Law Commons^™

Holding The Big House Accountable: The Sixth Circuit Concludes A Pretrial Detainee's Fourteenth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim Is A Wholly Objective Determination, Noah Speitel

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Put The Juvenile Back In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Democratizing Tthe Eighth Amendment, Erin E. Braatz

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

There's No Place Like Home: The Second Circuit Disturbs Fourth Amendment Protections In Torcivia V. Suffolk County, Jillian E. Sprong

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stacking The Deck: How The Eighth Circuit's Decision In United States V. Crandall Threatens The First Step Act's Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reforms, Anthony Passela

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hope Emerges From The Shadows: Riojas And Mccoy Offer New Tool For Exonorees, Jack Nelson

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Too Narrow, Too Bad: A Loophole The Adam Walsh Act Did Not Foresee In United States V. Icker, Sophie Davish

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Burden Of Time: Government Negligence In Pandemic Planning As A Catalyst For Reinvigorating The Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Right, Sara Hildebrand, Ashley Cordero

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Risk Assessment At Sentencing: Implications For Research And Policy, Steven L. Chanenson, Jordan M. Hyatt

Working Paper Series

At-sentencing risk assessments are predictions of an individual’s statistically likely future criminal conduct. These assessments can be derived from a number of methodologies ranging from unstructured clinical judgment to advanced statistical and actuarial processes. Some assessments consider only correlates of criminal recidivism, while others also take into account criminogenic needs. Assessments of this nature have long been used to classify defendants for treatment and supervision within prisons and on community supervision, but they have only relatively recently begun to be used – or considered for use – during the sentencing process. This shift in application has raised substantial practical and …

#Guilty? Sublet V. State And The Authentication Of Social Media Evidence In Criminal Proceedings, Elizabeth A. Flanagan

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pennsylvania Stacks The Deck Against Defendants In Commonwealth V. Alicia, Leaving False Confession Assessments To The Jury, Katherine Reamy

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Blystone V. Horn: The Third Circuit Guards Against Inadvertent Waiver Of The Right To Present Mitigating Evidence During A Capital Case, Dylan J. Scher

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Now I'M Guilty, Now I'M Not: The Automatic Right To Pre-Sentence Guilty Plea Withdrawals In Pennsylvania Since Commonwealth V. Forbes, Thomas P. Reilly

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Driving A Hard Bargain: Accepting Responsibility For A Significant Curtailment Of Federal Prosecutorial Discretion In United States V. Divens, Rory A. Eaton

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Wrongs And The ‘Criminal Law’S Business’: When Victims Won’T Share, Michelle Madden Dempsey

Working Paper Series

Amongst the many valuable contributions that Professor Antony Duff has made to criminal law theory is his account of what it means for a wrong to be public in character. In this chapter, I sketch an alternative way of thinking about criminalization, one which attempts to remain true to the important insights that illuminate Duff’s account, while providing (it is hoped) a more satisfying explanation of cases involving victims who reject the criminal law’s intervention.

"Introduction" (Chapter 1) Of Stories About Science In Law: Literary And Historical Images Of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate 2011), David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

This is the introductory chapter of Stories About Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate, 2011), explaining that the book presents examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law. Challenging the view that law and science are completely different, I focus on stories that explore the relationship between law and science, and identify cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. In contrast to other studies on the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, the book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects-- law and …

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys—and this is what the proponents of a duty to vet …

What Is Due To Others: Speaking And Signifying Subject(S) Of Rape Law, Penelope J. Pether

Working Paper Series

Australian journalist Paul Sheehan's representation of the alleged and convicted immigrant Muslim/Arab rapists he demonises in 'Girls Like You', like his representation of the rape survivors in that text, has much to tell us about the law's production of rape law's speaking and signifying subjects, “real rape” victims and survivors, false accusers and perpetrators. This article uses a variety of texts, including 'Girls Like You', recent Australian rape law jurisprudence and legislative reform, texts involving two controversial recent US rape cases — one from Maryland and one from Nebraska — and a recent UK study on attrition in rape prosecutions, …

Conflicts Of Interest In Criminal Cases: Should The Prosecution Have A Duty To Disclose?, Anne Poulin

Working Paper Series

This article addresses two types of conflicts of interests that arise in criminal cases: 1) when defense counsel has an employment relation to the prosecutor’s office, and 2) when defense counsel faces criminal investigation or charges. Both these situations threaten both the defendant’s representation and the actual as well as apparent fairness of the proceeding. Yet, only in extreme cases are these conflicts likely to result in a reversal of the defendant’s conviction. As a result, protection of the defendant and the fairness of the process often depends on early intervention, which allows the court to advise the defendant of …

