Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
In this case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, petitioner Gamble's brief demonstrates that there was no dual sovereignty doctrine before the mid-19th century. At the Founding and for several decades thereafter, a prosecution by one sovereign was understood to bar a subsequent prosecution by all other sovereigns. Dual sovereignty is thus contrary to the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendants today enjoy a weaker form of double jeopardy protection than they did when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
But that fact only raises three further questions. First why did the Court erroneously conclude in Bartkus v. …
Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief And Brief For The National Association For Public Defense And Kentucky Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Sneed V. Burress (U.S. March 24, 2017) (No. 16-8047)., Janet Moore
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
No abstract provided.
Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford
Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford
UF Law Faculty Publications
When the government wants to impose exceptionally harsh punishment on a criminal defendant, one of the ways it accomplishes this goal is to divide the defendant’s single course of conduct into multiple offenses that give rise to multiple punishments. The Supreme Court has rendered the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and the rule of lenity incapable of handling this problem by emptying them of substantive content and transforming them into mere instruments for effectuation of legislative will.
This Article demonstrates that all three doctrines originally reflected a substantive legal preference for life and liberty, and a …
Summary Of Lachance V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, Brian Vasek
Summary Of Lachance V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, Brian Vasek
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supported the defendant’s domestic battery by strangulation and domestic battery causing substantial bodily harm convictions; (2) the convictions and sentences for possession with intent to sell and simple possession based on possession of the same controlled substance violates the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) the defendant received adequate notice of the State’s intent to seek habitual criminal status; and (4) the district court properly adjudicated the defendant as a habitual criminal.
Developing A State Constitutional Law Strategy In New Mexico Criminal Prosecutions, J. Thomas Sullivan
Developing A State Constitutional Law Strategy In New Mexico Criminal Prosecutions, J. Thomas Sullivan
Faculty Scholarship
This article includes a review of the process by which the New Mexico courts have developed an independent state constitutional jurisprudence reflecting more expansive protections of individual rights than those afforded by the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It addresses the existing body of state constitutional law and suggests possibilities for further developments, including both the substantive aspects of state constitutional topics and the procedural requirements for asserting state constitutional protections as alternative sources for protection of individual rights. It documents how far New Mexico has come in developing a state constitutional …
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching As A Bar To Reprosecution Under The Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon V. Kennedy, James F. Ponsoldt
Scholarly Works
This article examines the effect of Oregon v. Kennedy on the Burger Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence in cases where government misconduct has interfered with the integrity of a first trial. The article proposes the complete elimination of current distinctions between mistrial and appellate reversal cases for double jeopardy analysis, on the ground that those distinctions no longer have intellectual or practical support. Moreover, against the contention of the Court in Oregon v. Kennedy that any test for overreaching necessarily would be standardless, this article proposes the adoption of a "plain error" standard. Under this test, "plain" government error, engaged in …