Do not consider this fact for any purpose.” First, the defendant argued that allowing the victim to be known as Jane Doe violated his right to a fair and impartial jury because, although the victim testified in person and all jurors saw the victim, there may have been jurors who knew the victim by name only. 2003), involving misrepresentations of mental health of child being adopted, implicate family concerns that may be far afield from the interests of a privacy tort plaintiff, and consequently a poor analogy.
Second, the defendant argued that the victim’s testimony as “Jane Doe” violated his right to confront and cross-examine her because the victim might “expand or embellish her testimony” if allowed to testify with a pseudonym. The last type of case is a wildcard: a family contests a now-defunct practice of the state of race in birth records under a now-repealed statute, and request their ancestors’ classification change from “colored” to “white.” The caption has a Doe plaintiff, but the entire family is named in the first paragraph of the opinion.
“For a while aquaculture caviar wasn’t necessarily considered on par with wild caviar,” says sturgeon scientist and conservationist Phaedra Doukakis-Leslie, “so the price point was a little bit different — a little bit lower for aquaculture.
This has lead to worldwide bans on fishing wild sturgeon and embargoes on Russian caviar.
Still, the global demand for caviar hasn’t waned, and aquaculture farms have started to pop up around the world to supplement the thinning stock of caviar from wild sturgeon.
The court also rejected this argument noting that (1) the defense did not request any additional clarifying language at the trial court level; and (2) that taken in context with all of the other instructions that the trial judge gave, no improper inference could have been drawn by the jury from the instruction about the witness’s use of a pseudonym. ‘Good cause’ is limited to threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement.” Protecting witnesses from embarrassment does not constitute “good cause.”Colorado courts have also stated that the public’s interest in open court records, per the Open Records Act, also meant that the Stegall test applies whenever parties seek to seal court records pursuant to a settlement. App., 2006) (Does are adults but claims stem from sexual abuse by priests when they were minors; court notes it protects sexual abuse victims’ privacy with Doe pseudonyms pursuant to Conn. Illinois has several reported cases with Doe plaintiffs, but the opinions generally do not address the reason for use of the pseudonym. The facts are somewhat extreme, and would be hard for a privacy-based plaintiff who did not suffer additional harms to analogize to.
There is, however, an exception in section 1054.7: “The disclosures required under this chapter shall be made at least 30 days prior to the trial, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. Many cases have minors sue pseudonymously for claims arising from sexual abuses; however, Connecticut has codified protections, including privacy, for victims of sexual abuse, which weigh in favor of a court’s decision to grant pseudonymity. Illinois caselaw has many other, more distinguishable cases where civil plaintiffs sue as Does. In two cases appellate judges make a nod to the trial court grants to proceed pseudonymously, but they have underlying claims relating to the sexual abuse of minors and therefore do not provide extremely helpful analogies for adult privacy plaintiffs.
Hinshaw, weren’t directly opposed to protecting the sturgeon; they simply requested that farmed sturgeon be considered separate from wild populations. “In general by producing a product that’s in high demand, and producing it on a farm rather than the wild takes some of the pressure off of the wild populations,” says Hinshaw.
“So by affecting supply or restricting supply you could actually have a negative effect on the wild population by providing more stimulus for illegal harvest.” Atlantic Caviar & Sturgeon is even trying its hand at marketing the sturgeon meat, in addition to the caviar, something most competitors aren’t doing, since the U. market doesn’t really have a taste for the stuff yet.
As a result of the cooperative agreement with NC State, Atlantic Caviar & Sturgeon also serves as a research facility for both sturgeon and more general aquaculture, and as an internship program that allows students at North Carolina universities to train on-site.
Atlantic Caviar & Sturgeon began selling its first batches of caviar in 2012, at which point the operation had already been several years in the making. Fish & Wildlife Service as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could introduce some challenges to the growth that Atlantic Caviar & Sturgeon and farms like it have experienced up until now.
He bequeathed his portion of the ownership to North Carolina State University and provided the funding necessary for the farm to operate until it became self-sustaining.
Since then, two NC State professors and Cooperative Extension specialists have worked closely with the farm to refine the process of raising the sturgeon in a financially viable and sustainable way.
Jeff Hinshaw, professor of Biology at NCSU and advisor to Atlantic Caviar & Sturgeon, thinks that there should be a clear distinction in the petition between populations of foreign sturgeon in aquaculture farms and in the wild.