At JNSLP’s Feb. 11, 2015 symposium on “Trials and Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts,” an expert panel was convened to discuss trends in sentencing considerations in Article III terrorism prosecutions, and what the implications for these cases portend for american foreign policy. The panel consisted of a judge, a government official and former prosecutor, academics, and sentencing experts.
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan draws on his voluminous experience on the federal bench to illuminate some of the special concerns that attend terrorism and national security cases. Kaplan reviews several judicial challenges unique to terrorism cases, including classified information issues and the use of defendants’ statements in the course of prosecution. He concludes that Article III courts not only are capable of trying such cases, but they are the forum most consistent with our American values of fairness and transparency.
As the field of privacy and digital surveillance grows increasingly chaotic, Michael Price proposes a compelling supplement to the third-party doctrine. Eschewing the popular position that our privacy clashes are generational, Price instead reviews the history of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to identify missteps in doctrine that have led us to the current impossible position. Along the way he wrestles with problems such as cloud storage and communications metadata, and he concludes with a framework that strikes a new balance between our storied civil liberties heritage and the “papers” of a big data society.