Law School / Faculty
UMass School of Law 224
|Northeastern University School of Law||JD|
|University of Michigan||BA|
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
A study of criminal law, covering the essential principles governing the criminalization of conduct, substantive crimes, and defenses, including statutory analysis, actus reus, mens rea, causation, inchoate offenses, intentional and unintentional homicide, rape, theft and property offenses, attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, accessory liability, justification and excuse, self-defense, battered person defenses, insanity and intoxication.
A study of the limitations placed on police practices by federal and state constitutions and statutes, focusing on the law of arrest, search and seizure, pre-trial identification procedures and trial rights, electronic surveillance, the right to confrontation, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel, including the application of the Miranda rule.
A study of the rules and standards regulating the admission of evidence at trial. Topics include competency of witnesses, qualification, examination, cross-examination, and impeachment of witnesses, objections, waivers, offers of proof, relevancy, the hearsay rule and its exceptions, the opinion rule, expert testimony, privileges, judicial notice, and demonstrative evidence.
Intensive practical skills course where students make oral arguments every week. Students put learning into practice in order to polish and sharpen their advocacy skills. Students will engage in adversarial experiences instead of simply reading cases about them. They will learn to apply substantive law in practical situations; master the skill of properly making arguments and convincing others of their position; and enjoy the invaluable advantage of free practice runs. Using a hands-on, learning-by-doing approach, students will have the opportunity to experiment with their approaches to making arguments and develop their own individual styles of courtroom advocacy.
- Criminal Law
- Criminal procedure issues, with a particular focus on juveniles and issues of privacy
Professor Farber has appeared on national radio and television programs commenting on the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems in the U.S. and around the world. She is a contributing author to Unmanned Aircraft in the National Airspace: Critical Issues, Technology, and the Law, American Bar Association, 2015. Her 2014 article, Eyes in The Sky: Constitutional and Regulatory Approaches to Domestic Drone Deployment, 64 Syr. L. Rev. 1 (2014), was the lead article in the Syracuse Law Review.
She has published articles for Human Rights and Sci-Tech Lawyer, which focus on the legislative, regulatory, and privacy issues involving drones. One of her most recent articles is Keep Out: The Efficacy of Trespass, Nuisance and Privacy Torts as Applied to Drones, 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 359 (2017).
Professor Farber is part of the Uniform Law Commission's Drafting Committee on Tort Laws for Drones. Professor Farber speaks regularly at academic conferences, as well as to legislators, members of the drone industry, and legal practitioners. Some of her speaking engagements include UAS in the News and Entertainment Industries hosted by the Biederman Institute in Los Angeles, CA; The National Council of State Legislatures 2015 Fall Forum; the American Bar Association Annual Meetings; The American Constitution Society; Massachusetts Bar Association; Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education; Community Association Institute. In 2014, Professor Farber presented on the U.S. regulatory and legislative approaches to unmanned aerial surveillance in Adelaide, South Australia. She has also been a guest lecturer at Flinders Law School in Adelaide, South Australia, and the University of New South Wales Law School in Sydney, Australia.
Professor Farber serves on the Advisory Board of the Boston Chapter of the American Constitution Society and the Board of Directors for Suffolk Lawyers for Justice. She is a founding member of the New England Innocence Project. Professor Farber earned a B.A. in political science with high honors from the University of Michigan and received her J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law.
Comparing Public Concern and Support for Drone Regulation to the Current Legal Framework, __ Behavioral Sciences and the Law ___ (2018).
Protecting Homeowners' Privacy Rights in the Age of Drones: The Role of Community Associations, 44 Fordham Urb. L. J. 623 (2017).
Keep Out: The Efficacy of Trespass, Nuisance and Privacy Torts as Applied to Drones, 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 359 (2017).
“UP IN THE AIR: Drones – What Leaders Need to Know”,Common Ground, 2016 (co-authored).
Eyes in the Sky and Privacy Concerns on the Ground, 41 Human Rights 23-25. American Bar Association/Section of Civil rights and Responsibilities (2016).
Let’s Make it Easy to Be Responsible with Drones, Providence Journal, December 29, 2015.
Sensing and Surveillance: Constitutional Privacy Issues of Unmanned Aircraft, inUnmanned Aircraft in the National Airspace: Critical Issues, Technology, and the Law 225 (D. Dulo, ed., American Bar Association, 2015).
Eyes in the Sky and Privacy Concerns on the Ground, 11 The SciTech Lawyer 6-9. American Bar Association/Section of Science and Technology Law, Summer 2015.
Eyes in the Sky: Constitutional and Regulatory Approaches to Domestic Drone Deployment, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 1 (2013).
“Keep Your Eyes on Eyes in the Sky”, Cape Cod Times, (January 10, 2014)
JDB v. North Carolina: Ushering in a New “Age” of Custody Analysis under Miranda, 20 J. L. & Pol’y 117 (2011).
A Parent’s “Apparent Authority”: Why Inter-Generational Co-Residence Requires a Reassessment of Parental Consent to Search Adult Children’s Bedrooms, 21 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 39 (2011).
To Testify or Not to Testify: A Comparative Analysis of the Australian and American Approaches to a Parent Child Testimonial Exemption, 46 Tex. Int’l L. Journal 109 (Fall 2010).
The Absence of A Parent-Child Evidentiary Privilege in the United States, American Bar Association, 12 Children’s Rights 3 (Spring 2010).
Do You Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth Against Your Child? 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 551-624 (Winter 2010).
A Parent-Child Evidentiary Privilege, 32 Mass Dissent 10 (November 2009).
“Safe Homes’ Inherent Perils”, Boston Herald, February 23, 2008.
Joining the Legal Significance of Adolescent Developmental Capacities with the Legal Rights Provided by In re Gault, 60Rutgers L. Rev. 125-173 (2007) (co-author).
Juvenile Expunction Legislation and its Relationship to the Core Mission of the Juvenile Justice System, American Bar Association, 9 Children’s Rights 17-19 (2007).
Constitutionality, Competence, and Conflicts: What is Wrong with the State of the Law When It Comes to Juveniles and Miranda?, 32 New Eng J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 29-42 (2006).
The Role of the Parent/Guardian in Juvenile Custodial Interrogations: Friend or Foe?, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1277-1312 (2004).
Popular Culture as a Lens on Legal Professionalism, 55 S.C. L. Rev. 351-389 (2003) (co-author).