Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Unreasonable Doubt: Warren Hill, Aedpa, And The Unconstitutionality Of Georgia's Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello
Unreasonable Doubt: Warren Hill, Aedpa, And The Unconstitutionality Of Georgia's Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Georgia’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for determining intellectual disability has led to an absurd—and arbitrary—result. A Georgia state court held that defendant Warren Hill was intellectually disabled, yet still sentenced Hill to death. Seven experts—and the court—deemed Hill disabled under a preponderance of the evidence standard. He remains on death row, however, because Georgia’s “preposterous burden of proof” requires that intellectual disability be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard experts have said is nearly impossible to satisfy. It “effectively limits the constitutional right protected in Atkins,” and creates a conditional, not categorical, ban.
Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford
Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
In the Supreme Court's latest Eighth Amendment decision, Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that statutes authorizing mandatory sentences of life in prison with no possibility of parole are unconstitutional as applied to offenders who were under eighteen when they committed their crimes. This short essay examines several themes presented in Miller, including the constitutional significance of youth and science, the legitimacy of mandatory life sentences and juvenile transfer statutes, and the conflict between “evolving standards of decency” and the Supreme Court’s “independent judgment.” This essay also introduces important articles by Richard Frase, Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Franklin Zimring …
The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson
The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson
LESTER JACKSON
Murderer advocates place a far greater value on the lives of the most savage murderers than on the lives of their victims. Let them deny it; their words and deeds conclusively give the lie to that denial. The critical question is this: Whose concept of justice is going to prevail? The concept of a small but vocal well-financed minority with influence and power out of all proportion to its numbers, or that of the large but poorly financed and disorganized majority. In recent decades, the former have dominated. Tragically, compared to media-dominant murderer advocates, victims have been virtually voiceless. Yes, …
Paroline, Restitution, And Transferred Scienter: Child Pornography Possessors And Restitution Based On A Commerce-Clause Derived, Aggregate Proximate Cause Theory, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Paroline, Restitution, And Transferred Scienter: Child Pornography Possessors And Restitution Based On A Commerce-Clause Derived, Aggregate Proximate Cause Theory, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Adam Lamparello
This Article responds to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Amy Unknown, which is before the United States Supreme Court on granted writ of certiorari. This Article poses a more logical and legal construct, derived from Commerce Clause analysis, that although each individual possessor of child pornography appears to contribute almost imperceptibly to the victim’s harm, the aggregate effect of possession is sufficient to satisfy the causal nexus required for restitution.
Amicus Brief -- Freddie Lee Hall V. State Of Florida, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Amicus Brief -- Freddie Lee Hall V. State Of Florida, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Adam Lamparello
IQ cutoffs violate the Constitution. In Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court recognized three distinct components to intellectual disability: (1) an intelligence quotient; (2) deficits in adaptive functioning; and (3) onset prior to eighteen. The Florida Supreme Court interpreted Fla. Stat. § 921.137(1) to bar evidence of adaptive disability and early onset if a defendant scored above a 70 on an IQ test. As Justice Perry recognized in his partial dissent, that interpretation will lead to the execution of a retarded man. The Amicus brief argues that the Florida Supreme Court's decision should be reversed because it prohibits …
An Anachronism Too Discordant To Be Suffered: A Comparative Study Of Parliamentary And Presidential Approaches To Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Derek R. Verhagen
An Anachronism Too Discordant To Be Suffered: A Comparative Study Of Parliamentary And Presidential Approaches To Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Derek R. Verhagen
Derek R VerHagen
It is well-documented that the United States remains the only western democracy to retain the death penalty and finds itself ranked among the world's leading human rights violators in executions per year. However, prior to the Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976, ending America's first and only moratorium on capital punishment, the U.S. was well in line with the rest of the civilized world in its approach to the death penalty. This Note argues that America's return to the death penalty is based primarily on the differences between classic parliamentary approaches to regulation and that of the American presidential system. …
Battering The Poor: How Georgia’S Mandatory Family Violence Classes Deny Indigent Defendants Equal Protection Of The Law, Whitney Scherck
Battering The Poor: How Georgia’S Mandatory Family Violence Classes Deny Indigent Defendants Equal Protection Of The Law, Whitney Scherck
Whitney Scherck
Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bearden v. Georgia held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a court from incarcerating an individual for failure to pay a fine unless it first inquires into their reasons for failing to do so and determines that the defendant willfully failed to make bona fide efforts to pay. However, recently, a new kind of legal debt has emerged. As states’ budgets tighten, so-called user fees are becoming an increasingly common way for legislatures to toughen the criminal justice system without having to come up with funding for it. …
Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2 states that terms of imprisonment “shall be served concurrently or consecutively.” The Code’s plain language does not authorize courts to impose partially consecutive, blended, or “split sentences. Partially consecutive sentences would impermissibly read into the Code a third sentencing option, thus contradicting Indiana’s well-settled jurisprudence and undermining the goal of reasonable uniformity in sentencing. The decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals should therefore be reversed.
Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2013: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella
Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2013: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella
Stefan D Cassella
This is another in a series of articles on developments in the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers the cases decided in 2012 and early 2013. The article begins with the cases that illustrate the concept that criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence in a criminal case. It then takes the reader more or less chronologically through the litigation of a case, beginning with the seizure and restraint of the property and continuing through the trial and sentencing of the defendant and the adjudication of third-party issues in the post-trial ancillary proceeding. Except in …
Death Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky
Death Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky
Lee Kovarsky
I examine the interaction between what I call 'death ineligibility' challenges and the habeas writ. A death ineligibility claim alleges that a criminally-confined capital prisoner belongs to a category of offenders for which the Eighth Amendment forbids execution. By contrast, a 'crime innocence' claim alleges that, colloquially speaking, a capital prisoner 'wasn’t there, and didn’t do it.' In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has identified several new ineligibility categories, including mentally retarded offenders. Configured primarily to address crime innocence and procedural challenges, however, modern habeas law is poorly equipped to accommodate ineligibility claims. Death Ineligibility traces the genesis …
Graham V. Florida: Justice Kennedy's Vision Of Childhood And The Role Of Judges, Tamar R. Birckhead
Graham V. Florida: Justice Kennedy's Vision Of Childhood And The Role Of Judges, Tamar R. Birckhead
Tamar R Birckhead
This short essay examines Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime. This essay argues that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is grounded not only in Roper v. Simmons, which invalidated the death penalty for juvenile offenders on Eighth Amendment grounds, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the death penalty for the offense of rape of a child, but also in Establishment Clause cases set …
Death, Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky
Death, Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky
Lee Kovarsky
I examine the interaction between what I call 'death ineligibility' challenges and the habeas writ. A death ineligibility claim alleges that a criminally-confined capital prisoner belongs to a category of offenders for which the Eighth Amendment forbids execution. By contrast, a 'crime innocence' claim alleges that, colloquially speaking, a capital prisoner 'wasn’t there, and didn’t do it.' In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has identified several new ineligibility categories, including mentally retarded offenders. Configured primarily to address crime innocence and procedural challenges, however, modern habeas law is poorly equipped to accommodate ineligibility claims. Death Ineligibility traces the genesis …