Professor of Law Gregory Germain spoke with The Guardian for an article on the Department of Justice seeking the death penalty in the Luigi Mangione trial.
Germain said the death penalty raises the stakes and adds “pressure” on Mangione to accept a life sentence if such a plea deal were offered.
German noted, however, that almost all the recent death penalty cases unfolded under Trump’s first term and surmised that his justice department would not agree to a deal for life imprisonment.
“He has political reasons, wanting to seem ‘tough on crime’ by supporting the death penalty,” Germain said.
“The stakes are never higher than when someone’s liberty hangs in the balance,” says John J. Dowling III L’20 of why he chose to become a criminal defense attorney.
Dowling started his criminal defense practice, Dowling Defense Group LLC, in 2021 in Charlotte, North Carolina. After graduating from Syracuse University College of Law, he had opportunities to join larger organizations that would have initially been more lucrative, but he decided to blaze his own trail to gain trial experience as quickly as possible.
“It’s difficult to generate trial experience right out of law school. If you work for a big firm, it’s going to be a long time before you get to try a case in front of a jury,” he explains. “So I went another way and opened a law firm by myself, and it’s amazing. I’m so glad I did it, as I’ve already tried a number of cases and argued two cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals.”
Dowling believes that the advent of the plea bargain—which didn’t always exist—has resulted in less trial experience for attorneys. “Trial by jury pre-dates the American Revolution, and I don’t think plea deals are how the framers of the Constitution thought this is how it would go,” he says. “A jury trial is the spinal column of the criminal justice system, but it’s used less and less because the risks of going before a jury can be higher.”
His focus on federal criminal law is not often a common choice, but he likes the challenge of going up against the federal government, including the FBI, Secret Service, or IRS.
“It’s a huge process when the federal government comes at you with all its forces,” he says. “But, Syracuse Law set me up to be an effective criminal lawyer, and now I’m using those skills to help others.”
Dowling is thankful for the education he received at Syracuse Law, calling it “one of the best in the country” and noting the experience he gained in various legal externships, as well as Trial Practice, Trial Advocacy and Moot Court. He points to Associate Dean for Online Education and Teaching Professor Shannon Gardner as someone who had a big impact on him as she demonstrated excellence and professionalism within the law.
His law school education also cemented his beliefs that criminal defense attorneys are an essential function of the law. “Everyone deserves a defense,” Dowling says. “Whether someone is guilty or innocent, things need to be handled the right way, and rules need to be abided by in order for a fair system to exist.”
Many of his cases are considered white collar crimes, which come with complex questions and interpretations of the law. “Clients can get themselves into situations that weren’t nefarious, but the consequences can be devastating to their lives, marriages, finances, etc. And, whether or not the government can show proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not as cut and dried as people think,” Dowling says.
“White collar crimes can often be harder to figure out and more nuanced than violent crimes, but they still have devastating penalties,” he adds. “There are many people who are falsely accused or overcharged, not because prosecutors are corrupt but because a witness might be lying, evidence is presented in a certain way, or the government has taken shortcuts. Often, it’s the consequences of misunderstandings that put people in prison.”
He is pleased with the path he chose and finds his job as a defense attorney fascinating, interviewing witnesses, doing research, and demonstrating his knowledge of the law in front of juries, all in an effort to make sure his clients get a fair trial.
Dowling acknowledges there are a few cases he won’t take, but, he says, “I don’t struggle with what clients are accused of doing because I recognize that all people have rights. I’m not here to agree or disagree. I’m here to serve an essential function of the American legal system.”
Contributors are Laura J. & L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Teaching Excellence and Crandall Melvin Professor of Law Lauryn Gouldin, director of the Syracuse Civics Initiative; Martin Feinman L’83 former director of Juvenile Justice Training for the Legal Aid Society of New York, Juvenile Rights Practice; Jocelyn Anctil G’25, L’25; Megan Hartman L’26, and Nicholas Marasco L’25.
They write: “Court decisions (and even police training manuals) from across the state and country make clear that automatically handcuffing people during stops is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Although handcuffs may be used when specific, individualized safety or flight risks are alleged, the facts available from media reports and the video of the stop do not provide support for the use of handcuffs during the stop shown in that video.
Police might prefer to use handcuffs in an excess of caution. And, of course, police work involves important exercises of caution. But the Constitution requires that caution be balanced against the liberty and dignity of people — especially children — who interact with police. Excesses of caution are unconstitutional.”
Some people know from an early age that they want to be lawyers. For others, the path to a law degree comes later, shaped by life experiences and schooling. What is undeniable is that a J.D. degree offers incredible flexibility to chart a successful career, no matter the challenges or circumstances that come along the way.
That’s the experience of Danielle Wild L’15, an Associate Teaching Professor at Syracuse Law and a member of the Legal Communication and Research (LCR) faculty.
Wild’s path back to her alma mater—and into teaching—was not direct or fully intentional.
She originally planned to pursue a career as a forensic psychologist, earning a B.A. in Psychology with a minor in Criminal Justice at Roberts Wesleyan College (now University). During her undergraduate studies, she became more aware of and passionate about restorative justice, the Innocence Project, and wrongful convictions.
“When my interests started going in that direction, I decided to graduate early and gain experience in the legal field,” she explains. “Several professors encouraged me to consider law school. I worked as a paralegal for a year, and that confirmed I wanted go this route [to law school].”
While she applied to many law schools, she chose Syracuse Law to stay close to family and accommodate fast life changes. “I grew up in Syracuse, and my whole family is here,” she says. “I was living in Rochester when I decided I wanted to go to law school. I got married a month before starting law school while my husband was finishing graduate school. We decided we wanted to stay near family.”
That decision turned out to be a very fulfilling one for Wild. At Syracuse Law, she competed on the National Trial Team and was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society (now the Travis H.D. Lewin Advocacy Honor Society). Additionally, she served as the Secretary of the Justinian Honor Society, a Law Ambassador, and an editor on the Syracuse Law Review. As a 3L, she was a Legal Communication and Research Assistant to Professor Shannon Gardner.
Wild remembers law school fondly: “I loved law school. I made the most of a variety of opportunities while here. I thrived, and as soon as I left, I missed it. A part of me always thought I’d return to academia, but I didn’t expect to teach until later in my career.”
After graduating, Wild worked at a criminal defense firm in Rochester for two years, handling a spectrum of criminal matters at trial and on appeal. Working at the firm ended up not being a good fit for Wild for various reasons, and when starting a family came into the picture, the flexibility of her J.D. became a lynchpin for her next career step: opening a solo practice focused on criminal appeals and post-conviction advocacy.
“I opened a solo practice because of the flexibility and autonomy it gave me. My first son was only a few months old when I left the firm. I quickly wrapped up my trial cases and focused on appellate work, which gave me more control over my schedule. What started as a necessity based on life circumstances turned into a successful practice. I carved out a niche in the Rochester area and earned a strong reputation. I received some offers to join other firms over the years, but I declined them because I couldn’t see myself practicing law any other way.”
While her practice continued to grow, along with her involvement in the Monroe County Bar Association, the call to return to law school beckoned in Fall 2022, when she was presented with an opportunity to join the Syracuse Law faculty as an adjunct professor. “The doors started opening to teach classes here and there. I loved it, and that led me to pursue a full-time position,” she says.
“I prioritize the mastery of skills alongside legal doctrine. I try to show students how what they’re learning translates into practice and informs the everyday work that lawyers do.”
—Danielle Wild L’15
That full-time position came to fruition in Spring 2024, when Wild joined the LCR faculty, also teaching courses in criminal law and advocacy. Wild draws on her experiences both as a firm lawyer and solo practitioner to shape her teaching.
“I prioritize the mastery of skills alongside legal doctrine,” Wild explains. “I try to show students how what they’re learning translates into practice and informs the everyday work that lawyers do. In my legal writing classes, for example, we work through a mock case over the semester. We begin with preliminary research to understand a discrete area of law, then engage in fact-gathering—such as a client consultation or other simulated exercise—before conducting additional research and refining our analysis. We translate that work into legal writing. I believe this approach helps students see legal analysis as an essential skill and understand how it fits into real-world practice.”
Wild and Setzer meet to discuss coursework in Dineen Hall.
Julian Setzer L’25 had Professor Wild for LCR II and was so impressed with her teaching style he is now taking her Appellate Advocacy class. “Professor Wild communicates her goals for the class very clearly since in law school, there’s not a lot of black and white, there’s a ton of gray areas. The assignment she has given us in the appellate class is very practical.”
“I identify with the level of professionalism and work ethic that it takes to be a professor, a practitioner, and a parent and at the same time be a decent human being. To do all that and smile through it is an admirable trait.”
—Julian Setzer L’25
Wild’s career path is a testament to the versatility of a J.D. degree—one that helped her find her way back to her alma mater and a place she loves.
“I identify with the level of professionalism and work ethic that it takes to be a professor, a practitioner, and a parent and at the same time be a decent human being. To do all that and smile through it is an admirable trait. And I think every law student should take Professor Wild to learn how to achieve that,” says Setzer.
Being able to make your point clearly and concisely. Your reader should only need to read your work once to understand—and agree with—your analysis or argument.
I often tell my students to think of legal analysis like a lab report. Legal analysis is a thought experiment, and like a lab report, it must be meticulously structured and detailed so the reader can follow each step, replicate the experiment, and reach the same result.
Professor Gregory Germain spoke with Newsweek for the story “Can Pam Bondi Reverse Donald Trump’s Conviction? Experts Weigh In”.
“She [Attorney General Pam Bondi] has no power over the state courts. She can try to investigate and harass the D.A. and the judge maybe, although I don’t think the courts will put up with political interference,” said Germain.
Associate Teaching Professor and Director of the Criminal Law Clinic Thomas Leith spoke with Newsday for the article “New NYS Court of Appeals hears more cases; prosecutors win fewer of them, data shows.” The article looks at data from the first year of the NY State Court of Appeals under Chief Judge Rowan Wilson which shows more judgments in favor of defendants.
“There’s a feeling now within the defense bar that, under Judge Wilson, you have a shot,” said Leith. “The feeling under Judge DiFiore was that your chances of winning or even getting your case to the top court were never very good.”
There is also a trend in which the court is hearing more cases under Judge Wilson. “The big uptick in cases heard under Judge Wilson is really important,” Leith said. “I think everybody should be happy that more cases are being decided” because the top court can clarify statutes and settle instances where mid-level courts issued differing opinions on a legal issue.”
Professor Gregory Germain spoke with The Hill on the possibility of jury nullification for the Luigi Mangione trial, the man accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. This may happen when jurors disagree with the law or the punishment.
“I think it’s very unlikely that a case like this is going to confront something like jury nullification,” said Germain. “Most of us hate insurance companies and have had difficult experiences dealing with insurance companies, but that doesn’t mean we think people should be going around murdering insurance executives in the street.”
Germain noted that it’s unlikely potential nullifiers will be able to hide that level of bias during the jury selection process. He adds that while Mangione does have a large fanbase, most “people who want to live in a civilized society are not going to find him to be an appealing defendant.”
This panel will focus on the potential contributions of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to socioeconomics and the study of law. In particular, the discussion will consider the role of the state, mechanisms for achieving full employment (including job guarantees), the relationship (or lack of one) between fiscal policy and inflation, the importance of community investment, and how to make these topics accessible and relevant to law students and legal scholars.
In many respects Fourth Amendment doctrine has evolved to expand law enforcement power to act on suspicions, frequently to the disadvantage of disfavored groups. Reversing these patterns is not just a matter of academic interest but a pressing need, amplified with the advent of more intrusive and pervasive surveillance technologies. Participants in this discussion will address the ways that suspicion is defined and constructed, its role (or failed potential) in constraining government power, the need for alternatives to suspicion to regulate mass data surveillance, and the potential for suspicion to serve as cover for bias.
In alignment with the conference theme of Courage in Action, this year’s program will focus on discussing the difficulties older adults experience in accessing basic needs, including healthcare and utilization of health technology; housing, aging in place, and long-term care; employment and retirement; and estate planning. As we age, we face significant life transitions that intersect with the law in these areas as well as others that can be challenging to navigate.
A key goal of the Section is to support our members in every aspect of their careers, including their scholarship. This panel provides section members with the opportunity to present a work-in-progress and receive feedback from senior scholars and other section members.
The Section believes that it is time to re-think the basic relationship between law and economics. Economics was introduced into legal scholarship as a tool for conservative political positions in the 1980s. It is time to recapture this valuable branch of modern knowledge and apply it to pressing topics such as climate change, automation and employment, and the relationships between the underregulation of finance, corruption, instability, and racial inequality. Participants will explore how a combined legal, economic, and social science approach can be productively applied to these topics.
It has been said that a “law degree is a leadership degree” and much has been written on the need for law schools to educate leaders. Fortunately, many legal educators have responded in interesting and courageous ways. Starting with visionaries like Dean Donald Polden and Professor Deborah Rhode–both of whom courageously fought for their vision of leadership development as part of legal education–the field has continued to evolve and grow. Fortunately, leadership development and leadership education–like leadership itself–is not limited to a one-size-fits-all approach. A plethora of different approaches to leadership development have emerged recently with different focuses, tactics, and desired outcomes. In this discussion group, we will discuss and celebrate these different approaches as we look at how law schools can best develop their students into good lawyer-leaders.
“In all likelihood, the state criminal cases will be put on hold during Trump’s presidency,” he wrote. “If they try to continue with the prosecutions, or even to impose a stayed sentence, I suspect the decisions will be reversed on appeal.”
Professor Gregory Germain spoke with Newsweek about a recent criminal complaint filed by The Haitian Bridge Alliance against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. The Alliance claims that Haitian immigrants have received death threats after Trump said that they are stealing family pets in Springfield, OH.
“Knowledge of falsity is difficult to prove when politicians spread rumors. The Supreme Court would likely recognize that politicians have qualified immunity for lies under the First Amendment—otherwise, the bare-knuckle election process would be hampered,” says Germain. However, Germain said that highlighting Trump’s “reckless statements” may be the plaintiffs’ aim.
