District Of Pennsylvania Research Articles

Reenvisioning Success

The Supervision to Aid Reentry Program (“STAR”) established by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007 has helped hundreds of people reenter society following their release from prison. Evaluations of the program demonstrate that STAR is successful under a traditional measure of success—recidivism—because it significantly reduces the likelihood of probation revocation for participants and the likelihood of rearrest and probation revocation for graduates. Recidivism rates alone, however, fail to accurately measure and, in fact, obscure some of STAR’s true successes. They fail to assess whether participants have progressed toward ceasing criminal conduct, a process known as desistance, and whether participants’ quality of life has improved. Although less quantifiable, it is important to examine whether STAR is a success based on these more holistic measures. Our analysis of STAR includes voices of participants and indicates that STAR advances desistance and improves quality of life by helping participants to strengthen their relationships with family and pro-social institutions, undergo cognitive transformation, and pursue opportunities for financial and educational advancement. STAR’s success demonstrates that reentry courts remain an integral tool in helping returning citizens reintegrate into society.

Rethinking Jury Diversity: A Response to Juan R. Sánchez’s A Plan of Our Own

This is a response to Judge Juan R. Sanchez’s article A Plan of Our Own: The Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s Initiative to Increase Jury Diversity. While some of the policy proposals promoted regarding jury selection are likely beneficial, the rationale Sanchez provides for their support is rooted in harmful racial stereotypes. Furthermore, the evidence presented is insufficient to support the claims of jury diversity benefits.

Federal Judge Rules Safe Injection Site Is Legal

Federal Judge Rules Safe Injection Site Is Legal

IA: The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology, Theme Issue: The Archaeology, by Frederic L. Quivik, ed.

IA: The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology, Theme Issue: The Archaeology, by Frederic L. Quivik, ed.

Contraceptive Mandate Rules Enjoined by Two Courts

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on January 14, in a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, issued a nationwide injunction enjoining enforcement of two final rules granting exemptions to the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as to health plans covering women's preventive services (the contraceptive mandate) (Pennsylvania v. Trump). The Women's Health Amendment, a provision of the ACA, mandates that insurance providers cover preventive health services and screenings for women, without cost‐sharing responsibilities. A summary of the interim final rules, also enjoined by this court in 2017, is in the December 2017 issue.

Former GSK scientist admits to IP theft

Yu Xue, a Ph.D. biochemist who worked at GlaxoSmithKline’s research facility in Upper Merion, Pa., has pleaded guilty to stealing intellectual property (IP) from her former employer, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. She has not yet been sentenced. Xue planned to use the pilfered research to benefit a Chinese drug company, Renopharma, that she and her associates had set up with financial support from the Chinese government, the Justice Department says. According to the original 2016 indictment, Xue was accused of stealing IP on pharmaceuticals under development, including a monoclonal antibody similar to the cancer therapy Herceptin. Over time, the partners aimed to develop their own antibody drugs. “We cannot allow U.S. citizens or foreign nationals to steal sensitive business information and hand it over to competitors in other countries,” says William M. McSwain, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Trade-secret theft has

Eighth Amendment Claims in Prison Suicide Litigation

In Palakovic v. Wetzel , 854 F.3d 209 (3rd Cir. 2017), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania's decision to dismiss Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials and mental health care staff, brought by the parents of an

The impact of technology exposure on student perceptions of a 1:1 program

Many school districts across the United States have enacted one-to-one (1:1) programs to boost students’ “21st Century Skills”. These programs provide a laptop or other personal digital device to every student, with the expectation that teachers will employ modern instructional processes and students will benefit from greater access to knowledge, tools, and both collaborative and individualized instruction. The transformative potential of 1:1, along with the varied contextual variables, makes program implementation difficult. This paper discusses the partial results of a year-long 1:1 laptop program evaluation in one Pennsylvania district. The study employs multiple methods to obtain an initial view of the programs’ impact on students. The study found that, overall, students did not have positive perceptions of the 1:1 program or its impacts, and a significant decline was found for many indicators between semesters. Regression analysis of the collected data suggests that greater use of the 1:1 laptops, along with a robust IT infrastructure, significantly predicts the perceived level of impact a 1:1 program has on students. The information obtained from this case study provides further insight into how attitudes, behavior, and perceptions of students are impacted by these programs.

