Law Commons^™

Racial Discrimination In Jury Selection: The Urgent Need For Sixth Amendment Protections For Black Capital Defendants, Claire Austin

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review

In the U.S., death row is made up of a disproportionate number of black persons. In capital trials, black defendants often face all white juries. The deep-rooted racial discrimination in the justice system impacts jury selection because prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors from the jury panel. As the law stands today, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury made up of a fair representation of the jury applies only to the pool of jurors called in for jury service, not those who are actually selected to hear the case.

This comment analyzes the Supreme Court decision, …

Criminal Advisory Juries: A Sensible Compromise For Jury Sentencing Advocates, Kurt A. Holtzman

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently noted that “juries in our constitutional order exercise supervisory authority over the judicial function by limiting the judge’s power to punish.” Yet in the majority of jurisdictions, contemporary judge-only sentencing practices neuter juries of their supervisory authority by divorcing punishment from guilt decisions. Moreover, without a chance to voice public disapproval at sentencing, juries are muted in their ability to express tailored, moral condemnation for distinct criminal acts. Although the modern aversion to jury sentencing is neither historically nor empirically justified, jury sentencing opponents are rightly cautious of abdicating sentencing power to laypeople. Nevertheless, …

Revenge Of The Sixth: The Constitutional Reckoning Of Pandemic Justice, Brandon Marc Draper

Marquette Law Review

The Sixth Amendment’s criminal jury right is integral to the United States

criminal justice system. While this right is also implicated by the Due Process

Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and several federal and state statutes,

criminal jury trial rates have been declining for decades, down from

approximately 20% to 2% between 1988 to 2018. This dramatic drop in the

rate of criminal jury trials is an effective measure of the decreased access to

fair and constitutional criminal jury trials.

Recidivist Sentencing And The Sixth Amendment, Benjamin E. Adams

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Pretrial Detention In A Criminal System Looking For Justice, Gabrielle Costa

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Central Park Five As “Discrete And Insular” Minorities Under The Equal Protection Clause: The Evolution Of The Right To Counsel For Wrongfully Convicted Minors, Todd K. Beharry

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

A Right To A Remedy: The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel And The American Indigent Defense Crisis, Nicholas A. Lutz

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fundamental Since Our Country's Founding: United States V. Auernheimer And The Sixth Amendment Right To Be Tried In The District In Which The Alleged Crime Was Committed, Paul Mogin

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Giving An Acquittal Its Due: Why A Quartet Of Sixth Amendment Cases Means The End Of United States V. Watts And Acquitted Conduct Sentencing, Lucius T. Outlaw

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel Vs. Right To A Speedy Trail: How The Public Defender Crisis Is Causing A Sixth Amendment Conflict, Conor R. Mccullough

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond

Maine Law Review

In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …

When An Appeal Goes Wrong: A “Criminal Justice Nightmare”, David R. Dow, Jeffrey R. Newberry

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

No Money, No Lawyer — No Children: The Right To Counsel For Indigent Defendants In Nevada Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings, Erik J. Foley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Book Review: Psychiatric Justice, Alice M. Batchelder

Akron Law Review

In an era in which extensive judicial emphasis has been placed on "due process of law" in criminal proceedings, both in the federal courts and in the state courts, Dr. Szasz's book serves as a jarring reminder that in at least one vital area of the concept of due process, much remains to be done. The emerging definition of due process has enunciated the rights guaranteed the individual by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and viewed within that framework, this book, although published in 1965, remains particularly timely, for Szasz, speaking as a psychiatrist, endeavors to demonstrate how …

Denial Of Speedy Trial - Mandamus For Dismissal: Smith V. Hooey, Charles F. Brumbach

Akron Law Review

The Court reasoned that the timely assertion by defendant-petitioner of his constitutional right to a speedy trial gave rise to a corresponding duty on the part of the state to bring him to trial without undue delay.The Court rejected the state's argument that Texas was, in this instance, free from Sixth Amendment constraints, observing that this argument was based on an erroneous conception of the nature of comity.