Amendment 706 To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Not All It Was Cracked Up To Be, Brian Crowell

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Love And Forgiveness: A Holy Alliance?, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

Forgiving is not pardoning, excusing, condoning, forgetting, or reconciling, nor is forgiving just about a change in emotions on the part of a victim. This paper pursues a virtue-theoretic account of the human person in the context of the theology of Thomas Aquinas, arguing that human forgiveness is the form love takes by an offended toward her offender. The paper argues, first, for the priority of the offended person's self-love and, second, for such self-love's extension into love of the offender as another self. The paper explores in depth the challenges of seeing one's enemy as "another self." Forgiving, the …

``No One Does That Anymore": On Tushnet, Constitutions, And Others, Penelope J. Pether

Working Paper Series

In this contribution to the Quinnipiac Law Review’s annual symposium edition, this year devoted to the work of Mark Tushnet, I read his antijuridification scholarship “against the grain,” concluding both that Tushnet’s later scholarship is neo-Realist rather than critical in its orientation, and that both his early scholarship on slavery and his post-9/11 constitutional work reveal an ambivalence about the claim that we learn from history to circumscribe our excesses, which anchors his popular constitutionalist rhetoric.

The likeness of Tushnet’s scholarship to the work of the Realists lies in this: while the Realists’ search for a science that would satisfy …

Presidential Authority And The War On Terror, Joseph W. Dellapenna

Working Paper Series

Immediately after the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush claimed, among other powers, the power to launch preemptive wars on his own authority; the power to disregard the laws of war pertaining to occupied lands; the power to define the status and treatment of persons detained as “enemy combatants” in the war on terror; and the power to authorize the National Security Agency to undertake electronic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. With the exception of the power to launch a preemptive war on his own authority (for which he …

Innocent Until Proven (Hypothetically) Guilty: The Third Circuit Condones The Use Of Guilt-Assuming Hypotheticals In United States V. Kellogg, Eric M. Kubilus

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Avoiding The Woodshed: The Third Circuit Examines Prosecutorial Misconduct In Closing Argument In United States V. Wood, Michael Lyon

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is A Business Crime?, Richard A. Booth

Working Paper Series

Criminal prosecution has been used with increasing frequency recently in connection with a variety of business failures and other financial offenses. Indeed, it appears that there are few such offenses that cannot be prosecuted criminally even though they also give rise to civil remedies. While some such offenses seem to be quite serious frauds, others seem to be as minor as getting the accounting rules wrong. Thus, the question addressed in this essay is how to define a business crime and what should be the proper role of criminal prosecution in connection with business offenses. I start with the proposition …

Credibility: A Fair Subject For Expert Testimony?, Anne Poulin

Working Paper Series

This article explores the ways in which experts can assist the jury to assess the credibility of other witnesses and suggests analytical approaches to such expert testimony. The article argues that the courts should be more receptive to expert testimony bearing on witness credibility and engage in a more nuanced consideration of the role played by proffered expert testimony and how the role of the evidence affects its admissibility. Doing so should lead the courts to embrace the promise of the modern rules of evidence and permit experts to assist juries as they assess credibility.

He Said, She Said: Why Pennsylvania Should Adopt Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jessica D. Khan

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing In The Post-Blakely Era, Douglas A. Berman, Steven L. Chanenson

Working Paper Series

Soon after the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington declared certain judicial fact-finding within a state sentencing guideline system unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor described the Court’s decision as a “Number 10 earthquake.” But two years after the Blakely ruling, the case’s broader impact and meaning for state criminal justice systems around the country has been largely overshadowed by developments in the federal sentencing system. Nevertheless, this is an exciting time for state sentencing. By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. Cunningham, this past spring, the Supreme Court brings state issues to the national stage once more.

State …

The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding

Working Paper Series

Brain-damaged defendants are seen everyday in American courtrooms, and in many cases, their criminal behavior appears to be the product of extremely poor judgment and self-control. Some have a disorder in the frontal lobes, the area of the brain responsible for judgment and impulse control. Yet because defendants suffering from frontal lobe dysfunction usually understand the difference between right and wrong, they are unable to avail themselves of the only insanity defense available in many states, a defense based on the narrow McNaghten test. “Irresistible impulse” (or “control”) tests, on the other hand, provide an insanity defense to those who …