Professor Adrian McKinney, University of Toledo College of Law, talked about her paper, Back to the Drawing Board: A Reflection of Senate Bill 1437 and Felony Murder Rule in California. She argued that California’s SB 1437 is merely symbolic and requires more oversight and implementation. She discussed the felony murder rule in the context of two cases in which one defendant was young, carried no weapon, had a peripheral role in the conspiracy, and thought he was simply there to accompany someone selling marijuana when someone was shot and killed, and his request for relief from the application of the felony murder rule was denied. In comparison, another defendant who planned a robbery and selected the target received relief. Professor McKinney argued that such cases demonstrate inconsistency and too much judicial discretion. More guidance is needed.
Professor Catherine M. Hammack Aviran, Belmont University College of Law, talked about her paper, Legal, Ethical, and Socio-Cultural Implications of ‘True Crime’ Media and Cold-Case Crowdsourcing. She argued that the existing schema for ethical and legal investigations and implications in true crime are insufficient. She used the Maura Murray investigation as an example to demonstrate that we need ethical guidelines to assist armchair detectives in navigating true crime. Moreover, when disclosing investigative facts on a particular case, we must consider data privacy/legal implications and victim rights.
Professor Claire Andresen, South Texas College of Law, discussed her paper What’s Love v. State Got to Do With It? Resolving the Article 38.37 Split. She discussed how prosecutions for child sexual abuse operate under specialized evidentiary rules that depart from the standard prohibitions on character evidence. She points out that Texas appellate courts disagree on the extent to which Article 38.37 permits the introduction of evidence. She argues that only a narrow reading of Article 38.37(2)(b) allows for letting in conduct involving other victims (not in the indictment) but does not allow propensity evidence by the child victim in the indictment because it lacks independent corroboration and serves only to impune the defendant’s character.
Professor Zachary Cormie, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, spoke on Constitutional Dead Zones. He discussed police seizures of cell phones in connection with recording a public protest or police activity from a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment perspective. He argued that initial seizures of such phones are justified by using the exigent circumstance and search incident to law arrest exceptions to the warrant requirement. He points out that exigent circumstances should not be used to seize bystanders’ phones and analyzed the Asinor v. D.C. (2024) case in his analysis.
Tuesday, July 29, 2025, 10:15 am – 12:00 pm