Law Commons^™

Victims’ Opportunities To Review A Decision Not To Prosecute Made By The Crown Prosecutor, Li Tian

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

In Canada, Crown prosecutors and the Attorney General are not always as fair as we expect when making charging decisions, and therefore victims could be personally aggrieved by unfair and unjust decisions not to prosecute. When this happens, victims have limited remedy to redress the unfairness and unjustness in order to uphold their interests in a criminal proceeding. Conversely, the European Union, United Kingdom, and the United State have taken steps to let victims challenge decisions not to prosecute to some extent. Drawing on experiences of the abovementioned jurisdictions, I propose a two-level process of review for decisions not to …

Casual Ostracism: Jury Exclusion On The Basis Of Criminal Convictions, Anna Roberts

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Good Name: Applying Regulatory Takings Analysis To Reputation Damage Caused By Criminal History, Jamila Jefferson-Jones

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Wrong Kind Of Innocence: Why United States V. Begay Warrants The Extension Of "Actual Innocence" To Exclude Erroneous, Non-Capital Sentences, Greg Siepel

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has begun to regulate non-capital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Though both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate lines of doctrine respond to structural imbalances in non-capital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on …

Death Penalty, Josh D. Moore

Mercer Law Review

The Georgia Supreme Court addressed numerous cases touching on the death penalty in our survey period, including the review of four death sentences on direct appeal in Ellington v. State, Rice v. State, Barrett v. State, and Brockman v. State. Three of the death sentences reviewed on direct appeal were affirmed and one was reversed. The court also reversed the decision of a habeas court to vacate a death sentence in Humphrey v. Riley. Several other cases involving the death penalty at various stages of trial were also decided and will be addressed further as …

The Illusory Eighth Amendment, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

Although there is no obvious doctrinal connection between the Supreme Court’s Miranda jurisprudence and its Eighth Amendment excessive punishments jurisprudence, the two are deeply connected at the level of methodology. In both areas, the Supreme Court has been criticized for creating “prophylactic” rules that invalidate government actions because they create a mere risk of constitutional violation. In reality, however, both sets of rules deny constitutional protection to a far greater number of individuals with plausible claims of unconstitutional treatment than they protect.

This dysfunctional combination of over- and underprotection arises from the Supreme Court’s use of implementation rules as a …

Flawed Forensics And The Death Penalty: Junk Science And Potentially Wrongful Executions, Jessica Dwyer-Moss

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Clancy V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 89, Jim Hoffman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A three-judge panel of the Court considered three questions: (1) whether NRS 484E.010-030 require actual knowledge that an accident has occurred, or whether constructive knowledge is sufficient; (2) whether the definition of “involved in an accident” in the same statute is unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous; and (3) whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the guilty verdict handed down in the lower court.

Summary Of Clay V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 91, Joseph Peacock

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined one issue: whether NRS 62H.170(2)(c) or NRS 62H.170(3) permits the State to inspect a defendant’s sealed juvenile record to obtain information for use against that defendant in a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Summary Of Watters V. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 94, Brian Vasek

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether the prosecution’s use of a PowerPoint slide during opening statement with the defendant’s booking photo and the word “guilty” superimposed across the photo was improper advocacy and undermined the defendant’s presumption of innocence.

Presumed Guilty, Terrence Cain

Faculty Scholarship

It would probably surprise the average American to learn that prosecutors need only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes. Although the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution require that the government prove each element of an alleged criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of statutory presumptions has relieved the government of this responsibility, and in some cases, has even shifted the burden to the defendant to disprove the presumption. Likewise, the Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to have the jury and the jury alone determine whether the government has met its burden and ultimately …

Recent Decision Note, Thomas L. Shaffer

Thomas L. Shaffer

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Decriminalization, Erik Luna

Erik Luna

The article discusses the legal concept of prosecutorial decriminalization in the U.S. as of July 2012, focusing on an analysis of the use of criminal laws to enforce the public standards of morality in America. Penal codes and criminal sanctions are addressed, along with several reform measures aimed at restructuring a criminal law system in the U.S. which has reportedly been overburdened by overcriminalization. The use of the American judiciary system as a check on overcriminalization is mentioned.

The Trial Court's Gatekeeper Role Under Frye, Daubert, And Kumho: A Special Look At Children's Cases, John Eric Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

No abstract provided.

