EDITOR'S NOTE.

• Author: Hurtado, Diana

Dear Reader:

On behalf of the Suffolk University Law School Moot Court Honor Board, I am honored to present the first issue in Volume XXVI of the Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy. This issue contains one lead article and eight student-written pieces. Each piece is designed to provide insight and be of practical use to lawyers and judges at both the trial and appellate levels. Due to the ongoing global pandemic, this volume was edited and compiled remotely by our authors and editorial staff. COVID-19 provided unique challenges for journal, as we were unable to collaborate with each other in person. I am incredibly proud of our staff's hard work, dedication, and perseverance during this difficult time.

The lead article, The Demise of the Law-Developing Function: A Case Study of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, was written by Skylar Reese Croy. Attorney Croy is the Executive Assistant to the Honorable Patience Drake Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He formerly served as her law clerk. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2019, magna cum laude and Order of the Coif. There, he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Wisconsin Law Review. His published work has appeared in several legal periodicals, including the Wisconsin Law Review, the Marquette Law Review, and the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.

The Demise of the Law-Developing Function: A Case Study of the Wisconsin Supreme Court examines an increase in Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions with no majority opinion. This increase is partially due to conservative justices with an anti-consensus building philosophy joining the court. Pursuant this philosophy, a justice will refuse to join an opinion if the opinion does not state almost precisely what the justice believes. In this Article, Attorney Croy addresses (1) the problems associated with this philosophy, (2) how it conflicts with the law-developing function of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and (3) proposes solutions for minimizing the number of decisions issued without a majority opinion.

The student-written pieces discuss the following legal topics and cases:

* An examination of the Supreme Court's most recent affirmation of an overlooked loophole to the Double Jeopardy Clause that undermines the Clause's guaranteed protections (Ross Ballantyne);

* An analysis of upholding the right to choose through the right to physician-assisted suicide if Roe v. Wade is overturned (Jennifer McCoy);

*...