Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (97)
- Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (33)
- Selected Works (13)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (10)
- University of Colorado Law School (7)
-
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (7)
- Pepperdine University (7)
- University of Richmond (6)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (5)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (5)
- University of Missouri School of Law (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Cornell University Law School (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (3)
- Southern Methodist University (3)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- Georgia State University College of Law (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (2)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (2)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (2)
- Washington University in St. Louis (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (2)
- SelectedWorks (2)
- Fordham Law School (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (1)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- BLR (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (55)
- Touro Law Review (32)
- Michigan Law Review (30)
- Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law (10)
- Faculty Scholarship (8)
-
- Pepperdine Law Review (7)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (6)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (6)
- Law Faculty Publications (5)
- Faculty Publications (4)
- Scholarly Works (4)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (4)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (3)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (3)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Rebecca Sharpless (2)
- W. Bradley Wendel (2)
- Florida State University Law Review (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (2)
- Reviews (2)
- Washington and Lee Law Review Online (2)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2)
- Catholic University Law Review (2)
- Georgia State University Law Review (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Akron Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 61 - 90 of 252
Full-Text Articles in Law
Road To Booker And Beyond: Constitutional Limits On Sentence Enhancements, John Gleeson
Road To Booker And Beyond: Constitutional Limits On Sentence Enhancements, John Gleeson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Butler, Courtney Weinberger
Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Butler, Courtney Weinberger
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Miller, Courtney Weinberger
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Miller, Courtney Weinberger
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Chapman, Kerri Grzymala
Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Chapman, Kerri Grzymala
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Ramirez, Nicole Compas
Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Ramirez, Nicole Compas
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Not So Fast: I Have Been Deprived Of My Right To Counsel, Elias Arroyo
Not So Fast: I Have Been Deprived Of My Right To Counsel, Elias Arroyo
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Is Criminal Restitution?, Cortney E. Lollar
What Is Criminal Restitution?, Cortney E. Lollar
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
A new form of restitution has become a core aspect of criminal punishment. Courts now order defendants to compensate victims for an increasingly broad category of losses, including emotional and psychological losses and losses for which the defendant was not found guilty. Criminal restitution therefore moves far beyond its traditional purpose of disgorging a defendant's ill-gotten gains. Instead, restitution has become a mechanism of imposing additional punishment. Courts, however, have failed to recognize the punitive nature of restitution and thus enter restitution orders without regard to the constitutional protections that normally attach to criminal proceedings. This Article deploys a ...
Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose
Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose
Michigan Law Review
Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial at both the state and federal levels. Attempts to increase funding for indigent defense by bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims have been thwarted by high procedural and substantive hurdles, and consequently these attempts have failed to bring significant change. This Note argues that, because ineffective assistance of counsel litigation is most likely a dead end for system-wide reform, indigent defenders should challenge the constitutionality of underfunding based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial. Existing speedy trial jurisprudence suggests that the overworking and furloughing of ...
Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Before Powell V. Alabama: Lessons From History For The Future Of The Right To Counsel, Sara Mayeux
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
The doctrinal literature on ineffective assistance of counsel typically begins with the 1932 Supreme Court case of Powell v. Alabama. This symposium contribution goes back farther, locating the IAC doctrine’s origins in a series of state cases from the 1880s through the 1920s. At common law, the traditional agency rule held that counsel incompetence was never grounds for a new trial. Between the 1880s and the 1920s, state appellate judges chipped away at that rule, developing a more flexible doctrine that allowed appellate courts to reverse criminal convictions in cases where, because of egregious attorney ineptitude, there was reason ...
Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel
Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
Gideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write ...
Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman
Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski
Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang
Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
County Court, Nassau County, People V. Osbourne, Diane Matero
County Court, Nassau County, People V. Osbourne, Diane Matero
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Ramchair, Joseph Maehr
Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Ramchair, Joseph Maehr
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Making The Right Call For Confrontation At Felony Sentencing, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Felony sentencing courts have discretion to increase punishment based on un-cross-examined testimonial statements about several categories of uncharged, dismissed, or otherwise unproven criminal conduct. Denying defendants an opportunity to cross-examine these categories of sentencing evidence undermines a core principle of natural law as adopted in the Sixth Amendment: those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. This Article contributes to the scholarship surrounding confrontation rights at felony sentencing by cautioning against continued adherence to the most historic Supreme Court case on this issue, Williams v. New York. This Article does so for reasons beyond the unacknowledged ...
One Less Juror: A Defendant's Right To Juror Substitution, Luzan Moore
One Less Juror: A Defendant's Right To Juror Substitution, Luzan Moore
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Testimonial Is As Testimonial Does, Ben L. Trachtenberg
Testimonial Is As Testimonial Does, Ben L. Trachtenberg
Faculty Publications
In December 2012, the Florida Law Review published Ben Trachtenberg’s article “Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause,” 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1669 (2012). Using the example of hearsay admitted in criminal prosecutions related to the Holy Land Foundation, the article argued that under Crawford v. Washington, courts had begun admitting unreliable hearsay against criminal defendants that previously would have been barred under Ohio v. Roberts, the Confrontation Clause case upended by Crawford.
Richard D. Friedman, the Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, responded in “The ...
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circumstances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inherently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense. In some cases, a defendant’s pretrial conditions become so ...
Observers As Participants: Letting The Public Monitor The Criminal Justice Bureaucracy, Stephanos Bibas
Observers As Participants: Letting The Public Monitor The Criminal Justice Bureaucracy, Stephanos Bibas
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
No abstract provided.
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I ...
Gideon V. Wainwright A Half Century Later, Yale Kamisar
Gideon V. Wainwright A Half Century Later, Yale Kamisar
Reviews
When he was nearing the end of his distinguished career, one of my former law professors observed that a dramatic story of a specific case "has the same advantages that a play or a novel has over a general discussion of ethics or political theory." Ms. Houppert illustrates this point in her very first chapter.
The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas
The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
No abstract provided.
Civil Rights In Crisis: The Racial Impact Of The Denial Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Richard Klein
Civil Rights In Crisis: The Racial Impact Of The Denial Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
Whereas in 2013 there had been widespread celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, much has been written in subsequent years about the unhappy state of the quality of counsel provided to indigents. But it is not just defense counsel who fail to comply with all that we hope and expect would be done by those who are part of our criminal courts; prosecutorial misconduct, if not actually increasing, is becoming more visible. The judiciary chooses to focus on the rapid processing of cases, often ignoring the rights of those being prosecuted ...
Reasonable Rage: The Problem With Stereotypes In Provocation Cases, Nicole A.K. Matlock
Reasonable Rage: The Problem With Stereotypes In Provocation Cases, Nicole A.K. Matlock
Washington University Jurisprudence Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
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 ...
Presumed Guilty, Terrence Cain
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 ...
Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein
Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein
Michigan Law Review
A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held ...
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part ...