Given the recognized right to a speedy trial, and given the corresponding duty on the part of the state to affirmatively secure that constitutional right, the breach of such a duty will …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti

Akron Law Review

"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation Limitations On The Bruton Rule; Parker V. Randolph, Edward P. Mazak

Akron Law Review

In some joint criminal trials the right of one defendant to refrain from self incrimination may come into conflict with the right of another defendant to confront the witnesses against him. The problem arises when one defendant refuses to testify at trial after having made a voluntary, out of court statement which tends to implicate a second defendant. The rules of evidence allow the statement to be introduced at trial only against the party making it; its use against the implicated defendant is excluded as hearsay.' The rules also provide for the court to instruct the jury on the limited …

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Multiple Representation; Cuyler V. Sullivan, Howard S. Essner

Akron Law Review

In Cuyler v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court finally resolved two important issues in the areas of criminal law and the sixth amendment right to counsel. In this case, the Court is faced with a situation with which it has dealt but twice before: joint representation of criminal defendants. Cuyler represents the culmination of the legal inquiry into the problems inherent whenever a single attorney represents more than one defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Use Of Prior Uncounseled Convictions; Lewis V. United States And Baldasar V. Illinois, Rita Marks

Akron Law Review

Once again the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of the right to counsel. Within three months the Court rendered two decisions which appear to be inconsistent, not only with one another, but with prior decisions of the Court

Sixth Amendment, Televising Trials, Chandler V. Florida, Paul A. Patterson

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court recently handed down a unanimous decision dealing with the respective rights of the press and defendants in regard to the televising of criminal trials. The case, Chandler v. Florida, while explicitly stated to be consistent with the Court's earlier decision in Estes v. Texas, has expanded the realm of media coverage of criminal trials beyond what apparently was permissible under Estes. The Court attempted to balance the competing constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the sixth amendment right to a fair trial. It held that while the presence of television cameras in …

The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Quandry: The Debate Continues Strickland V. Washington, Susan K. Vanburen

Akron Law Review

In recent years, dissatisfied criminal defendants have increasingly resorted to claims alleging actual ineffectiveness of counsel as a vehicle for challenging their convictions. Prior to Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court had not delineated the "proper standards" for reviewing claims of actual ineffectiveness of counsel. The lack of a national standard for assessing defense counsel's performance, as it relates to the constitutional requirement, generated extensive deliberation by lower courts and commentators. Faced with a deluge of actual ineffectiveness claims, the lower courts were forced to formulate standards to distinguish effective from ineffective assistance. However, the ensuing diverse standards employed …

Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg

Akron Law Review

Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.

An Analysis Of The Legal And Practical Implications Of The Potential Increased Participation In Jury Service By Racial Minorities In The U.S. Criminal Justice System, Brian Keith Leonard

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Asset Forfeiture And The Sixth Amendment After "Southern Union" And "Alleyne:" State-Level Ramifications, Brynn Applebaum

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Founding Fathers thought the jury-trial right was so fundamental to our system of justice that they included it in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The right to trial by jury serves to protect criminal defendants against government overreaching by ensuring that they will be judged by their fellow citizens.' And as a whole, our system of justice and our citizenry have remained committed to the jury trial. But since the Founding, the Supreme Court has narrowed the application of the Sixth Amendment's guaranty.

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court decided in Libretti v. United States that …

Criminal Court, Kings County, People V. Artusa, Jessica Miller

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Dillard, Edward Puerta

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are There Still Collateral Consequences In New York After Padilla?, John H. Wilson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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. …

Booker And Our Brave New World: The Tension Among The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Judicial Discretion, And A Defendant's Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury, Kristina Walter

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the inherent conflict among the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, judicial discretion, and a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Part two of this Note will provide a historical overview of the Guidelines. Part three will discuss the application of the Guidelines and the role of juries and judges at sentencing hearings. Part four will highlight criticisms relating to how the Guidelines often usurp power from juries and judges. Part five will examine the milestone cases of Blakely v. Washington, United States v. Booker, and United States v. Fanfan (hereinafter "Booker" refers to the combined cases …