A.B., Brown University J.D., Boston College
Clerked for Judge Matthew J. Jasen, New York State Court of Appeals, practiced law with a New York law firm involved in antitrust and unfair competition litigation. Authored a book and numerous articles on antitrust and unfair competition. Active in the Litigation Section and the Committee on Antitrust and Unfair Competition of the ABA. Member of advisory group to the American Law Institute Restatement of the Law of Unfair Competition. Member of the New York State Law Revision Commission. Editor, Model Jury Charges in Business Torts Cases. One of seven nominees for the New York Court of Appeals in 1998 as selected by the State Commission of Judicial Nomination.
2002 Update to NO FAULT CASE HANDBOOK (New York State Bar Association)
NO FAULT CASE HANDBOOK (New York State Bar Association, 1996)
Editor, NEW YORK LITIGATION FORMS (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co., 1995) (with eds. Kevin J. English, Barry G. Saretsky, et al.)
MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS: CASES AND MATERIALS (1981)
Editor-in-Chief, MODEL JURY CHARGES IN BUSINESS TORT CASES, (ABA, 1981)
Use of Convictions to Impeach in a Civil Action, New York Law Journal (July 30, 2013)PubArticleNY.jsp
Refreshing Recollection Doctrine Revisited, New York Law Journal (Dec. 6, 2012)
Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney/Client Privilege, New York Law Journal (Oct. 4, 2012)
Scope of Waiver Effected by Disclosure of Attorney-Client Privileged Matter, New York Law Journal (Aug. 2, 2012)
Pommells: The Facts, Nothing But the Facts,
78 (no. 5) New York State Bar Association Journal 42 (2006)papers.cfm
COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE: A USEFUL EXPLANATION INCLUDING DRAFTING (National Law Foundation, 2006)
Honor The Craft: The Judicial Legacy of Judge Matthew J. Jasen,
69 Albany Law Review 403 (2006)papers.cfm
Evidence (2004-2005 Survey of New York Law),
56 Syracuse Law Review 871 (2006)papers.cfm
Evidence (2003-2004 Survey of New York Law),
55 Syracuse Law Review 1005 (2005)papers.cfm
Evidence (2002-2003 Survey of New York Law),
54 Syracuse Law Review 601 (2005)papers.cfm
Impeachment of a Witness in a Civil Action: Proof of Prior Misconduct (Bad Acts),
(Spring 2004) New York State Trial Lawyers Institute Bill of Particulars (2004)hutter-impeachment-of-a-witness-2004.pdf
Evidence (2001-2002 Survey of New York Law),
53 Syracuse Law Review 539 (2003)papers.cfm
Using Expert Testimony as a Basis for the Invocation of Res Ipsa Loquitor,(Fall 2003) New York State Trial Lawyers Institute Bill of Particulars (2003)hutter-on-evidence-using-expert-testimony-2003.pdf
Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Statements and Expressions of Physical Sensations and Condition: The Questionable Status of New York's Rules Governing Their Admissibility,
(Spring 2003) New York State Trial Lawyers Institute Bill of Particulars (2003)hutter-plaintiff-pretrial-statements-2003.pdf
Hospital Records Entries,
(Summer 2003) New York State Trial Lawyers Institute Bill of Particulars (2003)hutter-on-evidence-hospital-record-entries-2003.pdf
Accident Reports and the Business Records Hearsay Exception: The Johnson v Lutz Judicially Created Requirement,
(Winter 2002) New York State Trial Lawyers Association Bill of Particulars (2002)hutter-on-evidence-accident-reports-2002.pdf
Toure v. Avis and the Serious Injury Threshold: The Court of Appeals Giveth and Taketh Away, But Giveth More,
(Fall 2002) New York State Trial Lawyers Association Bill of Particulars 39 (2002)hutter-toure-v-avis-rent-a-car-systems-2002.pdf
Evidence, (2000-2001 Survey of New York Law),
52 Syracuse Law Review 397 (2002)papers.cfm
Tyrrell v. Wal-Mart Admissibility of Employee Statement Regarding Spills in Slip and Fall Cases,
(Summer 2002) New York State Trial Lawyers Association Bill of Particulars 55 (2002)hutter-tyrrell-v-walmart-2002.pdf
Chapter: Conduct of the Hearing in MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS, rev. ed. (R. Heverly, ed.) (New York State Dept. of Civil Service, 2002)papers.cfm
Appendix A: Evidence in MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS, rev. ed. (R. Heverly, ed.) (New York State Dept. of Civil Service, 2002)
NO-FAULT SERIOUS INJURY (National Law Foundation, 2002)
EMPLOYEE COVENANTS-NOT-TO-COMPETE (Albany Law School, Institute of Legal Studies, 2001)
Contents of Writing, Recordings, and Photographs, in EMERGING PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, 3rd ed., (Lexis, 1998) at 387hutter-emerging-problems-under-federal-rules-1998.pdf
Hearsay Update in POLITICAL EVIDENCE (New York State Bar Association, 1996)
Government Liability and Immunity from Personal Injury Claims, in THE 1996 WARREN M. ANDERSON LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST SEMINAR SERIES (Government Law Center of Albany Law School, 1996) at 43papers.cfm
Government Investigative Reports: a New Approach for Their Admissibility in State Courts,
Trial Lawyers Section Digest (Trial Lawyers Section, New York State Bar Association) (no. 33) March 1996, at 1hutter-government-investigative-reports-1996.pdf
Hearsay: the Principal Exception, in PRACTICAL EVIDENCE (New York State Bar Association, 1995)
No Fault Law Update, in AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LAW (New York State Bar Association, 1995)
Evidence, (1994-1995 Survey of New York Law),
46 Syracuse Law Review 601 (1995)papers.cfm
Revision of Chapters 2, 14, 57 and 75, Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE (Matthew Bender, 1987-1996)
Developments Re: Expert Testimony Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, in EXPERT WITNESSES (NYSBA, 1987)
