Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy. On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general. When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.” And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.” A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.” On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote. As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time. Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way. Robert Bork Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb. “Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster. This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court. Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination. Ronnie White In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime. Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.” White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. Miguel Estrada Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001. Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court. However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin. Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired. Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology. According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.” When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.” Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge. Bove stands out As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns. This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue. But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch. This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.
President Trump Uses Law Enforcement to Access Independent Agencies
Dr. Meena Bose, Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, is featured in The Washington Post article: “Trump uses power and police to help DOGE access independent agencies.” “It’s a clear strategy of asserting executive power and challenging any willingness or efforts to restrict that power,” said Dr. Bose.
How authorship language helped catch a domestic terrorist – new podcast
In the latest episode of Writing Wrongs, hosts Professor Tim Grant and Dr Nicci MacLeod interview Dr Isobelle Clarke to unravel a case where forensic linguistics helped track down and convict a dangerous individual. Episode three, Imposters Tending to the Wild with Dr Isobelle Clarke, dives into the chilling case of Nikolaos Karvounakis, a self-proclaimed anarchist who planted a viable explosive device in Princes Street Gardens, Edinburgh, in 2018. Karvounakis, a Greek national, evaded capture for years, hiding behind online anonymity and extremist rhetoric. However, forensic linguists stepped in to analyse his anonymous blog posts, revealing patterns in his language that ultimately helped Police Scotland link him to the crime. The case not only demonstrates how linguistic evidence can be a powerful forensic tool but also raises crucial questions about the role of language analysis in modern terrorism investigations. On 11 January 2018, a suspicious cardboard box was discovered in a public seating area in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens. After a controlled explosion, investigators determined the device could have caused serious harm had it detonated. With no immediate leads, the investigation stalled - until an anonymous blog post surfaced, claiming responsibility for the attack. The post, written in both English and Spanish, was linked to an eco-anarchist group called Individualists Tending to the Wild, a Mexican-based extremist organisation advocating violent action against technological progress. Crucially, the post included an image of the bomb’s interior, a detail only the perpetrator or law enforcement could have known. Police Scotland sought the expertise of Professor Tim Grant, who analysed the text, producing a linguistic profile that suggested the writer was neither a native English nor Spanish speaker - but rather someone influenced by another language entirely. Two years later, police identified Nikolaos Karvounakis as a suspect. Using comparative authorship analysis, Professor Tim Grant compared his online writings - including song lyrics from his rock band - to the manifesto. By dissecting word patterns, grammatical structures and stylistic quirks, he established that Karvounakis was the likely author. This evidence -alongside forensic meteorology, which linked photos of clouds in Karvounakis’ blog posts to the same weather conditions on the day of the crime - was used to secure a warrant and seize computers containing known writings by Karvounakis. To eliminate inevitable bias that would result from having worked the case for more than two years, Professor Grant invited Dr Isabelle Clarke onto the case as an independent forensic linguist. Using a version of the General Imposters Method, a technique similar to a police lineup but for language, Dr Clarke confirmed that the writing style in the blog post was the closest to Karvounakis’ known writings. Police Scotland put the evidence in the case, including the linguistic evidence, to Karvounakis, and secured a guilty plea. In February 2022, Nikolaos Karvounakis was sentenced to over eight years in prison under the UK’s Terrorism Act. Tim Grant, professor of forensic linguistics at Aston University, said: “The case highlights the growing importance of forensic linguistics in solving crimes, particularly in an age where digital anonymity combines with extremist ideologies. “It also highlights the how different types of language analysis can assist as a case moves through different stages of investigation.” Dr Nicci MacLeod, deputy director of the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, said: “This episode offers listeners a behind-the-scenes look at the forensic methods that expose deception, identify threats and ultimately bring criminals to justice.” Dr Isobelle Clarke, a lecturer in security and protection science at Lancaster University and one of the first graduates from the campus-based MA Forensic Linguistics programme at Aston University, said: “It was great to be back at Aston University talking about the Karvounakis case for the Writing Wrongs podcast. “It’s an interesting case to highlight, as it shows how different types of language analysis can help with police investigations.” Writing Wrongs is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all major streaming platforms. Listeners are encouraged to subscribe, share and engage with the hosts by submitting their forensic linguistics questions. Whether it’s about this case or broader forensic linguistic techniques, Professor Grant and Dr MacLeod welcome inquiries from listeners.
