The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Azarax, Inc. v. Syverson

Docket: 19-2927

Opinion Date: March 8, 2021

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Business Law, Legal Ethics, Mergers & Acquisitions

Azarax filed suit against defendant and his law firm, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Azarax claimed that defendant and his firm were negligent in their representation of Convey Mexico and that Azarax had claims against defendant and his firm as a successor by merger to Convey Mexico. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and agreed with the district court that Azarax was not a valid successor in interest to Convey Mexico. In this case, the summary judgment record established that the shareholders of Convey Mexico did not unanimously provide written consent for the merger with Azarax Holding, so the merger was not valid. Therefore, Azarax lacked standing to sue defendant and his law firm. The court modified the judgment to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd.

Dockets: 19-3124, 19-3128

Opinion Date: March 8, 2021

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Consumer Law

In these consolidated cases, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against the same debt-collecting law firm, SZJ. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of SZJ's collection activities related to alleged debts that plaintiffs owed to one of SZJ's clients, LVNV Funding. The court concluded that, because plaintiffs did not plead any additional facts to indicate that SZJ took anything but a good faith legal position in its prayer for relief, the complaints failed to state plausible claims that SZJ made false, deceptive, or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e. The court also concluded that, even though SZJ failed to meet its evidentiary burden as set forth in the Amended Standing Order, it was entitled to bring a good faith claim to collect alleged debts and plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1).

United States v. Burns

Docket: 19-3205

Opinion Date: March 8, 2021

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to construct an aquaponics facility. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err by giving a jury instruction that enabled a finding that only defendant committed wire fraud; the district court did not err by giving an explicit unanimity instruction where there was no genuine risk of the jury finding nonunanimously; and defendant waived his argument that the district court did not err by sua sponte individually polling the jury.

United States v. Ross

Docket: 19-3524

Opinion Date: March 8, 2021

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl resulting in victim's death. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant distributed the fentanyl that caused the victim's death. In this case, defendant, a known drug dealer, delivered the two grams in two packages and defendant was aware at the time he left the victim's motel room that the victim had overdosed and was unconscious. Moreover, that the trace amount of loose powder on the desk was pure fentanyl—and not the three-drug mixture of the unopened package—does not disprove that defendant distributed the drug to the victim.

United States v. Staten

Docket: 19-2812

Opinion Date: March 8, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release, concluding that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a new offense. In this case, although the district court acknowledged that there was no one piece of information that was the proverbial smoking gun, it found that a combination of all of the pieces of evidence established that defendant had participated in one or more bank robberies. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing defendant's sentence where the district court sufficiently considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment.