Law Commons^™

Unwell: Indiana V. Edwards And The Plight Of Mentally Ill Pro Se Defendants, John Blume, Morgan Clark

John H. Blume

An Empirical Look At Atkins V. Virginia And Its Application In Capital Cases, John Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher Seeds

John H. Blume

In Atkins vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared that evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment prohibit the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disability (formerly, "mental retardation"). Both supporters and opponents of the categorical exemption, however, have criticized the Atkins opinion. The Atkins dissent, for example, urged that the decision would open the gates of litigation to a flood of frivolous claims. Another prominent criticism, heard from those more supportive of the Court's ruling, has been that the language the Court used communicating that states must "generally conform" to the clinical definitions of mental retardation is ambiguous enough …

Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part One, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

This article addresses the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements.

Victim Gender And The Death Penalty, Caisa Royer, Amelia Hritz, Valerie Hans, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin Wells, John Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson

John H. Blume

Previous research suggests that cases involving female victims are more likely to result in death sentences. The current study examines possible reasons for this relationship using capital punishment data from the state of Delaware. Death was sought much more for murders of either male or female white victims compared to murders of black male victims. Analyzing capital sentencing hearings in Delaware from 1977-2007 decided by judges or juries, we found that both characteristics of the victims and characteristics of the murders differentiated male and female victim cases. The presence of sexual victimization, the method of killing, the relationship between the …

"I Object" Is Not Enough: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Avoiding Procedural Default, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

No abstract provided.

Judicial Politics, Death Penalty Appeals, And Case Selection: An Empirical Study, John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg

John H. Blume

Several studies try to explain case outcomes based on the politics of judicial selection methods. Scholars usually hypothesize that judges selected by partisan popular elections are subject to greater political pressure in deciding cases than are other judges. No class of cases seems more amenable to such analysis than death penalty cases. No study, however, accounts both for judicial politics and case selection, the process through which cases are selected for death penalty litigation. Yet, the case selection process cannot be ignored because it yields a set of cases for adjudication that is far from a random selection of cases. …

Killing The Non-Willing: Atkins, The Volitionally Incapacitated, And The Death Penalty, John Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson

John H. Blume

Jamie Wilson, nineteen years old and severely mentally ill, walked into a school cafeteria and started shooting. Two children died, and Jamie was charged with two counts of capital murder. Because he admitted his guilt, the only issue at his trial was the appropriate punishment. The trial judge assigned to his case, after hearing expert testimony on his mental state, found that mental illness rendered Jamie unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the crime—not impaired by his mental illness in his ability to control his behavior, but unable to control his behavior. …

Crime Labs And Prison Guards: A Comment On Melendez-Diaz And Its Potential Impact On Capital Sentencing Proceedings, John Blume, Emily Paavola

John H. Blume

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Four years ago, in Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that this right bars the admission of testimonial hearsay statements against criminal defendants, regardless of whether or not the statements fall within an evidentiary hearsay exception. It was a decision that other courts later described as a "bombshell," a "renaissance," and "a newly shaped lens" through which to view the Confrontation Clause. The case generated an extensive amount of discussion among legal commentators. Since its …

Fcc V. Fox Television Moot Court, Robert Barnes, Joan Biskupic, John Blume, Erwin Chemerinsky, Thomas Goldstein, Linda Greenhouse, John Mcginnis, David Savage, Paul Smith, William Van Alstyne, Timothy Zick

John H. Blume

The Bill of Rights Institute and William and Mary Law School hosted a moot court on the FCC v. Fox Television indecency case. The case rests on the FCC’s ban against the use of curse words in television broadcasts Erwin Chermerinsky and Thomas Goldstein argued the case before Joan Biskupic, Robert Barnes, John Blume, Linda Greenhouse, John McGinnis, David Savage, Paul Smith, William Van Alstyne, and Timothy Zick. After the oral argument the judgment was shown. Then the panelists responded to questions from members of the audience. This program contains language some may find offensive.