his Constitutional rights were violated.  The Court’s decision may now have serious implications—both for Demesme, who is potentially facing time in prison, as well as for those accused and interrogated in the future. Continue reading “Improper Grammar and Our Modern-Day Vernacular Collide Raising Questions About Whether One Louisiana Man’s Fifth Amendment Rights Were Violated”

When Involuntary Becomes Voluntary: The Uncertainty of Protection Against Involuntary Confessions

Photo Credit: https://www.johntumeltycriminaldefense.com/blog/confession-offers-leniency/involuntary-confession/

Written by: Alexandria Heard

Associate Student Materials Editor, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

            The story behind Dassey v. Dittmann is no secret to the American people. In the widely popular Netflix series, Making a Murderer, the producers delve into the life of Brendan Dassey and the untimely murder of Teresa Halbach. The following facts are as depicted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after a long, arduous procedural history in relation to Petitioner Dassey’s videotaped confession to participating in the rape, murder, and mutilation of Halbach.[1] Continue reading “When Involuntary Becomes Voluntary: The Uncertainty of Protection Against Involuntary Confessions”

The Death Penalty and the Terminally Ill – What Happens After a Botched Execution?

Photo Credit: usnews.com

By: Suzanne Norman

Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy  

On February 22, 2018, following 31 years of legal battles, Lee Doyle Hamm was sentenced to death by a Cullman County jury.[1] The State of Alabama attempted to administer its combination of lethal drugs to Hamm, but doctors were unable to successfully locate a vein to insert the needle before the attempt was called off.[2] After the United States Supreme Court lifted a temporary stay that allowed for the execution of Hamm, the people tasked with administering the drugs to Hamm attempted at least 11 times to locate a vein that would allow the drugs to be introduced to Hamm’s system, leaving Hamm bruised and bloody.[3] Continue reading “The Death Penalty and the Terminally Ill – What Happens After a Botched Execution?”

How Will the New Tax Law Affect Couples Progressing Through a Divorce?

Photo credit: nypost.com

By: Haleigh Chastain

Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that provided permanent tax breaks to corporations, temporarily cut the tax rates for individuals, and repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.[i] There is no dispute that the new tax law will impact all Americans.[ii] With tax season quickly approaching, the question facing all tax filers is whether the new law will affect them positively or negatively. The news media has focused on corporate taxes and individual rate cuts, but one of the biggest changes brought about during this presidency involves how a spouse, responsible for paying alimony, and a spouse who receives alimony, will file his or her taxes. Alimony, also known as spousal maintenance, is awarded when one spouse of a divorcing couple, earns more than the other.[iii] The payments are typically awarded as a lump sum and paid over a period of several years.[iv] The payments are to help offset the cost of the lower-earning spouse to comfortably live on their own.[v] Continue reading “How Will the New Tax Law Affect Couples Progressing Through a Divorce?”

11 U.S.C. § 546(e) – Can You Really Avoid That Transfer? – How a Fight Between Two “Racinos” Lead to SOME Clarity Within the Bankruptcy Code.

Photo Credit: https://i.imgflip.com/ugigh.jpg

Written by: Austin Boyd

Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy


When a debtor is in bankruptcy, a trustee or other representative is placed in charge of the debtor’s estate. One of the most fundamental purposes of the bankruptcy code is “equality of distribution among the debtor’s creditors by returning to the estate assets which were preferentially, fraudulently, or otherwise improperly transferred.”[1] This purpose is achieved by allowing the trustee to avoid certain transfers.[2] This means that if the debtor made certain transfers of assets before a bankruptcy action is commenced, the trustee can make the third-party to whom the debtor transferred the assets, return those assets to the bankruptcy estate in order to achieve equality among the distribution of assets to the debtor’s creditors.[3] This is known as the avoidance powers.[4] Continue reading “11 U.S.C. § 546(e) – Can You Really Avoid That Transfer? – How a Fight Between Two “Racinos” Lead to SOME Clarity Within the Bankruptcy Code.”

A Closer Look at Obamacare: Is it Constitutional or Just a Game of Jenga?

Photo Credit: https://www.louisianalawblog.com/business-and-corporate/louisiana-employers-beware-your-reimbursement-plan-may-violate-affordable-care-act-market-reforms/

By: Nicki Lawsen, Business Committee Chair, American Journal of Trial Advocacy 

On Friday, December 14, 2018, United States District Judge Reed O’Connor deemed the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, ruling that the individual mandate should no longer be classified as a tax, which in turn causes the Act to be an impermissible exercise of congressional authority.[1] In addition, Judge O’Connor held that the individual mandate was not able to be detached from the rest of the Act, thus rendering the entire Act unconstitutional.[2] Consequently, millions of Americans are faced with the question of “what now?”[3] Continue reading “A Closer Look at Obamacare: Is it Constitutional or Just a Game of Jenga?”

The June 1, 2018 Amendment to Alabama’s Child Support Laws

Photo Credit: http://www.wwgrlaw.com/blog/images/Child-Support.jpg

Written by: Caleb Faulkner

Editor in Chief, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

On June 1, 2018, an amendment was added to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, pertaining to the obligated payments of child support.[1] The added amendment became subdivision (9) (hereinafter “amendment”) of Rule 32’s definitions section, which is structured as subsection (B) of Rule 32.[2] The former subdivision (9), “Split Custody,” is now subdivision (10) of the definition section of Rule 32.[3] Subsection (i) of the amendment states that third-party payments, received by a child due to the actions or benefits of the parent responsible for child support payments, can be deducted from the amount owed by the obligor, while subsection (ii) lists payments that are not eligible for such deductions.[4] Continue reading “The June 1, 2018 Amendment to Alabama’s Child Support Laws”