Law Commons^™

Smashing The Tragic Illusion Of Justice: The Reprehensibility Of The Death Penalty In Virginia, Meagan E. Costello

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Capital Punishment In The Age Of Terrorism, Norman L. Greene, Norman Redlich, David Bruck, Paul Saunders, Richard Weisberg, Kenneth Roth

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

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

Cynthia Alkon

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 …

Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon

Cynthia Alkon

In the companion cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. However, the Court defined effective assistance of counsel in only one narrow phase of plea bargaining: the client counseling phase. The Court said it would not look more broadly at the negotiation process itself as "[b]argaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style.” This statement indicates that the Court does not fully understanding developments in the field of negotiation over the last thirty years. Negotiation …

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

Cynthia Alkon

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 …

Hard Bargaining In Plea Bargaining: When Do Prosecutors Cross The Line?, Cynthia Alkon

Cynthia Alkon

Well over 90 percent of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved by plea bargaining and not by trial. This means that how plea bargaining works impacts nearly every criminal defendant. However, there are few restrictions to protect defendants in the negotiating process. One serious problem is that prosecutors regularly use hard bargaining tactics such as exploding offers, threats to add enhancements, take-it-or-leave-it offers, and threats to seek the death penalty. These hard bargaining tactics contribute to the often highly coercive atmosphere of plea bargaining that can lead innocent defendants to plead guilty. Pressure to plead guilty can …

United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley

Maine Law Review

In the consolidated case of United States v. Pho, the government appealed two district court rulings that imposed criminal sentences outside of the range provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). At separate trials, both defendants pied guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as crack). Rejecting the Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the district court imposed sentences that were below the Guidelines' range, but above the statutory mandatory minimum. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated both sentences and remanded the …

Designed To Fail: The President’S Deference To The Department Of Justice In Advancing Criminal Justice Reform, Rachel E. Barkow, Mark Osler

William & Mary Law Review

One puzzle of President Obama’s presidency is why his stated commitment to criminal justice reform was not matched by actual progress. We argue that the Obama Administration’s failure to accomplish more substantial reform, even in those areas that did not require congressional action, was largely rooted in an unfortunate deference to the Department of Justice. In this Article, we document numerous examples (in sentencing, clemency, compassionate release, and forensic science) of the Department resisting common sense criminal justice reforms that would save taxpayer dollars, help reduce mass incarceration, and maintain public safety. These examples and basic institutional design theory all …

A Step Toward Robust Criminal Discovery Reform In Virginia: The Disclosure Of Witness Statements Before Trial, Jennifer Horan

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

University of Richmond Law Review

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal

law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia

and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead

of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article

focuses on the "take-away" of the holdings with the most

precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy

changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia

General Assembly.

Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus

Book Chapters

Public-defense delivery systems nationwide are grossly inadequate. Public defenders are forced to handle caseloads that no one could effectively manage. They often have no funding for investigation or expert assistance. They aren’t adequately trained, and there is little to no oversight of their work. In many jurisdictions, the public-defense function is not sufficiently independent of the judiciary or the elected branches to allow for zealous representation. The result is an assembly line into prison, mostly for poor people of color, with little check on the reliability or fairness of the process. Innocent people are convicted, precious resources are wasted, and …

Corporate Deferred Prosecution As Discretionary Injustice, Peter Reilly

Utah Law Review

A recent federal appellate court ruling of first impression permits the resolution of allegations of serious corporate criminal wrongdoing by way of an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism called Deferred Prosecution, without appropriate judicial review. This Article describes why this ruling is ill-advised, and suggests how other courts might address these same legal issues while arriving at different conclusions. This Article argues that if federal prosecutors are going to continue using Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”) in addressing allegations of corporate criminal misconduct, then that discretionary power must be confined and checked through meaningful judicial review. The overriding concern with the appellate …

Thinking Inside The Box: Placing Form Over Function In The Application Of The Statutory Sentencing Procedure In State Of Maine V. Eugene Downs, Matthew E. Lane

Maine Law Review

In State v. Hewey, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the sentencing court erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum applicable period of incarceration for a Class A crime and accordingly vacated the sentence. Perhaps more importantly, the Law Court used the case as an “opportunity for clarification of [its] review of an appeal from a sentence imposed by the trial court.” A unanimous court sought to clear up some inconsistencies in previous decisions regarding “the terminology used to define each of the three steps” of the sentencing process by better describing the procedure “by which the …

The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr

Maine Law Review

On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …

Establishing Guidelines For Attorney Representation Of Criminal Defendants At The Sentencing Phase Of Capital Trials, Adam Lamparello

Maine Law Review

In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal holding that single-handedly rendered it nearly impossible for a capital defendant to demonstrate that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the underlying trial or at sentencing. Indeed, due in substantial part to the fact that "Strickland was not intended to impose rigorous standards on criminal defense attorneys," the Court found ineffective assistance of counsel in only one case over the next sixteen years. Critically, however, during this time, both state and federal courts bore witness to some of the most horrific examples of death …

