Law Commons^™

Procedural Triage, Matthew J.B. Lawrence

Fordham Law Review

Prior scholarship has assumed that the inherent value of a "day in court" is the same for all claimants, so that when procedural resources (like a jury trial or a hearing) are scarce, they should be rationed the same way for all claimants. That is incorrect. This Article shows that the inherent value of a "day in court" can be far greater for some claimants, such as first-time filers, than for others, such as corporate entities and that it can be both desirable and feasible to take this variation into account in doling out scarce procedural protections. In other words, …

An Overlooked Key To Reversing Mass Incarceration: Reforming The Law To Reduce Prosecutorial Power In Plea Bargaining, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

The need to “do something” about mass incarceration is now widely recognized. When President Obama announced plans to reform federal criminal legislation, he focused on the need to change how we handle non-violent drug offenders and parole violators. Previously, former Attorney General Eric Holder announced policies to make federal prosecutors “smart on crime.” These changes reflect, as President Obama noted, the increasing bipartisan consensus on the need for reform and the need to reduce our incarceration rates. However, proposals about what to reform, such as President Obama’s, tend to focus on some parts of criminal sentencing and on prosecutorial behavior …

Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that (1) the district court erred by ruling that Cassinelli was not eligible for alcohol treatment under NRS § 458.300(1)(d); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassinelli’s request for assignment to a program of treatment; (3) the plea agreement was not breached and the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct at sentencing; (4) the district court did not err by refusing Cassinelli an opportunity to cross-examine the victim during her impact statement at sentencing; (5) Cassinelli’s sentence was illegal.

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach

Akron Law Review

The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.

Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt

Akron Law Review

After the decisions in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), which revealed the Supreme Court's solicitude of the constitutional rights of adults, it seemed improbable that the lower courts would long be permitted to continue ignoring the constitutional rights of juveniles. Thus the decision in the principal case, which represents a breakthrough in the assurance of a fair hearing to minors, comes as no surprise. The case holds that under the Fourteenth Amendment a juvenile has a right to notice of …

Admissibility Of In-Court Identifications; Unnecessarily Suggestive Out-Of-Court Identifications; Due Process; Manson V. Brathwaite, Frank A. Barbieri Jr.

Akron Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Manson v. Brathwaite, a substantial amount of confusion existed concerning the judicial test which was to be applied to in-court and out-of-court criminal identification procedures. The Court, in the case of Stovall v. Denno, had first set forth a two stage test for determining whether such procedures were violative of due process. While later cases were somewhat unclear, the Stovall test continued to be used. When the Court again confronted the identification procedure question in the case of Neil v. Biggers, a new "totality of the circumstances" test was set forth. …

"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins

Akron Law Review

On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.

Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.

Neo-Federalism, Popular Sovereignity, And The Criminal Law, Terrance M. Messonnier

Akron Law Review

The first area is the substantive criminal law, especially at the federal level. In the following pages, this Article will discuss, from a Neo-Federalist perspective, the wide variety of laws found mostly in Title 18 of the United States Code that form our federal criminal law. This Article will suggest that there are both constitutional and pragmatic needs to reexamine what behavior should be punished on a federal level.

The second area is the law regarding criminal procedures. This Article will suggest, from the perspective of Popular Sovereignty, that the current trend to jealously guard jurisdictional prerogatives is not constitutionally …

The Shift Of The Balance Of Advantage In Criminal Litigation: The Case Of Mr. Simpson, David Robinson Jr.

Akron Law Review

The intense public interest in the extraordinary trial and acquittal of Mr. O.J. Simpson provides an appropriate occasion to look at the criminal justice system more generally, to note where we have been in the balance of advantage between prosecution and defense, where we are now, and where, perhaps, we should be.

A Comprehensive Analysis Of The History Of Interrogation Law, With Some Shots Directed At Miranda V. Arizona, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

Police interrogation is designed to convict suspects under arrest or those suspected of crime. It does not matter that the suspect may not be guilty; interrogation is instigated to obtain an incriminating statement that will help convict the suspect. While many are quick to defend what are considered the “respectable freedoms” embodied in the Constitution — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion — few champion the Fifth Amendment’s bar against compelled self-incrimination, popularly known as the “right to remain silent,” as a basis for a suspect’s right to resist police questioning. Although it has been …

Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.

Decision-Making In The Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change The Narrative In Criminal Jury Trials, Kara Mackillop, Neil Vidmar

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The jury trial plays a critical constitutional and institutional role in American jurisprudence. Jury service is, technically, the only constitutional requirement demanded of our citizens and, as such, places an important responsibility on those chosen to serve on any jury, especially within the criminal justice system. Jury research has established that, generally, jurors take their responsibilities seriously; they work with the evidence presented at trial and they reach verdicts that correlate to the narratives they develop throughout the trial. But with estimates of wrongful conviction rates as high as five percent in serious felony cases, how are juries getting it …

When Are The People Ready? The Interplay Between Facial Sufficiency And Readiness Under Cpl Section 30.30, John H. Wilson

Pace Law Review

In this article, we will explore the intersecting concepts of conversion, facial sufficiency, and readiness. As we shall see, readiness for trial does not necessarily follow from the conversion of a complaint and dismissal on CPL section 30.30 grounds does not necessarily follow from a finding of facial insufficiency.