Proportional Mens Rea, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

No abstract provided.

Localism And Capital Punishment, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

Professor Adam Gershowitz presents an interesting proposal to transfer from localities to states the power to enforce the death penalty. In his view, state-level enforcement would result in a more rationally applied death penalty because states would be much more likely to make capital charging decisions based on desert, without the distorting influence of the severe resource constraints applicable to all but the wealthiest of localities. As well conceived as Professor Gershowitz’s proposal is, however, I remain skeptical that statewide enforcement of the death penalty would be preferable to continued local enforcement. First, Professor Gershowitz underestimates the benefits of localism …

Activism As Restraint: Lessons From Criminal Procedure, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

No abstract provided.

Taking Strickland Claims Seriously, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

Every criminal defendant is promised the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Whether at trial or first appeal of right, due process is violated when attorney negligence undermines the fairness and reliability of judicial proceedings. That, at least, is the black-letter law articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984). In practice, however, the right to effective representation has meant surprisingly little over the last two decades. Under the standards that emerged from Strickland, scores of defendants have received prison or death sentences by virtue of serious unprofessional errors committed by their attorneys.

This Essay canvasses a line …

Religion And Procedure, Robert E. Rodes

Robert Rodes

God has no use for procedural rules since He knows the full truth and is able to exercise absolute justice simultaneously alongside complete mercy. This paper discusses the religious significance of legal rules of procedure in light of this truth. It finds that since we, unlike God, are inherently fallible, we are forced to implement procedures in the legal pursuit of our goals of truth, justice, and mercy. These procedures remain imperfect in implementing these goals, as compromises must often be made between competing values such as mercy on one hand and justice on the other. Nevertheless, though legal procedure …

The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter

Judith L Ritter

By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …

Correcting A Fatal Lottery: A Proposal To Apply The Civil Discrimination Standards To The Death Penalty, Joseph Thomas

Joseph Thomas

Claims of discrimination are treated differently in the death penalty context. Discrimination in employment, housing, civil rights and jury venire all use a burden-shifting framework with the preponderance of the evidence as the standard. Discrimination that occurs in death penalty proceedings is the exception to the rule -- the framework offers less protections; there is only one phase of argumentation, with a heightened evidentiary standard of “exceptionally clear proof.” With disparate levels of protections against discrimination, the standard and framework for adjudicating claims of discrimination in the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Death is different as a punishment. But does discrimination …

Correcting A Fatal Lottery: A Proposal To Apply The Civil Discrimination Standards To The Death Penalty, Joseph Thomas

Joseph Thomas

Claims of discrimination are treated differently in the death penalty context. Discrimination in employment, housing, civil rights and jury venire all use a burden-shifting framework with the preponderance of the evidence as the standard. Discrimination that occurs in death penalty proceedings is the exception to the rule -- the framework offers less protections; there is only one phase of argumentation, with a heightened evidentiary standard of “exceptionally clear proof.” With disparate levels of protections against discrimination, the standard and framework for adjudicating claims of discrimination in the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Death is different as a punishment. But does discrimination …

Taking A Second Look At Arrestee Dna In California, Mark Wilson

GGU Law Review Blog

No abstract provided.

A Deal Is A Deal: Plea Bargains And Double Jeopardy After Ohio V. Johnson, Philip Chinn

Seattle University Law Review

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person will “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” On March 10, 2004, Pedro Cabrera made a statement that cost him fourteen years of his life: he proclaimed his innocence. The court accepted this plea and ordered a finding of guilty with a recommended sentence of six years. However, during an exchange that followed, Mr. Cabrera asserted that he was actually innocent but that he preferred “to take the time” instead of proceeding to trial. The judge then refused to accept Mr. Cabrera’s guilty …

The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter

Seattle University Law Review

By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …

Cooperating With The Prosecutor: How Many Motions Does It Take To Secure A Sentence That Is Less Than The Mandatory Minimum Provided By Statute?, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.

The Double Jeopardy Dilemma: Does Criminal Prosecution And Civil Forfeiture In Separate Proceedings Violate The Double Jeopardy Clause?, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: May A Prisoner's Challenge To Parole Revocation Be Delayed Until The Sentence Is Completed And Then Dismissed As Moot?, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.