Digital Commons Network^™

Problem-Solving Courts And The Outcome Oversight Gap, Erin R. Collins

UMKC Law Review

The creation of a specialized, “problem-solving” court is a ubiquitous response to the issues that plague our criminal legal system. The courts promise to address the factors believed to lead to repeated interactions with the system, such as addiction or mental illness, thereby reducing recidivism and saving money. And they do so effectively – at least according to their many proponents, who celebrate them as an example of a successful “evidence-based,” data-driven reform. But the actual data on their efficacy is underwhelming, inconclusive, or altogether lacking. So why do they persist?

This Article seeks to answer that question by scrutinizing …

Challenges Facing Judges Regarding Expert Evidence In Criminal Cases, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Artificial Intelligence And Role-Reversible Judgment, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Stephen E Henderson

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Values And Assumptions In Criminal Adjudication, Benjamin Levin

Publications

This Response to Andrew Manuel Crespo's Systemic Facts: Toward Institutional Awareness in Criminal Courts proceeds in two Parts. In Part I, I argue that Crespo presents a compelling case for the importance of systemic factfinding to the task of criminal court judges. If, as a range of scholars has argued, criminal courts are increasingly serving a quasi-administrative function, then shouldn’t they at least be administrating accurately? Systemic Facts provides a novel account of how — with comparatively little institutional reform — courts might begin to serve as more effective administrators. However, in Part II, I also argue that Crespo’s account …

Barriers To Entry And Justice Ginsburg’S Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Proportionality, Discretion, And The Roles Of Judges And Prosecutors At Sentencing, Palma Paciocco

Articles & Book Chapters

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that prosecutors are not constitutionally obligated to consider the principle of proportionality when exercising their discretion in a manner that narrows the range of available sentences: since only judges are responsible for sentencing, they alone are constitutionally required to ensure proportionality. When mandatory minimum sentences apply, however, judges have limited sentencing discretion and may be unable to achieve proportionality. If the Court takes the principle of proportionality seriously, and if it insists that only judges are constitutionally bound to enforce that principle, it must therefore create new tools whereby judges can avoid imposing …

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

The Duties Of Non-Judicial Actors In Ensuring Competent Negotiation, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay, written for a symposium at Duquesne Law School entitled Plea Bargaining After Lafler and Frye, offers thoughts on how lawyers could learn from doctors’ experience in catching and preventing medical errors and aviation experts’ learning from airplane crashes and near misses. It also expresses skepticism about the efficacy of judges’ ex post review of ineffective assistance of counsel, but holds out more hope that public-defender organizations, bar associations, probation officers, sentencing judges, sentencing commissions, and line and supervisory prosecutors can do much more to prevent misunderstanding and remedy ineffective bargaining advice in the first place.

The Loss Of Constitutional Faith: Mccleskey V. Kemp And The Dark Side Of Procedure, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Pro Se Defendants And The Appointment Of Advisory Counsel, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

This article provides an overview of advisory counsel used to assist pro se criminal defendants, including the appointment and duties of advisory counsel, ethical obligations, and considerations for trial judges and prosecutors.

Some Worries About Sentencing Guidelines, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion In The United States: The Limits Of Comparative Criminal Procedure As An Instrument Of Reform, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Discretion, Plea Bargaining And The Supreme Court's Opinion In Bordenkircher V. Hayes, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.