Protecting Software, in COMPUTER LAW (New York State Bar Association, 1987)
Business Torts, in ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS (Callaghan, 1985)
Drafting Enforceable Noncompetition Agreements,4 Legal Notes and Viewpoints Quarterly 73 (1983)hutter-drafting-non-competition-agreements-1984.pdf
Drafting Enforceable Employee Non-Competition Agreements to Protect Confidential Business Information: A Lawyer's Practical Approach to the Case Law,
45 Albany Law Review 311 (1981)hutter-drafting-employee-non-competition-agreements-1981.pdf
Remedies in Trade Secret Cases, in PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS (PLI, 1981)
Pursuing Ex-Employees Who Misappropriate Trade Secrets: Pre-trial Considerations,
6 Litigation 39 (1980)
DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE REVIEW OF ANTITRUST LAWS AND PROCEDURES, Prepared for the ABA Litigation Committee (March 1979)
DISCUSSION OF CITY OF LAFAYETTE V. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT, Prepared for the office of the New York Secretary of State (February 1979)
Trade Secret Misappropriation: A Lawyer's Practical Approach to the Case Law,
1 Western New England Law Review 1 (1978)papers.cfm
"Dirty Tricks" and Section One of Sherman Act: Federalizing State Unfair Competition Law,
18 Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review 239 (1977)papers.cfm
"Kelley v. Johnson" and Tonsorial Tastes: The Death Knell of Substantive Due Process,
41 Albany Law Review 411 (1977)papers.cfm
Book Review, (with Maleski) reviewing PRODUCTS LIABILITY: CASES AND MATERIALS,
65 Georgetown Law Journal 865 (1977)
Chapters, No Fault Law Update in DECISION (New York State Trial Lawyers Association) annually, 1991-2003
Editor-in-Chief, Business Torts Newsletter
* Previewed in Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases:
Professor Hutter was invited to present "Developments in Electronic Evidence for Family Court Practitioners" in Syracuse, N.Y.
Professor Michael Hutter gave a presentation on "Expert Testimony and Related Discovery Issues at the annual meeting of the Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Oct. 10, 2012. He also delivered his annual updates on Evidence and No Fault/Serious Injury for the New York Academy of Trial Lawyers on Oct. 5, 2012.
Professor Michael Hutter presented two sessions on Evidence, Torts and Negligence at Albany Law School’s CLE in Saratoga Program in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., on Aug. 10.
According to Albany Law School professor Michael J. Hutter Jr., the reason most juries are composed of 12 members comes down to a single word: tradition. "The origins are (King) Henry II," he said. "The English had a system of determining land disputes. They would simply select 12 men. Why 12? That just seems like a popular number back then. ... No one seems to know."
From the article "A dozen twelves mark today's 12/12/12" in the Albany Times Union on Dec. 12, 2012.
“I honestly think that the court was troubled by the lack of evidence,” Michael Hutter, a professor of law at Albany Law School, said of Thursday’s decision.
Vincent Bonventre, a professor of law at Albany Law School who studies the Court of Appeals, said Malone “stuck his neck out” with his dissent, which ultimately drove the decision by the state’s highest court.
“He had the guts to say what was wrong with it, and he got every single vote on the Court of Appeals. That’s quite a statement,” he said. “Really in large measure, it’s because Judge Malone wrote such a strong dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division and really caught their attention.”
“It looks as though this is is a 6-1 decision; it’s actually 7-0 that the conviction should be thrown out,” Bonventre said. “One of the judges said that the conviction is so bad that the prosecution should not be even be allowed to get another trial. You rarely see something like that."
However, Hutter said the other six judges may have indeed been swayed by concerns Malone raised about the adequacy of the evidence, but stopped short of actually ruling the evidence was insufficient.
“I think they were reluctant to say that the evidence was insufficient,” Hutter said. “Judges are reluctant to substitute their views for the jury. Sometimes, when they reverse murder convictions it’s because of technical errors, things like that, substantive errors. They don’t always like to reverse for insufficiencies.”
According to Hutter, the Court of Appeals hears about 90 criminal cases a year, and upholds the convictions in about 75 percent of them. An overturned murder case is uncommon, but not unheard of.
“I think that Judge Malone’s decision is right on the money,” he added. “This is a very questionable case.”
However, Hutter of Albany Law School said he’s doubtful the third trial will lead to a different result unless it is reviewed by a different kind of jury.
“The same evidence is going to be used again,” he said. “And quite frankly, unless the defense counsel can pull a sympathetic jury, I’m sure there’s going to be another conviction. I think making the correction of the two (trial) errors here is not going to mean anything, unless you get a different pair of eyes that look at this.”
From the article "Appellate court judge may have played key role in overturning Cal Harris' conviction" in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin on Oct. 20.
Professor Michael Hutter published two columns in the New York Law Journal:
"Admissibility of Unaffirmed Media Reports: A
Proposed Rationale" on June 7 and "Application of
'Noseworthy' Doctrine: Issues and Their Resolution" on March 30.