From Facial Recognition to Deepfakes: What Could Be Done With Your Image?
Facial Recognition: Convenience and Controversy Facial recognition technology is everywhere, making our day-to-day tasks faster and more convenient. It offers substantial benefits, from enhanced security measures to streamlined user experiences. Airports utilize it for faster check-ins, smartphones use it for secure authentication, and law enforcement agencies employ it for identifying suspects. However, the technology also raises considerable privacy concerns. The pervasive deployment of facial recognition without adequate oversight can lead to unwarranted surveillance, potential biases in profiling, and the erosion of personal privacy. The Rise of Deepfake Technology Meanwhile, deepfake technology has advanced rapidly, leveraging AI to create highly realistic synthetic, or "fake", media. These hyper-realistic videos, showing individuals doing or saying things they never actually did, have become a significant concern. The potential misuse of deepfakes ranges from spreading misinformation and manipulating elections to causing personal distress by enabling crimes like fraud and defamation. Dr. Derek Riley, a seasoned media expert, professor and program director of the B.S. in Computer Science program at Milwaukee School of Engineering, is available to discuss how these technologies work, how they're regulated, how they can be used in a positive manner, and how individuals can protect themselves.
Small Changes Can Save Lives: How a Police Officer’s First Words Can Transform Communities
Britt Nestor knew something needed to change. Nestor is a police officer in North Carolina. Unlike many in her field, who recite interview-ready responses about wanting to be a police officer since childhood, Nestor admits that her arrival to the field of law enforcement was a serendipitous one. Told by teachers to start rehearsing the line “do you want fries with that?” while in high school, Nestor went to college to prove them wrong—and even graduated with a 3.9 GPA solely to prove those same people wrong—but she had absolutely no idea what to do next. When a local police department offered to put her through the police academy, her first thought was, “absolutely not.” “And here I am,” says Nestor, 12 years into her career, working in Special Victims Investigations as an Internet Crimes Against Children detective. A Calling to Serve Community Brittany Nestor, New Blue Co-Founder and President Though she’d initially joined on a whim, Nestor stuck around and endured many growing pains, tasting some of the problematic elements of police culture firsthand. As a woman, there was particular pressure to prove herself; she resisted calling for back-up on dangerous calls for fear of being regarded as weak, and tried out for and joined the SWAT team to demonstrate her mettle. "It took time to realize I didn’t need to make the most arrests or get the most drugs and guns to be a good cop. What was important was recognizing that I was uniquely positioned and given opportunities every single shift to make a difference in people’s lives—that is what I wanted to focus on." Britt Nestor Nestor found she took great pleasure in interacting with different kinds of people all day. She’s deeply fond of her community, where she is also a youth basketball coach. One of her greatest joys is being on call or working an event and hearing someone hail her from the crowd by yelling, “hey, coach!” When she landed in the Juvenile Investigations Unit, Nestor truly felt she’d found her calling. Still, what she’d witnessed in her profession and in the news weighed on her. And she’s not alone; while there is continued debate on the urgency and extent of changes needed, 89% percent of people are in favor of police reform, according to a CBS/YouGov poll. A few weeks after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Nestor’s colleague Andy Saunders called her and told her they had to do something. It felt like the tipping point. “I knew he was right. I needed to stop wishing and hoping police would do better and start making it happen.” Andy Saunders, New Blue Co-Founder and CEO That conversation was the spark that grew into New Blue. Founded in 2020, New Blue strives to reform the U.S. Criminal Justice system by uniting reform-minded police officers and community allies. The organization focuses on incubating crowd-sourced solutions from officers themselves, encouraging those in the field to speak up about what they think could improve relations between officers and the communities they serve. “Over the years I’ve had so many ideas—often addressing problems brought to light by community members—that could have made us better. But my voice was lost. I didn’t have much support from the police force standing behind me. This is where New Blue makes the difference; it’s the network of fellows, alumni, partners, mentors, and instructors I’d needed in the past.” Nestor and Saunders had valuable pieces of the puzzle as experienced law enforcement professionals, yet they knew they needed additional tools. What are the ethical guidelines around experimenting with new policing tactics? What does success look like, and how could they measure it? The Research Lens Over 400 miles away, another spark found kindling; like Nestor, Assistant Professor of Organization & Management Andrea Dittmann’s passion for making the world a better place is palpable. Also, like Nestor, it was an avid conversation with a colleague—Kyle Dobson—that helped bring a profound interest in police reform into focus. Dittmann, whose academic career began in psychology and statistics, came to this field by way of a burgeoning interest