Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mitigation Reports In Capital Cases: Legal And Ethical Issues, Russell Stetler, W. Bradley Wendel
Mitigation Reports In Capital Cases: Legal And Ethical Issues, Russell Stetler, W. Bradley Wendel
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
The mitigation investigation that is essential in every capital case requires a multidisciplinary team. The duty to conduct this investigation is clearly established federal law, as well as an ethical obligation of counsel. The mitigation evidence that is uncovered is of vital importance to the rights of the individual accused of a capital offense, but also to reliable outcomes since all decisionmakers—including prosecutors, jurors, and judges—need the most complete and accurate picture of the person facing the punishment of last resort. This Article discusses some of the unique legal and ethical issues affecting the documentation of this investigation. The Authors …
No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin
No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin
Seattle University Law Review
In the article A Modest Proposal: The Federal Government Should Use Firing Squads to Execute Federal Death Row Inmates, Stephanie Moran argues that the firing squad is the only execution method that meets the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In order to make her case, Moran unjustifiably overstates the negative aspects of lethal injection while understating the negative aspects of firing squads. The entire piece is predicated upon assumptions that are not only unsupported by the evidence but often directly refuted by the evidence. This Essay critically analyzes Moran’s claims regarding the alleged advantages of the firing squad over …
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky
Seattle University Law Review
This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.
We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …