Law Commons^™

Sb 1 - C.J.'S Law, Michael C. Duffey, Stephen Swanson

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act primarily functions to increase the penalty for drivers who cause death or serious bodily injury as a result of a vehicular accident and then flee the scene. Also known as C.J.’s Law, the Act establishes a maximum prison sentence of ten years for such a hit-and-run violation. In addition, the Act rewords and clarifies existing statutory language regarding license suspensions subsequent to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Sb 77 - Protection For Monuments, Evelyn Graham, Timothy J. Graves

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act prohibits persons and entities from destroying, concealing, or relocating any publicly or privately owned monument. Monuments may only be relocated when necessary for construction, expansion, or alteration to a site of equal prominence within the same municipality. Violators of this legislation are subject to treble the amount of the cost to repair or replace such monument, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, and being charged with a misdemeanor.

Criminal Law’S Folk Psychological Dilemma: Resolving Neuroscientific And Philosophical Challenges To The Voluntary Act Requirement, Branden D. Jung Esq.

West Virginia Law Review

Criminal law has adopted the folk psychological view of human agency. Under this view, voluntary action exists and mental states, such as intentions, goals, and desires, have a causal relationship with bodily movement. However, new advances in neuroscience have begun to challenge this model and have lent empirical support to the idea that mental states may not play a causal role in bodily movement. This has profound implications for the voluntary act element of actus reus because the requirement presupposes the folk psychological view of agency. Nevertheless, criminal law can avoid this dilemma through praxeology, the deductive study of human …

Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …

Why Rape Should Be A Federal Crime, Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Law Review

Sexual assault remains at high levels despite decades of legal reforms. The recent wave of accusations against public figures signals both the persistence of the problem and a new political climate for addressing it. The Article argues that Congress should make forcible rape a federal crime, to the limits of the Commerce Clause. This would bring federal assets to the fight against rape by redirecting them from enforcement of possessory crimes. The simple statutory proposal might be accompanied by a more ambitious reorganization of the Justice Department to include a Bureau of Violent Crimes. Replies are offered to objections based …

Panel 4: Criminal Procedure And Affirmative Action

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Lauren Sudeall

Panelists: Dan Epps, Gail Heriot, and Corinna Lain

Epilogue: From Too Tall To Trim And Small, Mark A. Drumbl

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …