Explore the vast range of titles available.

A stinging indictment of a system of indigent defense, a widespread failure that, the author claims, dooms the nation's poor to being represented by insufficient counsel, unwise plea bargains, and wrongful convictions.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219959.].

As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC's personnel or the public scrutiny the Office's opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee's position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President's ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee's oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC's leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office. Even in an era of close cooperation between the White House and congressional leaders of the same party, this Note's proposal provides an avenue for Committee members to jealously guard their own constitutional prerogatives and nudge the OLC toward greater respect for the separation of powers and individual liberty.

Bill was genu- inely surprised at the nomination but was composed enough to deliver thank-you comments in his inimitable style. In the July issue of THE TRACKER, the Board of Directors wrote to you about the changes it felt are necessary to move this organization forward. The Board of Directors, the management team, and our independent contractors consider the mission of the OHS to be sacred.

Coordination of Care All fifty states permit you to express your wishes as to medical treatment in terminal illness or injury situations, and to appoint someone to communicate for you in the event you cannot communicate for yourself. An advance directive allows patients to appoint health care proxy (HCP) that allows health care providers follow the patients' wishes when they don't have the ability to make decisions themselves. Though the HCP form is voluntary in the U.S, the majority of the patient population in the United States is not familiar with concept of HCP and its documentation plays crucial role in medical decisions (Zhou, Bressler, Weinberg & Snow, 2022). In combination of Hematology Oncology and Infusion at Mount Sinai Morningside (MSM), the average percentage of patients who have Advanced Care Planning in the medical record was 52% in 2021. Patients in Infusion service were tracked by nursing staff, and health care proxy forms were obtained for most of the patients, but tracking and obtaining health care proxy in the Office Practice were challenging. By increasing the number of HCP, we understood that we would advance the standard and quality of patient care. To facilitate a collaborative team work, multidisciplinary team meeting was conducted to determine the best workflow for tracking and obtaining health care proxy in our Cancer Center. The multidisciplinary team included physicians (MDs), Nursing Practitioners (NPs), RNs, Medical Office Assistants (MOAs), social worker, and Patient Encounter Associates (PEAs). The workflow includes an Epic Alert, communication, obtaining HCP, and recording in Epic. Monthly, the workflow was reviewed and team was updated with the progression. With the collaborative teamwork on tracking and obtaining HCPs, MSM Hematology Oncology department was able to improve the percentage of ACP from 52% (average in 2021) to 76% by February 2022. In addition to the numeric improvement, the successful teamwork also benefited to empowering staff, understanding other roles, and building a trustworthy relationship. Healthcare proxy is essential for all ambulatory outpatient practices and not only for oncology infusion centers. Culturally adopted education on HCP is a key for patients with different cultural backgrounds. For those patients who have deferred or were not ready to fill the health care proxy form. We were still able to educate the importance and the purpose of health care proxy to the patients.

In the United States, roughly 450,000 people are detained awaiting trial on any given day, typically because they have not posted bail. Using a large sample of criminal cases in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we analyze the consequences of the money bail system by exploiting the variation in bail-setting tendencies among randomly assigned bail judges. Our estimates suggest that the assignment of money bail leads to a 12 percent increase in the likelihood of conviction and a 6–9 percent increase in recidivism. Our results highlight the importance of credit constraints in shaping defendant outcomes and point to important fairness considerations in the institutional design of the American money bail system.

14 In a landmark ruling on Dec 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court in the USA ruled that permitting new fossil fuel activities without considering climate impacts violated young people's “right to a clean and healthful environment” under the Montana Constitution. 15 The court explicitly referred to evidence provided by public health professionals, as “friends of the court”, that corroborated harms with peer-reviewed medical literature. 15 Strong and convincing public health evidence is thus essential to effectively build cases on climate change. Public health professionals' roles and responsibilities in advocating for bolder climate action, through protests, climate activism, and the media, have been in the spotlight in recent years, partly due to harmful backlash in relation to job security, personal safety, legal consequences, or patient–doctor trust relations. 16‒18 However, the role of health professionals in providing scientific evidence and technical expertise in court proceedings or other formal law-making processes has been less explored and deserves greater attention. 10,19,20 WHO's clarion call to rely on widely available scientific evidence in legal proceedings offers promise that the public health sector will increasingly bolster broader support for and raise capacity for engaging in legal mobilisation on climate change. Successfully presenting public health evidence in formal legal fora will require actively increasing the capacities of public health professionals to engage with law and human rights. 10 Such capacity building includes teaching about climate change and law in public health curricula, developing interdisciplinary training modules, attending relevant knowledge exchange platforms, such as conferences, webinars, or courses, and strengthening public health professionals' ability to engage with climate policy makers. 10,21 Yet the understanding of basic competencies for public health professionals, and the need for integrating climate change into public health curricula, often remain limited to the actual health impacts of climate change.

•The survey was completed by 544 forensic scientists worldwide and positive views found, including willingness to address the key issues captured.•A more holistic, multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to forensic science for evidentiary or intelligence purposes was favoured.•Development of objective methods should continue while subjective methods endorsed and validation studies, statistics, error and bias must progress.•No consensus was found regarding validation or profeciency testing.•Forensic evidence and testimony must be concise, include assumptions, limitations and reference empirical support. Forensic science continues to be openly challenged and criticized. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of forensic workplaces and the perceived current and potential future issues from forensic scientists via a detailed survey. An online survey was designed and disseminated to forensic practitioners and researchers worldwide. 544 participants from more than 20 countries took part in the survey. Participants personally rated ten forensic disciplines with subjective methodologies, responded on a five-point Likert scale to 22 statements that addressed subjectivity and objectivity, validation and proficiency testing and error and bias and answered demographic questions relating to their workplace type, level of experience and qualifications. Participants also commented freely on forensic issues specifically important to them. The purpose of this paper is to provide the survey results and consensuses captured on several key issues. Overall participants believed forensic science must be valid and reliable and supported development of objective methodologies, validation and further investigation into the application statistics, use of error rates and implications of cognitive bias. Participants raised consensus concerns with the provision of expert evidence and other broader issues. This information and understanding from the forensic front line are essential for forensic science moving forward to best address current challenges and criticisms not only of forensic evidence for the court but for applications of forensic science beyond the courtroom.

We examine whether securities lawyers involved in SEC comment letter inquiries act as client advocates by resisting disclosure changes or as gatekeepers by encouraging disclosure transparency. Consistent with an advocacy role, we find that securities lawyers' involvement in SEC comment letters is associated with resisting disclosure inquiries through redacting information from filings and issuing fewer amendments to previous disclosures. Our evidence also supports the view that the role of securities lawyers extends beyond the specific inquiry; their involvement is associated with improved readability and more cautionary language in the subsequent 10-K, and fewer future restatements and comment letters. Last, we find that securities lawyers serve more of an advocacy role when proprietary costs are high and when the inquiry involves a possible amendment, but more of a gatekeeper role when an inquiry is more complex.

Layer on numerous other considerations, including (but not limited to) law firm cost, where you (as the client) are in your corporate lifecycle and the uniqueness of each situation, and your head will spin. There are five factors that inhouse counsel (or, in the absence of one, a company) should consider when selecting outside legal counsel. Furthermore, who you select as outside legal counsel will inevitably reflect your persona - how you will be viewed by the other side and the impact that view will have on ongoing relationships. If you engage counsel to represent you in negotiating a licensing agreement, and counsel drives a deal that is advantageous to you while simultaneously alienating the counterparty, then when it comes time to renew the relationship, the counterparty will remember the negative experience associated with your attorney, and that memory will drive the negotiation this time, and not necessarily toward a favorable result.