Believe All Women or Support Joe Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on recent sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Colb argues that if the only choices for President are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the sexual assault allegation against the latter will take second fiddle to the need to defeat the former and defends this perspective as not manifesting hypocrisy or indifference to sexual assault or other intimate violence.

Read More

State v. Malave

Docket: SCWC-18-0000332

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Mark E. Recktenwald

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming Defendant's conviction of sexual assault in the first degree on the complaining witness pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 707-730(1)(b), holding that the ICA did not err in affirming the family court. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the jury should have been instructed to determine jurisdictional facts, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the ICA did not err in finding that there was no rational basis in the record to support providing the jury instruction of the lesser included offense of sexual assault in the third degree.

Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relations

Docket: SCWC-19-0000095

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Sabrina S. McKenna

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) dismissing this appeal on the grounds that appellate jurisdiction was lacking, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the existence of "excusable neglect" under Haw. R. App. P. (HRAP) 4(a)(4)(B) to allow an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner appealed from the circuit court's judgment in this labor dispute, asserting appellate jurisdiction pursuant to HRAP Rule 4. The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, determining that the appeal was untimely under Rule 4(a)(1) because Petitioner did not establish excusable neglect to extend the time to file the notice of appeal. After clarifying the terms "good cause" and "excusable neglect" for purposes of the current HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A) and (B), the Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded this case to the ICA to address the merits of the appeal, holding that "excusable neglect" existed in this case, and therefore, the ICA erred in dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.