in the need for research-informed policy. Much of her research explores the ways in which socioeconomic disparities play out in the work environment, and—more broadly—how discrepancies of power shape dynamics in organizations of all kinds. When people imagine research in the business sector, law enforcement is unlikely to crop up in their mind. Indeed, Dittmann cites the fields of criminal justice and social work as being the traditional patrons of police research, both of which are more likely to examine the police force from the top down. Andrea Dittmann Dittmann, however, is a micro-oriented researcher, which means she assesses organizations from the bottom up; she examines the small, lesser-studied everyday habits that come to represent an organization’s values. “We have a social psychology bent; we tend to focus on individual processes, or interpersonal interactions,” says Dittmann. She regards her work and that of her colleagues as a complementary perspective to help build upon the literature already available. Where Dittmann has eyes on the infantry level experience of the battleground, other researchers are observing from a bird’s eye view. Together, these angles can help complete the picture. And while the “office” of a police officer may look very different from what most of us see every day, the police force is—at the end of the day—an organization: “Like all organizations, they have a unique culture and specific goals or tasks that their employees need to engage in on a day-to-day basis to be effective at their jobs,” says Dittmann. Theory Meets Practice Kyle Dobson, Postdoctoral Researcher at The University of Texas at Austin What Dittmann and Dobson needed next was a police department willing to work with them, a feat easier said than done. Enter Britt Nestor and New Blue. "Kyle and I could instantly tell we had met people with the same goals and approach to reforming policing from within." Andrea Dittmann Dittmann was not surprised by the time it took to get permission to work with active officers. “Initially, many officers were distrustful of researchers. Often what they’re seeing in the news are researchers coming in, telling them all the problems that they have, and leaving. We had to reassure them that we weren’t going to leave them high and dry. If we find a problem, we’re going to tell you about it, and we’ll work on building a solution with you. And of course, we don’t assume that we have all the answers, which is why we emphasize developing research ideas through embedding ourselves in police organizations through ride-alongs and interviews.” After observing the same officers over years, they’re able to build rapport in ways that permit open conversations. Dittmann and Dobson now have research running in many pockets across the country, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and parts of Texas. The Rise of Community-Oriented Policing For many police departments across the nation, there is a strong push to build closer and better relationships with the communities they serve. This often translates to police officers being encouraged to engage with citizens informally and outside the context of enforcing the law. If police spent more time chatting with people at a public park or at a café, they’d have a better chance to build rapport and foster a collective sense of community caretaking—or so the thinking goes. Such work is often assigned to a particular unit within the police force. This is the fundamental principle behind community-oriented policing: a cop is part of the community, not outside or above it. This approach is not without controversy, as many would argue that the public is better served by police officers interacting with citizens less, not more. In light of the many high-profile instances of police brutality leaving names like Breonna Taylor and George Floyd echoing in the public’s ears, their reticence to support increased police-to-citizen interaction is understandable. “Sometimes when I discuss this research, people say, ‘I just don’t think that officers should approach community members at all, because that’s how things escalate.’ Kyle and I acknowledge that’s a very important debate and has its merits.” As micro-oriented researchers, however, Dittmann and Dobson forgo advocating for or dismissing broad policy. They begin with the environment handed to them and work backward. “The present and immediate reality is that there are officers on the street, and they’re having these interactions every day. So what can we do now to make those interactions go more smoothly? What constitutes a positive interaction with a police officer, and what does it look like in the field?” Good Intentions Gone Awry To find out, they pulled data through a variety of experiments, including live interactions, video studies and online experiments, relying heavily on observation of such police-to-citizen interactions. "What we wanted to do is observe the heterogeneity of police interactions and see if there’s anything that officers are already doing that seems to be working out in the field, and if we can ‘bottle that up’ and turn that into a scalable finding." Andrea Dittmann Dittmann and her colleagues quickly discovered a significant discrepancy between some police officers’ perceived outcome of their interactions with citizens and what those citizens reported to researchers post-interaction. “An officer would come back to us and they’d say it went great. Like, ‘I did what I was supposed to do, I made that really positive connection.’ And then we’d go to the community members, and we’d hear a very different story: ‘Why the heck did that officer just come up to me, I’m just trying to have a picnic in the park with my family, did I do something wrong?’” Community members reported feeling confused, harassed, or—at the worst end of the spectrum—threatened. The vast majority—around 75% of citizens—reported being anxious from the very beginning of the interaction. It’s not hard to imagine how an officer approaching you apropos of nothing may stir anxious thoughts: have I done something wrong? Is there trouble in the area? The situation put the cognitive burden on the citizen to figure out why they were being approached. The Transformational Potential of the “Transparency Statement” And yet, they also observed officers (“super star” police officers, as Dittmann refers to them) who seemed to be especially gifted at cultivating better responses from community members. What made the difference? “They would explain themselves right from the start and say something like, ‘Hey, I’m officer so-and-so. The reason I’m out here today is because I’m part of this new community policing unit. We’re trying to get to know the community and to better understand the issues that you’re facing.’ And that was the lightbulb moment for me and Kyle: the difference here is that some of these officers are explaining themselves very clearly, making their benevolent intention for the interaction known right from the start of the conversation.” Dittmann and her colleagues have coined this phenomenon the “transparency statement.” Using a tool called the Linguistic Inquiry & Word Count software and natural language processing tools, the research team was able to analyze transcripts of the conversations and tease out subconscious cues about the civilians’ emotional state, in addition to collecting surveys from them after the encounter. Some results jumped out quickly, like the fact that those people whose conversation with an officer began with a transparency statement had significantly longer conversations with them. The team also employed ambulatory physiological sensors, or sensors worn on the wrist that measure skin conductivity and, by proxy, sympathetic nervous system arousal. From this data, a pattern quickly emerged: citizens’ skin conductance levels piqued early after a transparency statement (while this can be a sign of stress, in this context researchers determined it to reflect “active engagement” in the conversation) and then recovered to baseline levels faster than in the control group, a pattern indicative of positive social interaction. Timing, too, is of the essence: according to the study, “many patrol officers typically made transparency statements only after trust had been compromised.” Stated simply, the interest police officers showed in them was “perceived as harassment” if context wasn’t provided first. Overall, the effect was profound: citizens who were greeted with the transparency statement were “less than half as likely to report threatened emotions.” In fact, according to the study, “twice as many community members reported feeling inspired by the end of the interaction.” What’s more, they found that civilians of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds —who may reasonably be expected to have a lower baseline level of trust of law enforcement—“may profit more from greater transparency.” Talk, it turns out, is not so cheap after all. Corporate Offices, Clinics, and Classrooms The implications of this research may also extend beyond the particulars of the police force. The sticky dynamics that form between power discrepancies are replicated in many environments: the classroom, between teachers and students; the office, between managers and employees; even the clinic, between medical doctors and patients. In any of these cases, a person with authority—perceived or enforceable—may try to build relationships and ask well-meaning questions that make people anxious if misunderstood. Is my boss checking in on me because she’s disappointed in my performance? Is the doctor being nice because they’re preparing me for bad news? “We believe that, with calibration to the specific dynamics of different work environments, transparency statements could have the potential to ease tense conversations across power disparities in contexts beyond policing,” says Dittmann. More Research, Action, and Optimism What could this mean for policing down the road? Imagine a future where most of the community has a positive relationship with law enforcement and there is mutual trust. "I often heard from family and friends that they’d trust the police more ‘if they were all like you.’ I can hear myself saying, ‘There are lots of police just like me!’ and I truly believe that. I believe that so many officers love people and want to serve their communities—and I believe a lot of them struggle with the same things I do. They want to see our profession do better!" Britt Nestor “When I get a new case and I meet the survivor, and they’re old enough to talk with me, I always explain to them, ‘I work for you. How cool is that?’ And I truly believe this: I work for these kids and their families.” The implications run deep; a citizen may be more likely to reach out to police officers about issues in their community before they become larger problems. An officer who is not on edge may be less likely to react with force. Dittmann is quick to acknowledge that while the results of the transparency statement are very promising, they are just one piece of a very large story with a long and loaded history. Too many communities are under supported and overpoliced; it would be denying the gravity and complexity of the issue to suggest that there is any silver bullet solution, especially one so simple. More must be done to prevent the dynamics that lead to police violence to begin with. “There’s a common narrative in the media these days that it’s too late, there’s nothing that officers can do,” says Dittmann. Yet Dittmann places value on continued research, action and optimism. When a simple act on the intervention side of affairs has such profound implications, and is not expensive or difficult to implement, one can’t help but see potential. “Our next step now is to develop training on transparency statements, potentially for entire agencies,” says Dittmann. “If all the officers in the agency are interacting with transparency statements, then we see this bottom-up approach, with strong potential to scale. If every interaction you have with an officer in your community starts out with that transparency statement, and then goes smoothly, now we’re kind of getting to a place where we can hopefully talk about better relations, more trust in the community, at a higher, more holistic, level.” While the road ahead is long and uncertain, Dittmann’s optimism is boosted by one aspect of her findings: those community members who reported feeling inspired after speaking with police officers who made their benevolent intentions clear. "That was really powerful for me and Kyle. That’s what gets me out of bed in the morning. It’s worth trying to move the needle, even just a little bit." Andrea Dittmann Looking to know more? Andrea Dittman is available to speak with media about this important research. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Need to know more about the importance of Miranda Rights? Our experts are here to help
The anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which established the Miranda Rights, is a pivotal moment in American legal history. This ruling, which ensures that individuals are informed of their rights during an arrest, has profound implications for the criminal justice system, civil liberties, and police procedures. The importance of Miranda Rights remains a relevant and critical topic, especially in discussions about law enforcement practices and legal protections. Understanding the impact of this decision helps to illuminate broader issues of justice and rights in the United States. Key story angles include: Historical Context and Significance: Exploring the background of the Miranda v. Arizona case, its significance at the time, and its long-term effects on the criminal justice system. Impact on Law Enforcement: Analyzing how the Miranda ruling has changed police procedures, training, and accountability measures. Civil Liberties and Legal Protections: Investigating the role of Miranda Rights in protecting individual freedoms and ensuring fair treatment under the law. Contemporary Legal Challenges: Discussing ongoing legal debates and challenges related to Miranda Rights, including Supreme Court interpretations and potential reforms. Public Awareness and Education: Examining efforts to educate the public about their rights during interactions with law enforcement and the importance of knowing one's rights. Personal Stories and Case Studies: Sharing stories of individuals whose cases were affected by Miranda Rights, highlighting the human impact of this legal protection. These angles provide journalists with a comprehensive framework to explore the historical significance and enduring impact of Miranda Rights on the American legal landscape. Connect with an Expert about the importance of Miranda Rights: Christopher Smith Professor of Criminal Justice · Michigan State University Patricia Wilson, J.D. Associate Dean & Professor of Law · Baylor Law School Stephen Griffin W.R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law · Tulane University Julian Ku Professor of Law and Interim Dean · Hofstra University Ganesh Sitaraman New York Alumni Chancellor's Chair in Law · Vanderbilt University To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Claire Anderson
The Georgia Southern University Soldier Performance and Readiness (SPAR) program received a $1.5 million, two-year grant from the Department of Defense’s U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC). The grant will expand Georgia’s Southern research and programming capacity in injury prevention techniques that ensure force readiness for the Army. “Through this large-scale research study, Georgia Southern doctoral students have opportunities to be involved in the research process and work directly with soldiers,” said Nancy Henderson, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program. “Additionally, the grant will fund graduate assistant positions in the Doctor of Physical Therapy program.” USAMRDC’s mission is to provide solutions to medical problems for American service members at home and abroad, as well as to the public at large. The scope of this effort and the priorities attached to specific projects are influenced by changes in military and civilian medical science and technology, operational requirements, military threat assessments and national defense strategies. Extramural research and development programs play a vital role in the fulfillment of the objectives established by the organization. Research and development funded through this are intended to benefit both military and civilian medical practices. “The grant investigates different physical training programs to identify those practices that best prevent non-combat injuries,” said Henderson. “Faculty on the research team will seek to advance the body of literature by determining the best educational models to educate soldiers on injury-prevention topics.” This is the first time that Georgia Southern will act as lead investigator on a collaborative research project with an Army