Search

Introduction 1094 I, Politics and Prosecutors: A Brief History 1096 A. A Bipartisan Space 1096 B. Reactive Prosecutors 1099 II. The Current (and Future?) Politics of Prosecution: Rising Partisanship and [...], Prosecution in the United States has long been political. But the nature of prosecutorial politics is changing. Once bipartisan and largely reactive, the politics of prosecution is more partisan and proactive, in ways that both reflect and amplify larger cleavages in American society. This Essay considers the upsides and downsides of this development. On the one hand, political contestation over prosecution democratizes criminal enforcement, stimulates public thinking and debate about the role and purpose of criminal law, and promotes local political agency. On the other, it risks falling prey to the same pitfalls that have impoverished American political life generally in recent decades: societal division, decline in reasoned assessment, difficulties forging sustainable compromise, and erosion of trust in institutions. The Essay concludes with some thoughts on how to maximize the upsides and minimize the downsides in this new era of partisan prosecutorial politics.

INTRODUCTION 1072 I. EVOLUTION AND STASIS 1079 A. Private Prosecutors, Public Investigations 1079 B. The Rise of Public Prosecutors find the Shifting of Enforcement Power 1082 II. How THE CURRENT [...], Criminal procedure has long set a boundary between public and private in criminal enforcement: generally speaking, enforcement decisions at the post-charging stage are exposed to some degree of public view, while those at the pre-charging stage remain almost entirely secret. The allocation of public and private is, at heart, an allocation of power--and the current allocation is a relic. When private prosecutors were the mainstay of criminal enforcement, public court processes effectively constrained them. But those processes do little to constrain the spaces where enforcement power today resides: in decisions by the servants of a state-run, professionalized enforcement apparatus on whether to investigate, to charge, or to decline charges. This Article challenges criminal procedure's centuries-old boundary between public and private in criminal enforcement. It argues that the justifications for the boundary are outdated and overstated, and the costs undernoticed. The public-private boundary has served to skew enforcers' incentives, impoverish insight into enforcement patterns and their causes, weaken traditional channels of accountability (judicial, electoral, and internal), and erode public trust. The Article reimagines a new boundary for our time, one that strengthens secrecy in some respects while relaxing it in others, and enables robust oversight of necessarily secret processes. More fundamentally, the Article is a call to center the public-private boundary in accounts of power in the criminal process.

Copyright of Revue du Financier is the property of Societe Cybel and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue du Financier is the property of Societe Cybel and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue du Financier is the property of Societe Cybel and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Pancreatic duct epithelial cells have been suggested as a source of progenitors for pancreatic growth and regeneration. However, genetic lineage-tracing experiments with pancreatic duct-specific Cre expression have given conflicting results. Using immunofluorescence and flow cytometry, we show heterogeneous expression of both HNF1β and SOX9 in adult human and murine ductal epithelium. Their expression was dynamic and diminished significantly after induced replication. Purified pancreatic duct cells formed organoid structures in 3D culture, and heterogeneity of expression of Hnf1β and Sox9 was maintained even after passaging. Using antibodies against a second cell surface molecule CD51 (human) or CD24 (mouse), we could isolate living subpopulations of duct cells enriched for high or low expression of HNF1β and SOX9. Only the CD24high (Hnfβ high/Sox9 high) subpopulation was able to form organoids. : In this article, Bonner-Weir and colleagues show heterogeneous expression of both HNF1β and SOX9 in adult human and murine ductal epithelium. Their expression was dynamic and diminished significantly after replication. Using cell surface markers, they isolated living subpopulations of duct cells with different expression profiles and potential to form organoids. Keywords: heterogeneity, organoid, pancreatic ductal cells

Scholarship in criminal adjudication is preoccupied with plea-bargaining and jury trials, but has largely ignored bench trials. Yet bench trials occur, and not just in misdemeanor cases. In some jurisdictions, they are a mainstay of felony adjudication. This Article offers the first systematic collection and reporting of bench trial prevalence in felony cases across the nation's largest jurisdictions, and the first qualitative study of the factors influencing jury trial waiver. It reveals bench trial prevalence to be highly variable across jurisdictions, including those within the same state. Qualitative study of five jurisdictions with varying bench trial prevalence shows what underlies that variability: ingrained institutional structures of fact-finder choice produced through the repeated interactions and interdependencies of the courthouse's community of professionals (judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys). Though the jury trial right rests, in theory, with the defendant, these institutional structures shape the degree of defense agency in exercising it. This study illuminates the jury trial right's meaning on the ground, reveals the influential and under-noticed role of trial judges in a pivotal defense decision, and identifies questions for future research. More broadly, it offers a new vantage point for perennial inquiries in criminal law and procedure: what confers power in the criminal process, and how is power distributed? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue du Financier is the property of Societe Cybel and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACT Criminal trials today are as much about the adequacy and legitimacy of the defendant's accusers--police and prosecutors--as the alleged deeds of the accused. Yet we lack theory to conceptualize [...]