Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
James W. Ellis
No abstract provided.
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive
The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby
The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin
Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington
Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus
Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Victim Harm, Retributivism And Capital Punishment: A Philosophy Critique Of Payne V. Tennessee , R. P. Peerenboom
Victim Harm, Retributivism And Capital Punishment: A Philosophy Critique Of Payne V. Tennessee , R. P. Peerenboom
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Silent At Sentencing: Waiver Doctrine And A Capital Defendant's Right To Present Mitigating Evidence After Schriro V. Landrigan, Dale E. Ho
Dale E Ho
The consideration of mitigating evidence—evidence that weighs against the imposition of the death penalty in a capital defendant’s individual case—has been deemed a “constitutionally indispensable” feature of a valid capital sentencing scheme. And yet, Jeffrey Landrigan, like many capital defendants, was sentenced to death without the consideration of any mitigating evidence whatsoever. Landrigan’s trial counsel failed to uncover substantial evidence of Landrigan’s history of severe physical and sexual abuse as a child, and of the possible biological effects of his mother’s alcohol and drug abuse. Every member of the Ninth Circuit en banc panel considering his case deemed his counsel’s …
The Impact Of Information Overload On The Capital Jury's Ability To Assess Aggravating And Mitigating Factors, Katie Morgan, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer
The Impact Of Information Overload On The Capital Jury's Ability To Assess Aggravating And Mitigating Factors, Katie Morgan, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Since 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court has required that death penalty regimes meet two requirements. First, in order to minimize arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty, states must reserve capital punishment to a narrow class of offenders, those most deserving of death. States have done so by requiring that the prosecution prove at least one aggravating factor, i.e., some circumstance that separates the capital defendant on trial from those ineligible to be executed. Second, states must allow for individualization in sentencing by permitting the defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in order to persuade the jury that he is …