Law Commons^™

Brief For Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Robert P. Burns, Sherman J. Clark, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.

Newell V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (December 24, 2015), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The holding of State v. Weddell is extended. Responding with deadly force to the commission of a felony per NRS § 200.160 is justified only when the person poses a threat of serious bodily injury. Short of such a threat, the amount of force used must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Orange Is The New Equal Protection Violation: How Evidence-Based Sentencing Harms Male Offenders, Shaina D. Massie

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Under School Colors: Private University Police As State Actors Under § 1983, Leigh J. Jahnig

Northwestern University Law Review

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals may sue those who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. The Supreme Court has held that private actors may act under color of state law, and may be sued under § 1983 in some circumstances. However, courts have not been consistent in determining whether private university police forces act under color of state law. Private universities often maintain police forces that are given extensive police powers by state statutes but are controlled by private entities. Some courts have looked directly to the state statutes that delegate police power, but …

Consent To Harm, Vera Bergelson

Vera Bergelson

This article continues conversation about consent to physical harm started in Vera Bergelson, The Right to Be Hurt: Testing the Boundaries of Consent, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 165 (2007).

Intentionally injuring or killing another person is presumptively wrong. To overcome this presumption, the perpetrator must establish a defense of justification. Consent of the victim may serve as one of the grounds for such a defense. This article puts forward criteria for the defense of consent.

One element of the proposed defense is essential to both its complete and partial forms ¨C that consent of the victim be rational and …

Officiating Removal, Leah Litman

Articles

For the last several years, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has quietly attempted to curtail capital defendants' representation in state postconviction proceedings. In 2011, various justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court began to call for federally funded community defender organizations to stop representing capital defendants in state postconviction proceedings. The justices argued, among other things, that the organizations' representation of capital defendants constituted impermissible federal interference with state governmental processes and burdened state judicial resources. The court also alleged the community defender organizations were in violation of federal statutes, which only authorized the organizations to assist state prisoners in federal, but …

Criminal Law And Common Sense: An Essay On The Perils And Promise Of Neuroscience, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

This article is based on the author’s Barrock Lecture in Criminal Law presented at the Marquette University Law School. The central thesis is that the folk psychology that underpins criminal responsibility is correct and that our commonsense understanding of agency and responsibility and the legitimacy of criminal justice generally are not imperiled by contemporary discoveries in the various sciences, including neuroscience and genetics. These sciences will not revolutionize criminal law, at least not anytime soon, and at most they may make modest contributions to legal doctrine, practice, and policy. Until there are conceptual or scientific breakthroughs, this is my story …

The Role Of The South African Criminal Code In Implementing Apartheid, Garry Seltzer

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Alternative Visions For The Federal Criminal Justice And Corrections System: Is True Change Possible?, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

None available.

The Immortal Accusation, Lindsey Webb

Washington Law Review

In the American criminal justice system, accusations have eternal life. Prosecutors, judges, and prison officials regularly consider dismissed charges and even prior acquittals in the defendant’s criminal history when making decisions ranging from the filing of charges to the imposition of punishment. This Article argues that the criminal justice system’s reliance on “accusation evidence” should be understood as furthering that system’s larger allegiance to attaining and preserving findings of guilt. Once the government obtains a guilty plea or verdict, appellate courts rarely overturn convictions based on concerns about the accuracy of the conviction; indeed, post-conviction review procedures often are structured …

Praise Defenders, Not Just Prosecutors, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

You Have The Right To Be Confused! Understanding Miranda After 50 Years, Bryan Taylor

Pace Law Review

Part I of this article briefly explores the background and historical context that ultimately led to the Miranda decision. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said, “you have to know the past to understand the present.” Understanding the circumstances and cases leading up to Miranda helps in the overall application of Miranda to cases of today. Part II addresses whether a statement should be allowed into evidence and provides a practical working approach to conduct a Miranda analysis. This innovative approach provides a step-by-step process in determining the admissibility of statements pursuant to Miranda and its progeny. This process …

Unequal Access To Justice: Solla V. Berlin And The Unprincipled Evisceration Of New York’S Eaja, Armen H. Merjian

Pace Law Review

Solla is noteworthy not merely in light of the baleful effects of its ruling, but because of its reasoning: it is categorically wrong. The decision wholly elides a cornerstone and settled principle of New York welfare law, namely, that in the administration of public assistance, the municipalities act as the agents of the State, while blatantly violating the most fundamental of agency principles, namely, that a principal is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent acting within the scope of its authority. Indeed, this principal/agent relationship is established both by statute and by decades of uniform state and federal …

Plea Bargaining As Dialogue, Rinat Kitai-Sangero

Akron Law Review

This Article proposes turning plea bargaining into a dialogical process, which would result in lessening a defendant’s sense of alienation during the progress of the criminal justice procedure. This Article argues that plea bargaining constitutes an opportunity to circumvent restrictions existing during a trial or outside a trial, such as the inadmissibility of character evidence and the need for the victim's consent in restorative justice proceedings. This Article proposes to navigate the plea bargaining process in a way that creates a real dialogue with defendants. Such a dialogue can reduce the sense of alienation that defendants feel from their position …

Two Models Of The Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective, Malcolm M. Feeley

Malcolm Feeley

Systematic studies of the administration of justice in the United States have stressed either the rational-goal model or the functional-systems model. The former model emphasizes problems with the justice system's formal rules of operation and appears to be the dominant view of appellate judges, lawyers, and law students, while the latter model is concerned with the identification and adaptation of action to the environment and the interests of action within the system.

Rule 412 Laid Bare: A Procedural Rule That Cannot Adequately Protect Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs From Embarrassing Exposure, Andrea A. Curcio

Andrea A. Curcio

No abstract provided.

