Law Commons^™

Saving The Insanity Defense: Insight Into Personality Disorders And The Necessary Elements Of The Test, Rachel Tollefsrud

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inefficient Mercy: The Procedural, Constitutional, And Prudential Issues That Plague Minnesota's Pardoning Process, Maddie Post

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mens Rea In Minnesota And The Model Penal Code, Ted Sampsell-Jones

Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward

When Minnesota engaged in the great reform and recodification effort that led to the Criminal Code of 1963, it was part of a nationwide reform movement. That movement was spurred in large part by the American Law Institute and its Model Penal Code. The Minnesota drafters were influenced by the MPC, and at least in some areas, adopted MPC recommendations.

The MPC’s most significant innovation was in the law of mens rea—the body of law concerning the mental state or “guilty mind” necessary for criminal liability. The MPC drafters recognized that the common law of mens rea was fundamentally incoherent …

Re-Thinking Minnesota's Criminal Justice Response To Sexual Violence Using A Prevention Lens, Caroline Palmer, Bradley Prowant

Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward

Sexual violence is one of the most difficult issues we face in the human condition. Even with the many strides that have occurred in recent years to support a victim-centered response, survivors who seek help from the legal, medical and mental health systems, among others still “may face disbelief, blame, and refusals of help instead of assistance.” It is a problem that demands a response from all levels of society. And yet this response is lacking.

The key question we as a society confront is what changes will satisfactorily balance justice for victims with offender accountability, attempts at rehabilitation through …

Escape From The Twilight Zone: Minnesota’S Definitions Of “Substantial Bodily Harm” And “Great Bodily Harm” Leave Too Much Room For Injustice, And They Can Be Improved, Joshua Larson

Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward

The article first will discuss the current assault-statute regime in Minnesota and its origin and development. Then, the article will identify appellate decisions that have examined the concepts of bodily harm, substantial bodily harm, and great bodily harm. Following this, the article will describe the Wisconsin assault-statute regime. Lastly, the article will propose how Minnesota should improve.

Crawford In Minnesota: The First Five Years, Ted Sampsell-Jones

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

Spreigl Evidence: Still Searching For A Principled Rule, Ted Sampsell-Jones

Faculty Scholarship

This article first examines how Minnesota’s character evidence doctrine developed, with a particular focus on the historical confusion regarding the propriety of the propensity inference. It then examines current case law and argues that Minnesota’s current Spreigl doctrine routinely allows propensity evidence. It finally proposes a choice between abandoning the current Spreigl doctrine and repealing the character rule itself. The author takes no position on which alternative should be chosen, but either is better than the status quo. The current doctrine in Minnesota is a Potemkin village.

The Moussaoui Case: The Mess From Minnesota, Afsheen John Radsan

William Mitchell Law Review

This article, after giving a brief history of the Moussaoui case, identifies the main paradoxes or problems of continuing to deal with him in the criminal system. By no stretch of the imagination does this article provide an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the Moussaoui case. Each problem, by itself, could be the subject of a separate law review article. This article suggests that Moussaoui, rather than Yaser Esam Hamdi, or Jose Padilla, or the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, could have served as the true test for determining the minimum process that the American Constitutional system owes to an individual …

Sex Offender Commitments: Debunking The Official Narrative And Revealing The Rules-In-Use, Eric S. Janus

Faculty Scholarship

Sex offender commitment laws present courts with a difficult choice: either allow creative efforts to prevent sexual violence or enforce traditional constitutional safeguards constraining the power of the state to deprive citizens of their Iiberty. Three state supreme courts have deflected this hard choice while upholding sex offender commitment schemes. As part of their ""official narrative"" that legitimizes sex offender commitments, the courts claim that society can have prevention and still maintain the primacy of the criminal justice system. This narrative neutralizes the conflict in values by claiming that sex offender commitments are just like mental illness commitments, a small, …

Constitutional Constraints On Proving "Whodunnit?", John O. Sonsteng

Faculty Scholarship

American system places these constraints on the age old criminal law question: “WHODUNIT?” This article explores these issues.

The Privilege Against Compelled Self-Incrimination, John O. Sonsteng

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the fifth amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, as compared to principles in confession law. These two areas of law are not the same. In 1966, however, the Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona announced that many of the principles involved in confession law also implicated the fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The popular impact of Miranda has resulted in the equating of confession law with the fifth amendment privilege. This article examines the history of the fifth amendment privilege, its application, and how it can be distinguished from other, related areas of law.

Fourth Amendment Applicability, John O. Sonsteng

Faculty Scholarship

A large percentage of fourth amendment litigation involves the issues of applicability to place, waiver/consent, and the reasonable expectation of privacy. Not one of these issues, however, has the remotest thing to do with the ultimate substance of the fourth amendment protection itself. They deal exclusively with the threshold question of whether the fourth amendment is even involved. Only if it is, do the actual requirements of the fourth amendment become material. This article examines the applicability of the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures with respect to these common issues.