research institute. However, SPAR has long been involved in multiple branches of research with community impact. “Georgia Southern has several initiatives underway to help improve the health, fitness and performance of military service members, law enforcement personnel and firefighting and rescue personnel,” said Joseph Kardouni, Ph.D., director of the Tactical Performance Group. “The Tactical Athlete Certificate (TAC) program is one of these initiatives that teaches service members exercise fundamentals to help mitigate training-related injuries. The funding coming through Medical Research and Development Command will improve evidence-based teaching methods and inform similar efforts to teach service members within this field. Leaders from health and human performance programs within the Army understand the importance of leveraging partnerships with academic institutions to work toward improving the quality of life, health and occupational performance of soldiers.” Faculty and students in the DPT program have educated soldiers on injury prevention topics since 2016 and this grant further provides students with the opportunity to assess effectiveness while learning how to improve educational methods with military service members. “This research is an important next step in delivering on the promise of the SPAR program and Georgia Southern’s close working relationship with Army research partners,” said Interim Vice President for Research and Economic Development Christopher Curtis, Ph.D. Curtis also noted that funding was made possible by the advocacy of U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter and the strong support of Georgia’s legislative delegation in Washington D.C. Interested in learning more or looking to talk with Nancy Henderson? Simply click on her icon now or Contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Aston University fraud specialist continues ongoing engagement with UK Government
Dr Rasha Kassem advises UK government on countering fraud through the Government Counter Fraud Profession (GCFP) advisory group She shapes policies to combat £33 billion annual losses Dr Kassem influences fraud standards and shares vital research. Dr Rasha Kassem, a fraud specialist based at Aston Business School, remains actively engaged with the UK government through her advisory role in the Government Counter Fraud Profession (GCFP) advisory group. This advisory group, a vital component of the Government Counter Fraud Function, collaborates with cross-sector experts to shape policies and strategies aimed at countering fraud and other financial crimes. The Government Counter Fraud Profession Strategy 2023-25 underscores the severity of fraud within the public sector, estimating losses at a minimum of £33 billion annually due to fraud and error. As a dedicated member of the GCFP Cross Sector Advisory Group, Dr Kassem plays a pivotal role in advising and supporting the development of policies to combat these financial crimes. The GCFP serves as a professional body for counter-fraud experts within central government and beyond. Its mission is to unite the counter-fraud community under a common framework of standards, fostering growth and development to safeguard public services and combat economic crime. Dr Kassem's involvement in the advisory group holds significant impact, influencing the establishment of knowledge, skills and experience requirements for fraud professionals across various disciplines and levels. Additionally, she contributes to the publication of influential fraud research in the Public Sector Counter Fraud Journal and addresses UK government fraud conferences on recent research findings. Dr Kassem also collaborates with experts from diverse sectors to bridge training gaps, all while engaging in discussions through regular group meetings. The Government Counter Fraud Profession operates under the umbrella of the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA), established in August 2022. The GCFP is positioned within the Practice, Standards, and Capability Function of the Authority. The PSFA, a collective effort by 17 public sector organisations, adheres to core principles of building capability, with the GCFP taking a lead role in advancing structures and services. Dr Kassem emphasises the critical nature of engaging with policymakers through knowledge exchange activities to amplify research impact. Her active participation in UK Government fraud conferences and contributions to the Public Sector Counter Fraud Journal serve to raise awareness on prevailing fraud issues. Furthermore, her feedback on existing and new fraud guidance aids the GCFP in crafting professional standards and guidance for countering fraud. Dr Kassem has been a valued member of the Cross-Sector Advisory Group of the UK Government Counter Fraud Profession since 2019. Dr Kassem said: “Collaborating with the UK government through the Government Counter Fraud Profession has been a rewarding journey. “It's through these engagements that we're shaping policies and standards to counter fraud and protect public resources. “The recent Annual GCFP conference was well attended by fraud investigators, law enforcement, and regulators from the public sector. My presentation was well received and some participants said it was wildly fascinating to hear the striking reality that insider fraud can be, especially in UK policing, given its impact on policing integrity and legitimacy. The presentation opened their eyes to the risk of insider fraud and its impact. “Together, we're making a significant impact on the battle against financial crime.” For further information and to explore Dr Kassem's recent research, click here.
