Law Commons^™

Bargaining Without The Blindfold: Adapting Criminal Discovery Practice To A Plea-Based System, Alex Karambelas

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In 2015, Terrell Gills was arrested on charges related to a Dunkin’ Donuts robbery in Queens, based on a partial DNA match. His attorney’s investigation yielded news articles about two other Dunkin’ Donuts robberies in the same area, which took place in the same week. In the eighteen months following his arraignment, Mr. Gills was incarcerated at Rikers Island because he was unable to afford his $10,000 bail. During that period, Mr. Gills’s attorney made repeated requests for information related to the other two robberies. It was not until four days before trial that the prosecution disclosed reports from …

Discovering Racial Discrimination By The Police, Alison Siegler, William Admussen

Northwestern University Law Review

For decades, it was virtually impossible for a criminal defendant to challenge racial discrimination by the police or prosecutors. This was because in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), the Supreme Court set an insurmountable standard for obtaining discovery in support of a selective prosecution claim. Equating the roles of prosecutors and law enforcement officers, lower courts applied this same standard to claims alleging racial discrimination by the police. This high standard led courts to deny discovery and stifle potentially meritorious claims. Recently, criminal defendants have initiated a wave of challenges to “fake stash house” operations, in which …

He Said, She Said: Plausible Pleadings For Reverse Title Ix Claims, James Bunster

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Did Voir Dire And Discovery Restrictions Justify The Grant Of A New Sentencing Hearing To The Man Convicted Of The Boston Marathon Bombing?, Alan Raphael, Lindsay Hill

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Exposing Police Misconduct In Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings, Anjelica Hendricks

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a unique argument: police misconduct records should be accessible and applicable for pre-trial criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, the existing narrative on the value of police misconduct records is narrow because it exclusively considers how these records can be used to impeach officer credibility at trial. This focus is limiting for several reasons. First, it addresses too few defendants, since fewer than 3% of criminal cases make it to trial. Second, it overlooks misconduct records not directly addressing credibility—such as records demonstrating paperwork deficiencies, failures to appear in court, and “mistakes” that upon examination are patterns of abuse. Finally, …