Law Commons^™

No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller

Articles

For nearly seventy years, the Court has assessed Eighth Amendment claims by evaluating “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this Article, I examine the evolving standards of decency test, which has long been a punching bag for critics on both the right and the left. Criticism of the doctrine has been fierce, but largely academic until recent years. Some fault the test for being too majoritarian, while others argue that it provides few constraints on the Justices’ discretion, permitting their personal predilections to rule the day. For many, the test is seen …

Increasing Substantive Fairness And Mitigating Social Costs In Eviction Proceedings: Instituting A Civil Right To Counsel For Indigent Tenants In Pennsylvania, Robin M. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The U.S. Constitution provides criminal defendants the right to a court-appointed attorney but gives no similar protection to civil litigants. Although federal law does not supply any categorical rights to counsel for civil litigants, all 50 states have instituted the right in at least one category of civil law that substantially impacts individuals’ rights. Since 2017, several U.S. cities have enacted such a right for tenants facing eviction. In so doing, these cities responded to American families’ increasing rent burden, the recent publication of nationwide eviction data, the sociological research concerning the impact of eviction, and the lack of procedural …

Confronting Silence: The Constitution, Deaf Criminal Defendants, And The Right To Interpretation During Trial, Deirdre M. Smith

Maine Law Review

For most deaf people, interactions with the hearing community in the absence of interpretation or technological assistance consist of communications that are, at most, only partly comprehensible. Criminal proceedings, with the defendant's liberty interest directly at stake, are occasions in which the need for deaf people to have a full understanding of what is said and done around them is most urgent. Ironically, the legal “right to interpretation” has not been clearly defined in either statutory or case law. Although the federal and state constitutions do not provide a separate or lesser set of rights for deaf defendants, their situation …

"Another Day" Has Dawned: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Holds Laboratory Evidence Subject To The Confrontation Clause In State V. Mangos, Reid Hayton-Hull

Maine Law Review

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to “confront witnesses against them.” Specifically, the Clause ensures a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses who testify against him by the unique medium, or “crucible,” of cross-examination. Although federal and state rules of evidence prohibiting hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar interests, whether or not admission of a piece of evidence violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause is a separate analysis than whether that same piece of evidence is admissible under a rule of evidence. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held …

Recent Landmark Criminal Law Decisions Of The Supreme Court: The Jurisprudence Of The Supreme Court: Fair Trial, Juvenile Justice, The Death Penalty, And The Right To Counsel, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

The Supreme Court has recently adjudicated some crucial issues regarding criminal matters and constitutional jurisprudence. The Court expanded the constitutional authority vested in Congress, provided defendants with constitutional remedies and protections, indicated that even a substantial amount of publicity surrounding a trial does not warrant a change of venue, left defense attorneys in awe of their new-found obligations, and settled important divisions among the U.S. circuit courts of appeal. Skilling v. U.S. revealed that a change of venue based on a claim of a tainted jury pool presents a difficult, if not impossible task, for criminal defendants. Padilla expanded the …

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.

Proposition 8: California Law After In Re Lance W. And People V. Castro, Mark Dyer Klein, Randall A. Cohen

Pepperdine Law Review

Until recently, California provided a relatively high level of constitutional protection to criminal defendants. With the passage of Proposition 8 in 1982, the California voters expressed their desire to decrease this level of protection in order to remove impediments to the effective prosecution of criminally accuseds. This comment will examine two of the major provisions of Proposition 8 and their effect on California law in light of major cases decided by the California Supreme Court in 1985.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence - October 2008 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

The last Term of the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionally protected rights of criminal defendants not only at trial but at the post-conviction stage as well. The Court dealt with the defendant's rights to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel in Vermont v. Brillon; the claim was that these constitutional protections were substantially frustrated by underfunded public defender offices, thereby leaving the defendant improperly incarcerated for three years. The Court also considered a case wherein the State had utilized a jailhouse snitch to elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. …

Alabama V. Shelton: One Small Step For Man, One Very Small Step For The Sixth Amendment's Right To Counsel, Joshua S. Stambaugh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right To A Treaty Preemption Defense, David Sloss

Faculty Publications

The Constitution includes several provisions specifically designed to protect criminal defendants. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," the Sixth Amendment guarantees that criminal defendants have a right to legal representation, and the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The Constitution' s Founders recognized that state power is at its apex when the state threatens individuals with criminal sanctions. Accordingly, they adopted special constitutional rules to protect "the individual defendant from the awesome power of the State."

The Due Process Clause provides critical protection for criminal defendants; it stipulates that no State shall "deprive any person …

The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …

Right To Trial By Jury, Court Of Appeals People V. Page

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Quiet Year: The Supreme Court's Criminal Law Decisions During The 1991 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Effective Assistance Of Counsel: Chance Or Guarantee?, Joanne Legano

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Comment reviews the historical development of the right to effective assistance of counsel for criminal defendants as defined by the Supreme Court, and discusses the various standards applied by lower federal courts. This Comment next examines United States v. Decoster, which provides the most comprehensive judicial analysis of the right to effective assistance of counsel at this juncture in time. The standards applied by the New York State courts are also analyzed. Finally, the author recommends uniform guidelines for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Griffin V. California: Still Viable After All These Years, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.