Georgia Southern University to offer new executive master’s in criminal justice degree
Georgia Southern University is offering members of the law enforcement community a chance to boost their careers with a brand new executive master’s in criminal justice (EMCJ), a program specifically tailored for law enforcement professionals seeking career advancement. This program is certified by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards & Training Council (P.O.S.T.) and offers a comprehensive curriculum designed to accommodate the demanding work schedules of law enforcement agencies. Students in the program follow a unique schedule that features two, three-week modules per semester, requiring only one week of on-site attendance at the Armstrong Campus in Savannah, Georgia. Program participants can complete their degree in just two years. “I am excited about this new and innovative executive-style graduate program designed for law enforcement professionals across Georgia,” said Ryan Schroeder, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. “Students in the program will be exposed to current research in criminology and criminal justice and develop research skills to advance their careers. Graduates are prepared to be leaders in law enforcement organizations across the state.” The EMCJ program is especially beneficial for officers in county and city law enforcement, sheriff’s department personnel, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Georgia FBI, University System of Georgia law enforcement agencies and more. Through the coursework, students will refine their analytical, research and critical thinking skills, foster a superior understanding of criminal justice and have the chance to network with fellow officers, build relationships and enhance connections nationwide. “We’re excited to offer this executive master’s program to all our law enforcement partners throughout the state,” said Laura Mcullough, director of Public Safety and Chief of Police for Georgia Southern. “This program is designed to work specifically with the agencies and for the upcoming leaders in law enforcement within Georgia. As an agency head, the ability to develop our future leaders while being able to provide for the demands of our communities is invaluable. This program will allow officers to develop into better officers and stronger leaders within their agencies and community without demanding large amounts of time away from work or home.” The program does not require a nomination, but candidates must hold a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited institution and be a certified, registered or exempt peace officer currently employed with a Georgia law enforcement agency recognized by the Georgia P.O.S.T. Interested in learning more? Contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
A recent survey conducted on behalf of CAA Insurance Company has found that a growing number of Ontarians have significant concerns about vehicle theft. The findings indicate that almost half of respondents (47 per cent) are very concerned about auto theft. That number increases to 57 per cent for those living in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). In contrast, those who live in either Northern (14 per cent) or Southwestern Ontario (10 per cent) were less worried about auto theft. "As an organization, we are deeply concerned about the rising trend of auto theft in Ontario and across the country. The survey results highlight the urgency of taking comprehensive action to protect our communities," says Elliott Silverstein, director of government relations CAA Insurance Company. Many Ontarians have a false sense of security. While many of those surveyed are concerned about the increase in vehicle theft, far fewer (30 per cent) are worried that their vehicle is at risk of getting stolen. This discrepancy suggests that many Ontarians may have a false sense of security when trusting that their cars are not at risk of being stolen. In most cases, basic auto theft prevention does not go far enough. According to the Solicitor General of Ontario, a car is stolen every 48 minutes. From 2014 to 2021, there was a 72 per cent increase in auto theft across the province, with a 14 per cent increase in the last year alone. While many people are diligent about locking their doors, basic auto theft prevention does not go far enough. Eighty-two per cent of drivers are ensuring their vehicle is always locked. Seventy-seven per cent of drivers ensure valuables are out of sight. Nearly 50 per cent of drivers park their cars in locked garages. Six per cent of drivers use a steering wheel lock, and only 8 per cent use a Faraday box to block the transmission of RFID signals. "Auto theft can happen to anyone, and drivers need to do more than just lock their doors to make their vehicle difficult to steal. We are urging Ontarians to take additional preventive measures to safeguard their vehicles, making them less appealing targets for thieves," adds Silverstein. Tips that can help deter vehicle theft As car-related thefts in Ontario have risen dramatically. Here are tips that can help deter vehicle theft: Secure your parked vehicle with an anti-theft deterrent such as a steering wheel lock, brake pedal lock or wheel & tire lock device like "The Club" Store your key fob in a Faraday box/pouch to block its signal from being hacked Lock your doors, and if you have a garage, park your vehicle inside If you have multiple vehicles, park the less expensive one closest to the street Install motion sensors on your driveway and a camera to capture any activity Cover the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) so that it’s not visible on the dashboard Store an Air Tag in your vehicle to track your vehicle should it be stolen Ensure items are out of sight, and do not leave valuables in your vehicle at all Never leave your vehicle running Share any suspicious activity with law enforcement CAA Insurance believes that to combat auto theft properly; it will require collaboration with the government, insurers, vehicle manufacturers, and others, including Canada Border Services Agency. About This Survey The survey conducted for CAA Insurance Company is a representative sample of 2,000 Ontarians balanced and weighted on age, gender, and region. Comparative margin of error = +/-3.1%
