Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fourth Amendment (5)
- Wrongful convictions (5)
- Exclusionary rule (4)
- John Roberts (4)
- Exoneration (3)
-
- Actual innocence (2)
- Juries (2)
- Law enforcement (2)
- Reasonable doubt (2)
- Virginia (2)
- Virginia v. Moore (2)
- 911 calls (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Andrew Fastow (1)
- Arthur Andersen LLP (1)
- Bail (1)
- Bail reform (1)
- Best interest of the child (1)
- British and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (1)
- California (1)
- Canada (1)
- Children (1)
- Clear and convincing evidence (1)
- Coercion (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Contempt (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously, Arnold H. Lowey
Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously, Arnold H. Lowey
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In recent years, we have discovered a spate of factually innocent people who have been convicted. In this article, