Latest news with #legalcases
BreakingNews.ie
20 hours ago
- Science
- BreakingNews.ie
Sexual assault defendants and complainants equally prone to memory gaps
Both defendants and complainants in sexual assault cases are equally prone to memory distortions, new research suggests. The results of the study from University College Dublin and University College Cork puts a focus on why complainants' memories in sexual assault cases are scrutinised in court when the accused can be equally prone to error. Advertisement Published in Nature's Scientific Reports, the 'He Said, She Said' study involved a series of experiments using an immersive first-person video playing out a date scenario. Those taking part were later assigned the role of either the complainant or the accused before being shown fabricated 'witness' accounts that included misleading details and altered key facts from the video. For example, some participants were shown testimony from a barman claiming that the accused was plying the complainant with drinks, even though this was not in the original video. The study found that individuals in the role of both complainant and accused were equally likely to absorb and recall false details, even when those details supported their assigned narrative. Advertisement There were more than 1,300 participants in three separate experiments. 'We hope that this study will encourage people to re-examine their assumptions regarding the role of memory in sexual assault cases,' said lead author Associate Professor Ciara M Greene of UCD School of Psychology. 'We have noticed that these cases often hinge on discussions of the complainant's memory. 'As memory scientists, we find this strange, since we know that everyone – male or female, complainant or accused – is human and has the same memory frailties. Advertisement 'This study provides concrete evidence that memory errors and distortions are not unique to one side of contentious legal cases.' For the study, two versions of the simulated date were filmed, one featuring a male actor and the other featuring a female actor. The two videos were identical in all other respects, with each filmed from the perspective of a person going on a date with the man or the woman. The first cohort of participants in both roles received the same misinformation details (experiment 1), wherein those in experiment 2 and 3 were provided misinformation that was tailored to their assigned roles – that is, information designed to make the sexual assault appear more likely or less likely to have occurred. Advertisement Strong misinformation effects were observed in both groups, with the complainant and accused equally likely to misremember details of the events leading up to the sexual encounter. The study included both male and female victims and perpetrators, but interestingly found that memory distortion effects were not affected by gender. While the study was based on fictional scenarios, its authors argue it highlights that memory is reconstructive and subject to bias, regardless of one's role in a dispute. Co-author and Associate Professor Gillian Murphy said: 'We have a responsibility as memory scientists to banish myths about memory. Advertisement 'In our book and in this paper, we stress that our memories mostly serve us very well and provide a good account of our experiences, but they can sometimes be prone to error, no matter what side of the courtroom you're on.' If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at or visit Rape Crisis Help.
CNN
4 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship could have taken effect this weekend. Lower courts are continuing to block it
Donald Trump Supreme Court Trump legal casesFacebookTweetLink Follow A Supreme Court decision last month limiting the use of nationwide injunctions appeared to pave the way for President Donald Trump to begin enforcing his plan to end birthright citizenship on Sunday — until lower courts stalled the effort. The president could have begun enforcement if lower courts had significantly modified a series of injunctions ahead of a 30-day deadline given by the justices. But that hasn't happened. In fact, lower court judges have gone in a different direction, preventing Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect now — and possibly ever — through three new adverse rulings. And more lower court decisions against the administration may be coming. A federal judge in New Hampshire earlier this month blocked Trump's order nationwide via a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Such lawsuits are one of the ways the Supreme Court suggested challengers could try to jam up enforcement of the policy for those who would be impacted by it. The Justice Department has not appealed that ruling from US District Judge Joseph LaPlante, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush. The administration was further stymied last week, after a federal appeals court decided that a nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle earlier this year against Trump's order did not represent a judicial overreach that needed to be curbed in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ordered lower courts that issued or kept intact such broad injunctions to reconsider those rulings to see whether they comply with the justices' decision that such injunctions may not be needed to provide litigants with the 'complete relief' they're seeking. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief,' the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision in a case brought by several Democratic-led states against Trump's order. The administration has not yet appealed that ruling. The 9th Circuit's decision may soon bring the birthright issue back before the Supreme Court, since the appeals court had also reviewed the merits of the executive order and found that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's June 27 decision did not address the legality of the policy, only the use of nationwide injunctions. Yet another blow came on Friday, when US District Judge Leo Sorokin decided that his earlier nationwide injunction against the birthright policy could not be narrowed in a way that would 'feasibly and adequately protect' against the harms that more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia and several cities said would befall them if the policy could be enforced, even partially. In that ruling, Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, repeated his conclusion that Trump's order 'is unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.' It's not clear whether, absent those three rulings this month, the policy could have taken effect this weekend. In court, attorneys for the administration have avoided providing specifics when speaking about what would happen once the 30-day pause from the Supreme Court is lifted. 'It's an unusual situation, what the Supreme Court did,' DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said earlier this month to Sorokin. It's possible Trump may never be able to fully implement his order. Every lower court in the US to scrutinize the policy has found it unconstitutional. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the states lawfully, but temporarily. But courts have roundly concluded that Trump's policy violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark and years of practice by previous presidents. Whether the administration decides to file appeals in the cases challenging the executive order is no small matter: Legal experts have long said the government's decision to take the issue to the Supreme Court only on the technical question of whether courts went too far in blocking his policy nationwide represented a vehicle to undermine the power of lower courts sifting through a bevy of litigation over Trump's actions. 'The Trump administration was very purposeful and strategic in their decision to go to the Supreme Court on the question of what remedy can people get when they challenge executive actions, as opposed to the merits of this particular executive order,' said Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School. More adverse rulings for Trump's birthright order could be on the horizon. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, who blocked Trump's order nationwide said earlier this month that she was prepared to do so again after the plaintiffs in that challenge refiled their case as a class-action lawsuit. But first, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court would have to put the litigation back in her hands. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to craft guidance on how the federal government would carry out Trump's birthright policy, but no details have emerged on what that guidance looks like. 'The agencies are right now working on public guidance to explain how the President's executive order is going to be implemented,' Hamilton told Sorokin last month, in response to the judge's question about what's been done behind the scenes.
CNN
5 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Federal judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago ‘sanctuary' laws
Donald Trump Trump legal cases ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. The Trump administration sued officials in Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. 'The individual defendants are dismissed because the United States lacks standing to sue them with respect to the Sanctuary Policies,' Jenkins said in her ruling. Trump officials have repeatedly criticized those policies, often singling out Chicago, where the administration recently conducted an immigration enforcement operation. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. Gov. JB Pritzker welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies seen as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, New York. It sued four New Jersey cities in May. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Donald Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces US immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
Fox News
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Jimmy Failla's Son Joins The Panel On ‘Fox News Saturday Night' For A Game Of ‘Judge Lincoln'
Jimmy Failla's son Lincoln stops by Fox News Saturday Night to give his take on recent outlandish legal cases, and whether the alleged perpetrators deserve to be sent to Alligator Alcatraz. Watch the latest video at Kennedy Stops By 'Fox News Saturday Night' To Discuss The New 'Superman' Movie PLUS, check out the podcast if you missed any of Friday's show!
The National
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Dubai sets up specialised division for child protection
on Monday established a specialised division for registering child protection cases. The division will focus on children under the age of 18 who are involved in legal cases or have had court orders issued against them or their families based on submitted petitions. The move, which seeks to ensure the safeguarding of children's rights while ensuring their well-being, will see the division as a central entity following up on cases of children exposed to neglect, violence or deprivation of basic rights. It is expected to enhance the co-ordination between Dubai Courts and partner entities while increasing the efficiency of the response to sensitive cases, state news agency Wam reported. Dubai's judicial system attaches the utmost importance to protecting children's rights, Mohammed Al Obaidli, executive director of the litigation management sector at Dubai Courts, said. He added that the division will support decision-making and the continuous development of policies and procedures related to child protection, while reducing the likelihood of further harm resulting from delayed judicial procedures.
