Professor Kinports is a leading scholar of feminist jurisprudence, criminal law and federalism, and an award-winning classroom teacher. Professor Kinports is a former clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Harry Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court. Before entering the teaching profession, she practiced law with Ennis, Friedman, Bersoff & Ewing in Washington, D.C. for several years.
Her recent work includes the following: “Pretrial Custody and Miranda,” published in the Washington & Lee Law Review; "Questions for The Questionable Objectivity of Fourth Amendment Law," an invited response to an Orin Kerr article published in the Texas Law Review Online; “The Origins and Legacy of the Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Balancing Model,” which appeared in the Case Western Reserve Law Review; “The Quantum of Suspicion Needed for an Exigent Circumstances Search,” published in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform; “Illegal Predicate Searches and Tainted Warrants After Heien and Strieff,” which appeared in the Tulane Law Review; “Heien’s Mistake of Law,” published in the Alabama Law Review; and the fourth edition of her co-authored Criminal Law casebook.
Professor Kinports is currently working on a supplement to the eighth edition of McCormick on Evidence, updating the chapters on the privilege against self-incrimination, confessions, and the exclusionary rule.
Professor Diamond was raised in Chappaqua, New York and attended Yale College (B.A., Magna Cum Laude, Departmental Honors with Exceptional Distinction in Social Science 1972); Cambridge University (Diploma in Criminology 1973); and Columbia Law School (JD, Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar 1976). Before joining the UC Hastings faculty, Professor Diamond was associated with the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York, where he practiced in the litigation department. He previously served as law clerk to Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the United States District Court in New York.
Professor Diamond teaches and writes on torts, criminal and mass media law, and is author of a torts casebook, coauthor of a criminal law casebook and torts treatise. He is a recipient of the Northern California Association of Phi Beta Kappa Excellence in Teaching Award, the Rutter Outstanding Teaching Award, UC Hastings Associated Students and UC Hastings Alumni office Teaching Awards, and has had the honor to be elected by the graduating class to give the faculty commencement address on ten occasions.
Professor Diamond is teaching at UC Berkeley School of Law as a Visiting Professor during the Fall 2018 semester.
Many, if not most, of the dilemmas that appear at the periphery of criminal law involve the effects of technological progress on social conditions. (For recent examples where the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed technological change, see Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (upholding the constitutionality of a statute requiring that DNA samples be taken from all persons arrested for serious crimes), and United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (holding that the installation and use of a GPS tracking device on a car constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search”).) In criminal law, as in many other areas of law, legislators and theorists are constantly playing catch-up in dealing with changes that have no precedent and no obvious guidelines. As new technologies reshape how we share information and communicate, law must address what ways of transmitting data (music, movies, books, inventions, ideas) are permissible given the evolving notions of intellectual property and what ways demand limitations, protection, and sanctions. As medical technology affects our ability to heal and change our bodies and minds and even affects how we conceive our nature as physical and mental beings, law must confront and redefine our rights to draw benefits from medical progress and to control our destiny. As we draw upon technology to form new communities that do not depend on geography or genealogy, we need law to set the rules by which we may assume roles in each others’ lives. In these areas, certain kinds of conduct will be allowed and perhaps even seen as desirable, and other kinds will be seen as harmful and subject to prohibition
Subscribe to get the updates