Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Jury Discrimination
In 1906 a white lawyer named Dabney Marshall argued a case before the Mississippi Supreme Court demanding the racial integration of juries. He carried out a plan devised by Mississippi's foremost black lawyer of the time: Willis Mollison. Against staggering odds, and with the help of a friendly newspaper editor, he won. How Marshall and his allies were able to force the court to overturn state law and precedent, if only for a brief period, at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court is the subject of Jury Discrimination, a book that explores the impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on America's civil rights history. Christopher Waldrep traces the origins of Americans' ideas about trial by ...
Rethinking Evidence
Evidence, proof and probabilities, rationality, skepticism and narrative in legal discourse, and the reform of criminal evidence have all been the subject of lively debates in recent years. This book brings together seminal and new essays from a leading contributor to this new evidence scholarship. Rethinking Evidence contains a series of linked essays which consider historical, theoretical, and applied themes from a broad interdisciplinary perspective. It brings together well-known papers and also includes substantial new essays on the nature and scope of the law of evidence, lawyers' stories, and the case of Edith Thompson. These readable and provocative essays represent a major contribution not only to legal theory but also to the general study of discourse about evidence in many disciplines.
S-Zypaeus. 1878
None
Contesting Medical Confidentiality
This book, for the first time, offers a comparative study of the origins of professional and public debates on medical confidentiality in the US, Britain, and Germany during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this period traditional medical secrecy began to be seriously contested by demands for disclosure in the name of public health and the law. Andreas-Holger Maehle examines three representative debates: Do physicians and surgeons have a privilege to refuse to give evidence in court about confidential patient details? Can doctors breach patient confidence in order to prevent the spread of disease? And is there a medical duty to report illegal procedures to the authorities? The comparative approach reveals significant differences and similarities among the three countries concerned, and the book s historical perspective illuminates the fundamental ethical issues at stake that continue to give rise to public debate."