State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon

Maine Law Review

Darrell Thurston and Suzanne Harmon were romantically involved on an intermittent basis for five years and had one child together. As a result of an altercation that took place at Harmon’s home in Sullivan, Maine, on September 27, 2007, between Thurston and Harmon, Thurston was charged with assault, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of crime or injury. The testimony during the trial illuminated the major factual differences between Thurston’s and Harmon’s accounts of the night the incident took place. Thurston requested a self defense jury instruction based on his version of what had happened, which the trial court ultimately denied. …

Findings Of Fact Vs. Conclusions Of Law: How The Law Court Complicated The Case Of State V. Connor, Christopher S. Boulos

Maine Law Review

In State v. Connor, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, upheld a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Although the evidence presented in the suppression hearing seemed adequate to support the denial of the motion, the trial judge failed to clearly state his conclusions of law when denying the motion. However, the Law Court mistook the ambiguous conclusions of law as ambiguous findings of fact. Because the findings of fact were ambiguous in the court’s view, the majority and dissenting opinions spent the bulk of their energies discussing how the court should review …

Too Low A Price: Waiver And The Right To Counsel, Zachary L. Heiden

Maine Law Review

Easy waiver of the right to counsel is at the heart of the problem with inadequate funding for criminal defense counsel for the indigent: without freely granted waiver of the right to counsel, the crisis in funding for indigent defense would, in the short term, be greatly magnified. But, the ready acceptance of the waivability of the right to counsel devalues and diminishes the significance of the assistance of counsel in criminal matters.

Substance And Procedure In The Reform Of Criminal Sentencing, Franklin E. Zimring

Franklin E. Zimring

No abstract provided.

Williams V. State Dep’T Of Corr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 5, 2017), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether an offender must serve the minimum term of his or her sentence before any credits earned pursuant to the Credits statute apply to eligibility for parole. The Court disagreed with this argument and held that credits earned can factor-in for parole eligibility if the offender was sentenced under a state that requires a minimum term but does not explicitly mention parole eligibility.

Sweat V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (October 5, 2017), Shannon Zahm

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from prosecution of any original charges when the defendant accepts a plea agreement for a lesser-included offense and then fails to comply with all the terms of the agreement. The Court ultimately determined that a defendant waives his double jeopardy rights when he pleads guilty and fails to comply with the remaining terms of the agreement.

Johnson V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Court reverses a death sentence on direct appeal and remands for a new penalty hearing, there is no longer a final judgment that triggers the one-year period set forth in NRS 34.726(1) for filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Post-Trial Judicial Review Of Criminal Convictions: A Comparative Study Of The United States And Finland, Christopher M. Johnson

Maine Law Review

In 2011, two murder cases involving defendants who professed their innocence came to dramatic conclusions in appellate courts. In Finland in August 2011, the murder prosecution of Anneli Auer ended with her acquittal by an appellate court. In the United States in September 2011, the murder prosecution of Troy Davis ended in his execution in Georgia’s death chamber, despite exculpatory information developed after his trial about the reliability of some eyewitnesses identification evidence. The Finish case arose out if the December 2006 death if Jukka Lahti in Ulvila. His wife, Auer, called the police and claimed that an intruder entered …

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

Maine Law Review

Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …

Left Behind: How The Absence Of A Federal Vacatur Law Disadvantages Survivors Of Human Trafficking, Jessica Emerson, Alison Aminzadeh

All Faculty Scholarship

After a hamstring injury in October of 2004 forced her to surrender her athletic scholarship at St. John's University, Shamere McKenzie chose to spend her winter break working in order to save the money she needed to pay the remainder of her tuition. In January of 2005, Shamere met a man named Corey Davis, who expressed an interest in dating her. After getting to know him for several weeks, she eventually shared with him the challenges she was having earning the money she needed to continue her enrollment in college. Davis encouraged her to consider exotic dancing as a way …

The Miranda Custody Requirement And Juveniles, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

Concerns about the interrogation process and the ability of minors to navigate the criminal justice system often intersect. The impact of the age of juveniles can be seen in a variety of judicial decisions, most markedly those dealing with punishment. But judicial concern for juveniles goes well beyond sentencing. The interrogation process raises especially grave fears.

Since the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona disallowing compelled inculpatory statements by criminal suspects and defendants, there has been concern as to whether juveniles fully understand and appreciate their rights as articulated in Miranda and based in the Fifth …

“What Are My Chances On Appeal?” Comparing Full Appellate Decisions To Per Curiam Affirmances, Steven N. Gosney

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

When An Appeal Goes Wrong: A “Criminal Justice Nightmare”, David R. Dow, Jeffrey R. Newberry

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

When The United States Loses In A Criminal Case: The Government Appeal Process, Margaret D. Mcgaughey

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Terry V. Ohio And The (Un)Forgettable Frisk, Seth W. Stoughton

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.