Georgia Law Review
Symposium, Volume 48
The Press and the Constitution 50 Years after New York Times v. Sullivan
UGA School of Law
November 6, 2013
Keynote Address: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
In its 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the "actual malice" standard to protect discussion of public officials in their official conduct. The Sullivan decision is famous for dramatically altering the law of defamation. Its importance, however, did not stop there. The Court's decision sparked widespread debate about constitutional protections for individuals and the press in a variety of situations. Crucial to these inquiries was the question of the meaning of the First Amendment's Press Clause.
For the past 50 years, scholars, journalists, practitioners and the Justices themselves have struggled with how to define the role of the Press Clause and how to determine its relationship to the Speech Clause. The debate is far from settled. As recently as the Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, for example, Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia disagreed about the independence of the Press Clause in their separate opinions. Thus, to mark the 50th anniversary of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Georgia Law Review is bringing together an esteemed group of these scholars, journalists, and practitioners to continue this discussion. We are especially honored to welcome Justice John Paul Stevens, who will deliver the Symposium's keynote address.
Panel 1: The Supreme Court and the Press Clause: A Complicated Relationship
Panel 2: Perspectives on Sullivan: the Justices, the Parties, and the Public
Panel 3: The Future of the Press Clause: New Media in a New World
Please direct any questions about the event to:
Lindsay Jones, Executive Symposium Editor, email@example.com
Benjamin Thorpe, Senior Symposium Editor, firstname.lastname@example.org
Georgia Law Review
Symposium, Volume 47
Evidence Reform: Turning a Grotesque Structure into a Rational Edifice?
Dean Rusk Center, Walker Boardroom
UGA School of Law
January 18, 2013
In the 1948 case Michelson v. United States, the Supreme Court was urged to adopt a new rule for cross-examinations about prior arrests. Justice Jackson, writing for the majority, declined the invitation, opining that “to pull one misshapen stone out of the grotesque structure is more likely simply to upset its present balance between adverse interests than to establish a rational edifice.”
In the 65 years since Justice Jackson wrote these words, evidence law has undergone extensive reforms. But has it evolved? Can it? Has evidence reform facilitated the pursuit of justice in our courts, or has it simply endeavored to build a rational edifice out of misshapen stones?
When its new Rules of Evidence go into effect on January 1, 2013, Georgia will be the forty-fourth state to adopt a new evidence code modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Symposium issue of the Georgia Law Review’s 47th volume will celebrate the modernization of Georgia’s evidence code by examining the broader reform movement from which it grew. Contributors will comment on the achievements and shortcomings of evidence reform as they pertain to specific areas of trial work. By dedicating this year’s Symposium to the topic, the Review hopes to provide a forum for discussion and debate about the past, present, and future of evidence law.
The Symposium is sponsored by the University of Georgia School of Law and the Georgia Law Review.
Panel 1: Trial Practice
Questions Presented: Has evidence reform achieved a fairer trial? Has it stream-lined the trial? What is the future of the trial? Has evidence reform promoted the presentation of coherent narratives at trial?
Panel 2: The Pursuit of Truth
Questions Presented: Is there a moral foundation to evidence law? Does it compel the pursuit of truth? Has the goal of evidence reform been to obfuscate or clarify the truth? Are exclusionary rules and privileges incompatible with truth-seeking? Has the liberalization of evidence rules brought us closer to exposing “truth” at trial?
Panel 3: Science in the Courtroom
Questions Presented: Has Federal Rule 702 established a workable standard for expert testimony? How should experts in emerging sciences like voice spectrography be qualified? Do the Daubert and Kumho standards ensure reliability?
8:00 – 9:00 Continental Breakfast and Registration
9:00 – 9:15 Welcome, GLR Staff
9:15 – 9:30 Opening Remarks, Dean Rebecca H. White
9:30- 10:15 Keynote: Ray Persons, King & Spalding LLP
10:30 – 12:00 Trial Practice Panel
12:00 – 12:30 Lunch
12:30 – 2:00 Truth Panel
2:00 – 3:30 Science Panel
3:30 – 3:45 Closing Remarks, GLR Staff
Missed it? View the whole symposium using the following links:
Keynote Address: http://vimeo.com/ugalaw/review/58468125/df37be6820
Trial Practice Panel: http://vimeo.com/ugalaw/review/58468128/7a7db119ea
Truth Panel: http://vimeo.com/ugalaw/review/58468126/663ac0dd76
Content contained on this website may not reflect the views or opinions of the University of Georgia or the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.