Collateral Damage: A Guide To Criminal Appellate, Postconviction, And Habeas Corpus Litigation In Wisconsin, Matthew M. Fernholz

Marquette Law Review

none

Should The American Grand Jury Survive Ferguson, Roger Fairfax

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The grand jurors deliberated in secret, as the masses demanded the indictment of the would-be defendants. Ultimately, the grand jury would refuse to indict, enraging the many who believed justice had been denied

Centralized Prosecution: Cross-Designated Prosecutors And An Unconstitutional Concentration Of Power, Haley White

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Trueallele: A Computerized Dna Interpretation System, Katherine L. Moss

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's Law Got To Do With It? Plea Bargaining Reform After Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

This symposium article responds to the question, what's left of the law in the wake of ADR? The article addresses this question in the context of the criminal justice system in the United States. As with civil cases, few criminal cases go to trial. Negotiated agreements through plea bargaining have been the predominate form of case resolution since at least the mid-twentieth century. Plea bargaining, as with other forms of alternative dispute resolution, is an informal process that operates largely outside the formal legal system. Plea bargains are rarely negotiated on the record in open court. Instead, they are usually …

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

Against Professing: Practicing Critical Criminal Procedure, Mae Quinn

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

This article argues that in creating the public safety exception to the Miranda requirements, the Supreme Court implicitly analogized to the criminal law doctrines of self-defense and defense of others. Thus, examining the justifications of self-defense and defense of others can be useful in determining the contours of the public safety exception and the related "rescue doctrine" exception. In particular, the battered woman syndrome -- which is recognized in a majority of the states and has been successfully invoked by defendants in some self-defense cases -- could provide a conceptual analogue for arguments about whether law enforcement officers were faced …

Government Retention And Use Of Unlawfully Secured Dna Evidence, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Sentencing Rules And Standards: How We Decide Criminal Punishment, Jacob Schuman

Journal Articles

Over the course of the past 300 years, American sentencing policy has alternated between “determinate” and “indeterminate” systems of deciding punishment. Debates over sentence determinacy have so far focused on three main questions: Who should decide punishment? What makes punishment fair? And why should we punish wrongdoers at all?

In this Article, I ask a new, fourth, question: How should we decide punishment? I show that determinate sentencing uses rules to determine sentences, while indeterminate sentencing relies on standards. Applying this insight to federal sentencing practice, I demonstrate that district court judges “depart” or “vary” from the United States Sentencing …

Probability And Punishment: How To Improve Sentencing By Taking Account Of Probability, Jacob Schuman

Journal Articles

The United States Sentencing Guidelines place little emphasis on probability. Instead, the Guidelines recommend a sentence in each case based only on whether certain facts about the offender’s crime exceed a “threshold” level of likelihood. Guidelines sentences therefore fail to reflect the precise odds of each defendant’s wrongdoing, which makes them both inefficient and unfair. This model of decision-making is particularly problematic in drug sentencing, where judges often impose lengthy sentences based on drug quantity calculations that carry a high risk of error. To address these problems, district courts should exercise their discretion and policymakers should implement reforms that incorporate …

Recent Development: In Re Tyrell A.: Trial Courts Generally May Not Order Restitution To An Individual Whose Voluntary Participation In A Crime Or Delinquent Act Results In Injury, Andrew Middleman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Sections 11-601(j) and 11- 603(a) of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, do not authorize trial courts to order restitution to an individual who suffers an injury while voluntarily participating in a crime or delinquent act, “absent exceptional circumstances.” In re Tyrell A., 442 Md. 354, 383, 112 A.3d 468, 485 (2015). Accordingly, the court of appeals vacated a juvenile court’s restitution order to an individual who suffered nasal injuries while participating in the common law offense of affray.

Recent Development: State V. Hunt: A Petitioner Who Files For A Writ Of Actual Innocence Has The Right To A Hearing Based On Newly Discovered Evidence When The Pleading Substantially Complies With Md. Crim. Proc. § 8-301 And Md. Rule 4-332, Daniel M. Weir

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, when petitioners substantially complied with the pleading requirements under Section 8-301 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“section 8-301”) and Maryland Rule 4-332.

The Irrelevance Of Prisoner Fault For Excessively Delayed Executions, Russell L. Christopher

Washington and Lee Law Review

Are decades-long delays between sentencing and execution immune from Eighth Amendment violation because they are self-inflicted by prisoners, or is such prisoner fault for delays simply irrelevant to whether a state-imposed punishment is cruel and unusual? Typically finding delay to be the state’s responsibility, Justices Breyer and Stevens argue that execution following upwards of forty years of death row incarceration is unconstitutional. Nearly every lower court disagrees, reasoning that prisoners have the choice of pursuing appellate and collateral review (with the delay that entails) or crafting the perfect remedy to any delay by submitting, as Justice Thomas has invited complaining …

Statutory Constraints And Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke

Journal Articles

Although constitutional scholars frequently analyze the relationships between courts and legislatures, they rarely examine the relationship between courts and statutes. This Article is the first to systematically examine how the presence or absence of a statute can influence constitutional doctrine. It analyzes pairs of cases that raise similar constitutional questions, but differ with respect to whether the court is reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. These case pairs suggest that statutes place significant constraints on constitutional decisionmaking. Specifically, in cases that involve a challenge to a statute, courts are less inclined to use doctrine to regulate the behavior of nonjudicial officials. …

Barriers To Entry And Justice Ginsburg’S Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.