Taking It To The Streets: Putting Discourse Analysis To The Service Of A Public Defender's Office, Clark D. Cunningham, Bonnie S. Mcelhinny

Clark D. Cunningham

No abstract provided.

Signaling And Plea Bargaining's Innocence Problem, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

The dominant theoretical model ofplea bargainingp redicts that, under conditions of full information and rational choice, criminal cases should uniformly be settled through plea bargaining. That prediction holds for innocent and guilty defendants alike. Because it is perfectly rational for innocent defendants to plead guilty, plea bargaining might be said to have an "innocence problem. " Plea bargaining's innocence problem is, at bottom, the result of a signaling defect. Innocent defendants lacking verifiable innocence claims are pooled together with guilty defendants who falsely proclaim innocence. As a result, both groups of defendants are treated similarly at trial and in plea …

Rules, Standards, Sentencing, And The Nature Of Law, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

Sentencing law and practice in the United States can be characterized as an argument about rules and standards. Whereas in the decades prior to the 1980s when sentencing was largely a discretionary activity governed only by broad sentencing standards, a sentencing reform movement in the 1980s transformed sentencing practice through the advent of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum provisions. As a result, sentencing became far less standard-like and far more rule-like. Although reform proponents believed that this "rulification" of sentencing would reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities and enhance justice, it is far from clear that these goals were achieved. Indeed, the …

Fixed Justice: Reforming Plea-Bargaining With Plea-Based Ceilings, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

The ubiquity of plea bargaining creates real concern that innocent defendants are occasionally, or perhaps even routinely, pleading guilty to avoid coercive trial sentences. Pleading guilty is a rational choice for defendants as long as prosecutors offer plea discounts so substantial that trial is not a rational strategy regardless of guilt or innocence. The long-recognized solution to this problem is to enforce limits on the size of the plea/trial sentencing differential. As a practical matter, however, discount limits are unenforceable if prosecutors retain ultimate discretion over charge selection and declination. Because the doctrine of prosecutorial charging discretion is immune to …

Abolishing Jailhouse Snitch Testimony, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

Jailhouse snitch testimony is inherently unreliable. Snitches have powerful incentives to invent incriminating lies about other inmates in often well-founded hopes that such testimony will provide them with material benefits, including in many cases substantial reduction of criminal charges against them or of the time they are required to serve. At the same time, false snitch testimony is difficult, if not altogether impossible, for criminal defendants to impeach. Because such testimony usually pits the word of two individuals against one another, both of whose credibility is suspect, jurors have little ability to accurately or effectively assess or weigh the evidence. …

Longitudinal Guilt: Repeat Offenders, Plea Bargaining, And The Variable Standard Of Proof, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

This Article introduces a new concept-“longitudinal guilt”-which invites readers to reconsider basic presuppositions about the way our criminal justice system determines guilt in criminal cases. In short, the idea is that a variety of features of criminal procedure, most importantly, plea bargaining, conspire to change the primary “truthfinding mission” of criminal law from one of adjudicating individual historical cases to one of identifying dangerous “offenders.” This change of mission is visible in the lower proof standards we apply to repeat criminal offenders. The first section of this Article explains how plea bargaining and graduated sentencing systems based on criminal history …

Hijacked At The Border: Why The Government Should Have Reasonable Suspicion Before Conducting Intrusive Examinations Of Our Personal Electronic Devices, Ryne Spengler

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Death, Desuetude, And Original Meaning, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

One of the most common objections to originalism is that it cannot cope with cultural change. One of the most commonly invoked examples of this claimed weakness is the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, whose original meaning would (it is argued) authorize barbaric punishment practices like flogging and branding, and disproportionate punishments like the death penalty for relatively minor offenses. This Article shows that this objection to originalism is inapt, at least with respect to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. As I have shown in prior articles, the original meaning of “cruel and unusual” is “cruel and contrary to …

Breaking Bad Science: Due Process As A Vehicle For Postconviction Relief When Convictions Are Based On Unreliable Scientific Evidence, Vincent P. Iannece

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that due process requires a new trial when scientific evidence necessary to the conviction becomes so unreliable as to call the validity of the jury’s verdict into question. Part I of this Note discusses how scientific evidence is admitted, the procedure for a convicted defendant’s postconviction relief once that evidence is deemed unreliable, and the constitutional protections that a convicted defendant is afforded under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part II of this Note examines the divide among appellate courts as to whether the Due Process Clause requires a new trial when a …

How The Right To Speedy Trial Can Reduce Mass Pretrial Incarceration, Zina Makar

All Faculty Scholarship

Kenny Johnson1 was thirty-two years old when he was released from a Baltimore City jail— almost three years after his arrest in October 2012. Johnson was not serving a sentence, but these three years were spent under pretrial detention. He had been denied bail. Johnson’s case was a rollercoaster of delays and uncertainty, particularly towards the end of his pretrial incarceration. The need for certainty convinced Johnson to plead guilty—he could not stand knowing that his pretrial incarceration could be indefinite and he wanted to be sure he was going home, guilty or not guilty.

Between the time he was …

The Complexity Of International Criminal Trials Is Necessary, 48 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 151 (2015), Stuart Ford

Stuart Ford

There is a widespread belief among both academics and policymakers that international criminal trials are too complex. As a result, tribunals have come under enormous pressure to reduce the complexity of their trials. However, changes to trial procedure have not meaningfully affected trial complexity. This Article explains why these changes have failed and argues that the complexity of international criminal trials is necessary for them to achieve their purposes. Using a multiple regression model of the factors driving trial complexity at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), this Article shows that the largest drivers of complexity are …