Forging a Balanced Presumption in Favor of Metadata Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act

Law Clerk to Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; J.D. magna cum laude 2015, University of Pittsburgh (Lead Executive Editor, University of Pittsburgh Law Review); B.A. 2009, University of North Florida. Thank you Professor Rhonda Wasserman for your advice and assistance on this paper and for an enlightening class on electronic discovery. Faculty for the University of Pittsburgh School of Law awarded this paper the William H. Eckert Prize.

We've Only Just Begun: Determining Who Pays After The Approval Of The NFL Concussion Settlement

CHRONIC Traumatic Encephalophy (CTE) is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions and asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head. One of the leading groups studying the impact of is the Boston University Center. On its website, (1) the Center provides graphic evidence of CTE's impact on an individual's brain. As the Center points out, CTE has been known to affect boxers since the 1920s. However, recent reports have been published of neurophathologically confirmed in retired professional football players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma. This trauma triggers progressive degeneration of the brain tissue, including the build-up of an abnormal protein called tau. These changes in the brain can begin months, years, or even decades, after the last brain trauma or end of active athletic involvement. The brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, and eventually progressive dementia. (2) It can also be associated with Parkinsonism, speech and gait abnormalities. These types of repetitive closed head injuries occur in a wide-variety of contact sports, including football, boxing, wrestling, rugby, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, and even skiing. In sports like football, hockey and boxing, players may experience multiple subconcussive hits over the course of a single season. (3) The Center for Disease Control estimates that anywhere from 1.6 million to 3.8 million concussions occur each year. Compared to all contact sports, football has the highest risk of concussions. The CDC estimates that there is a 75% chance of concussions for males playing football. (4) In the last five years, football-related concussions have become a hot topic, mostly due to the initiation of multiple lawsuits filed by former professional football players against the National Football League (NFL). The lawsuits filed against the NFL raise many legal implications, including the correct standard to apply; the potential liability of the NFL; the requirement of insurers to defend and indemnify the teams and/or the NFL; and whether there is a causal link between the concussions sustained by the players and the lingering effects on those retired players. In June 2012, more than 80 lawsuits including over 2,000 former NFL players were consolidated into one master complaint, which was filed in the federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the Honorable Judge Anita Brody will preside over the case. The Complaint contained twelve causes of action against various entities, including the NFL, alleging that the NFL fraudulently concealed the long-term effects of concussions (fraud) and that the NFL failed to implement proper guidelines to decrease the risk of concussions (negligence). The Plaintiffs consist of numerous retired NFL players, all of whom claim that they are suffering from various lingering effects of concussions sustained while they played in the NFL. They allege that the NFL had research and information many years ago that indicated that concussions could cause these lingering effects, but that the NFL withheld this information from players. In response, the NFL claimed that it never had any information and that it has always made player safety a priority. It has also asserted arguments that these issues are covered by the collective bargaining agreement, and thus Judge Brody had no jurisdiction to decide the case. After years of back and forth negotiations, the former NFL players and the NFL reached a settlement, which was approved in April 2015 by the Judge Brody. Although the settlement is a positive step towards obtaining the funds and medical care to the players, it is far from over. The settlement is still being criticized by many former players since it does not cover future players diagnosed with CTE, which has led to many players opting out of the settlement. …

Jason Sheppard v. United States of AmericaCrim. No. 10-119, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106710 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, August 13, 2015)

Jason Sheppard v. United States of America<i>Crim. No. 10-119, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106710 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, August 13, 2015)</i>

The Administrative Law Implications of Quasi-Governmental Organ Allocation

Congress created the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, a quasi-governmental agency, to allocate the nation’s supply of deceased-donor organs. But, this agency is a shell. The Human Resources & Services Administration contracts with a private, non-profit corporation to operate the Network, and to develop allocation policies — based, in large part, on the medical science developed by its own membership — in light of normative mandates from Congress and the Department of Health & Human Services. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania skirted several fundamental questions about the legitimacy and constitutionality of this structure, when it temporarily restrained the Network from treating a ten-year-old lung transplant candidate differently than adults in her position on the lung waitlist; a subsequent transplant mooted her claim, thus leaving its merits to another day.This Article picks up where her story left off. Congress charged the Network with allocating organs “equitably” in the face of a permanent and ever-increasing demand-supply gap. Executive oversight of the administration and development of these allocation policies should not be tolerated. The Network’s policies are rich in expertise and carefully scrutinized by the only relevant community: transplant candidates and providers. And, even when constitutional issues are implicated, courts should withhold prospective relief — despite the potentially irreparable harm to individual litigants — until, on the merits, they find it necessary to destabilize this fair and functioning system.

Creating a Model of Cyber Proficiency: Remodeling Law Enforcement Tactics in Pittsburgh to Address the Evolving Nature of Cybersecurity

This article summarizes an Interview with The Honorable David J. Hickton, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities: A History of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

There are ninety-four federal district courts in the United States. These are the courts where litigation begins; they are the “work horses” of the federal court system. In 2008–9 the US Supreme Court heard 87 cases, the United States Courts of Appeal heard 58,000 cases, and the United States District courts heard 353,00 cases. Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities is the story of one of these federal district courts, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The federal court in Philadelphia was one of the first district courts set up by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and this book covers the court from its inception to the present. The author, Harvey Bartle III, was appointed to the court in 1991 and served as its Chief Judge from 2006 to 2011. The volume, according to Judge Bartle, “is intended not only to memorialize the story of this court, but also to serve as a reminder of the consequential role that this court has played” in the history of the federal judiciary.Many of the important cases in the legal canon had their beginnings in the Eastern District Court. U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895) is one of them. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court that a monopoly of manufacturing did not mean a restraint of trade. This decision seriously weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), dealing with the separation of church and state, also began in Pennsylvania. The question involved a Pennsylvania state law that provided public funds to pay teacher salaries in sectarian schools. The district court upheld the law, but the Supreme Court overturned the district court and ruled this law was “an excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The Supreme Court did allow some governmental aid for sectarian schools and developed the “Lemon” test for allowable expenditures.There are many such cases detailed by the author, cases that are important historically, or legally significant, or cases that are representative of a particular era. But also included in this history are little-known cases. Some of the unique cases include the case of seaman Holmes, who after a shipwreck threw fourteen passengers out of a sinking lifeboat to their deaths. He was charged with homicide but convicted of manslaughter and the sentence was later remitted. I wonder if the classic Ethics 101 problem of “who would you throw out of a life boat” originated with United States v. Holmes (1842).The composition of the court reflected American legal society. Through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and for most of the twentieth century, the justices were white, male, and mainly Protestant. Bartle's history of the Pennsylvania district court is also a history of diversity in the legal profession. The first African American justice, A. Leon Higgenbotham Jr., was appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1963. The first female justice, Norma Shapiro, was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1978. There are now twenty-two justices sitting on the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court and they represent the multicultural nation we have become.My criticism of the book is that it can be repetitious: one judge from an old Pennsylvania family and prestigious law firm succeeding another judge from an old Pennsylvania family and prestigious law firm. This narrative occurs over and over again and begins to resemble the first chapter of Matthew tracing the genealogy of Jesus. I realize the author feels all the justices of the court are important to the history of the court; I just wish the author had left some details to footnotes.I believe this book would be a very good resource for graduate students looking for a thesis or dissertation topic. Much has been written about the decisions of the Supreme Court, but this book points out the need for more research on the early life of a case, where the first determination of the law occurs, in a district court. I would recommend Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities for legal libraries, instructors of political science and history, and anyone interested in legal history. It is a fine historical narrative of an important federal district court.

Dino Locastro v. Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC and The Meadowlands Racetrack and CasinoCase No. 13cv0168, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57733 (Western District of Pennsylvania, April 23, 2013)

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 17, No. 6 CasesDino Locastro v. Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC and The Meadowlands Racetrack and CasinoCase No. 13cv0168, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57733 (Western District of Pennsylvania, April 23, 2013)Published Online:14 Aug 2013https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2013.17614AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 6Aug 2013 InformationCopyright 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Dino Locastro v. Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC and The Meadowlands Racetrack and CasinoCase No. 13cv0168, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57733 (Western District of Pennsylvania, April 23, 2013).Gaming Law Review and Economics.Aug 2013.474-477.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2013.17614Published in Volume: 17 Issue 6: August 14, 2013PDF download

Changing the Landscape: A Limitation of State Review Powers Regarding Permits Issued under the Natural Gas Act

In early February of 2013, Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a decision regarding the interpretation of the Natural Gas Act’s provision for the authority of state agencies – specifically those in Pennsylvania – to review permits issued under that Act. The decision as it stands will limit the role of these agencies in reviewing such permits, and therefore is of great import to any entity needing to seek the variety of environmental permits often necessary for projects undertaken in the area of energy and natural resources production and transportation. The following article summarizes the facts of the case, Judge Mariani’s ruling, and his analysis supporting the same. The article concludes by noting some of the practical impacts this decision may have in the future.

Telesweeps of Butler Valley, Inc. v. Linda Kelly and Stefanie SalavantisCase No. 3:12-CV-1374, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146157 (Middle District of Pennsylvania, October 10, 2012)

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 17, No. 1 CasesTelesweeps of Butler Valley, Inc. v. Linda Kelly and Stefanie SalavantisCase No. 3:12-CV-1374, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146157 (Middle District of Pennsylvania, October 10, 2012)Published Online:15 Feb 2013https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2012.17113AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byExposed: Discrimination Against Breastfeeding WorkersSSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 32The Canons of Interpretation for Choice-Of-Law ClausesSSRN Electronic Journal Volume 17Issue 1Feb 2013 InformationCopyright 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Telesweeps of Butler Valley, Inc. v. Linda Kelly and Stefanie SalavantisCase No. 3:12-CV-1374, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146157 (Middle District of Pennsylvania, October 10, 2012).Gaming Law Review and Economics.Feb 2013.82-92.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2012.17113Published in Volume: 17 Issue 1: February 15, 2013PDF download

Nothing is Certain Except Death and Taxes: But in the District Courts, Not Even Taxes are Certain for E-Discovery Costs

