<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BoleyBlogs! &#187; L&amp;C Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=14" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs</link>
	<description>The legal research blog of Lewis &#038; Clark Law School's Boley Law Library</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:18:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Lewis &amp; Clark Law Review Volume 13, Number 3</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1553</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1553#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The  latest issue of Lewis &#038; Clark Law School&#8217;s Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review is now out.
Here are the articles published in Volume 13, Number 3 of Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review, complete with links to the abstracts and full-text articles:
Symposium Articles

We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It by James F. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1553</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1549</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1549#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1549</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[James F. Flanagan, We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 553 (2009)
The Supreme Court in Giles v. California held that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only when he purposefully keeps the witness away. Many see the &#8220;purpose&#8221; requirement as an unjustified bar [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1549</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Forfeiture and Cross-Examination</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1547</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1547#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Kry, Forfeiture and Cross-Examination, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 577 (2009)
The forfeiture exception to the confrontation right allows the admission of a witness&#8217;s prior testimony where the defendant wrongfully procures the witness&#8217;s absence from trial. But did the common-law forfeiture exception justify admitting any statements previously made by the witness? Or did it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1547</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Selective Originalism</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1543</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1543#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas Y. Davies,  Selective Originalism: Sorting Out Which Aspects of Giles&#8217;s Forfeiture Exception To Confrontation Were or Were Not &#8220;Established at the Time of the Founding&#8221; , 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 605 (2009)
In Giles v. California (2008), as previously in Crawford v. Washington (2004), Justice Scalia&#8217;s majority opinion purported to follow the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1543</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Giles V. California</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1538</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1538#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert P. Mosteller, Giles V. California: Avoiding Serious Damage To Crawford&#8217;s Limited Revolution, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 675 (2009)
This Article endorses the result in Giles v. California, which limited the reach of the forfeiture through wrongdoing exception to those instances where &#8220;the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1538</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Making Constitutional the Permissive Inference In Gile V. California</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1536</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1536#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Douglas E. Beloof, Making Constitutional the Permissive Inference In Gile V. California: Changing the Intent To Silence From &#8220;Purposely&#8221; To &#8220;Knowingly&#8221;, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 697 (2009)
It is suggested here that the element of &#8220;purposely&#8221; silencing a witness that is presently required by the Giles majority as a predicate to forfeiture by wrongdoing, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1536</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Forfeiture After Giles</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1534</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1534#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deborah Tuerkheimer, Forfeiture After Giles:The Relevance Of &#8220;Domestic Violence Context&#8221;, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 711 (2009)
Giles v. California, the United States Supreme Court&#8217;s most recent pronouncement impacting the prosecution of domestic violence, has exposed deep judicial ambivalence about the newly transformed Confrontation Clause. This Article endeavors to guide lower courts in the task [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1534</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Giles V. California</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1531</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1531#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Richard D. Friedman, Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 733 (2009)
In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1531</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Removing the Dead Hand On the Future</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1528</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1528#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alison M. Osterberg, Removing the Dead Hand On the Future: Recognizing Citizen Children&#8217;s Rights Against Parental Deportation, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 751 (2009)
Current immigration laws do not provide the opportunity for undocumented, noncitizen parents to lawfully remain in the United States even when the noncitizen is the parent of a minor citizen child. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1528</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act In Oregon</title>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1525</link>
		<comments>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1525#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>site admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[L&C Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New L&C Law Scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patrick Foran, Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act In Oregon: The Right Time and the Right Reasons, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 787 (2009)
Traditional litigation is increasingly viewed as a costly and embittering way of resolving domestic relations disputes. Collaborative law is an alternative to the adversarial system, which tends to escalate disputes [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1525</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