UNDER the so-called American Rule, parties in litigation are responsible for their own costs, with limited statutory exceptions. (1) Given this general rule, one losing party must have been stunned to recently receive a bill from the prevailing party for the exorbitant amount of $4.6 million for the cost of creating a litigation database. (2) Despite the losing party's protests, the court granted the prevailing party this $4.6 million in electronic discovery (e-discovery) costs, finding that the expense was reasonable and saved time for the prevailing party's counsel. (3) While $4.6 million in discovery costs is particularly high, changes in technology and the development of the digital era have forced litigants to devote increasing resources to e-discovery while preparing for trial. (4) Approximately 247 billion emails are sent daily worldwide, and in 2009, more digital data was created than in all prior years combined. (5) Because law firms are often ill-equipped to produce large quantities of electronic information themselves, third-party e-discovery vendors are often hired to compile and catalog electronic data for discovery at substantial expense. (6) These vendors perform discovery tasks that did not exist in the paper era, such as scrubbing metadata from fries and creating keyword searchable databases of documents and files. (7) Traditionally, each party bears the cost of producing documents requested by the other side during discovery. (8) However, in the federal courts the prevailing party is entitled to tax certain costs to the losing party, including fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials ([section] 1920). (9) While this language was developed during the paper era, courts today are challenged to apply the statutory language to the modern technology of e-discovery techniques. (10) One such issue--the taxation of e-discovery costs--contentious. has become particularly. (11) Although United States discovery cost allocation is premised on reciprocity, production--including e-discovery production--is typically asymmetrical, causing one party to bear a far larger burden and cost of production. (12) As a litigation strategy, producing parties therefore take into account e-discovery production costs when deciding whether to litigate or settle a claim and when making discovery requests of the opposing party. (13) Because the Third Circuit is the only appellate court to address the issue of whether e-discovery costs are taxable, the district courts are split and have used a variety of analytical approaches in addressing the issue. (14) Some district courts have held that scanning is the electronic equivalent of copying, and then compared e-discovery with scanning to conclude that e-discovery costs are taxable. (15) Other courts, however, maintain that e-discovery does not merely replicate documents, like the taxable cost of copying, but rather creates entirely new documents, and is therefore not subject to taxation. (16) Because there is no consensus regarding the taxation of e-discovery costs and no real guidance from most federal appellate courts, the subject is gaining attention among practitioners and is in need of clarification. (17) In May 2011, in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., (18) the Western District of Pennsylvania issued the first opinion from the Third Circuit regarding this issue and taxed the losing party $367,359.36 in e-discovery costs. (19) As one of the most recent cases analyzing the taxation of e-discovery costs, Race Tires is notable for its broad interpretation of the statutory language and of case law from other districts. (20) This article argues that the Western District of Pennsylvania erred in allowing the taxation of e-discovery costs in Race Tires. E-discovery costs should not be taxable under Section 1920 because e-discovery requires intellectual effort to create new documents rather than merely copying existing documents and Section 1920 should be narrowly interpreted to that effect. …

Lolita speaks: ‘Sexting,’ teenage girls and the law

Recently, national and local media across North America have warned against the risks of ‘sexting’ – the practice of sending, posting or possessing sexually suggestive text messages and images via cell phones or the Internet. In response to this phenomenon, Pennsylvania District Attorney Skumanick threatened to bring child pornography charges against teenagers who had been caught sexting and who refused to attend a gender-based ‘re-education’ program designed to teach them about its dangers. Three girls refused the ultimatum, resulting in Miller v. Mitchell [2010], the first case to challenge the constitutionality of prosecuting teens for their digital sexual expression. This article critically considers dominant and intersecting cultural and legal narratives about sexting and troubles the predominant construction of teenage female sexters as dupes of the ‘pornification’ of a generation and as ‘self-sexually exploiting.’ The cultural and legal disavowal of girls’ narratives about digital sexual expression is considered through Judith Butler’s poststructural analysis of sexuality, speech and censorship. Drawing on two online studies of sexting, contributions to an online forum on the topic, and third-wave feminist writings on a generational re-envisioning of risk, respectability and privacy, I argue that that the foreclosure of the ‘domain of the sayable’ within which girls seek to speak works paradoxically to further render them fetishized sexual objects, thus engendering the very harm that criminal law seeks to remedy.

Tolerance of Minor Setbacks in a Challenging Reentry Experience

The Federal Probation Office and the Board of Judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initiated a pilot reentry court program, called the Supervision to Aid Reentry (STAR) program in 2007. The impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental research design to compare the reentry success of the first 60 STAR participants to a matched comparison group of 60 probationers in the 18 months postrelease. While logistic regression results indicated that STAR participants were no less likely to be arrested than the comparison group, STAR participation was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of supervision revocation. With insight from a previous process evaluation of the STAR program, implications of these findings for the STAR program and other reentry programs are discussed.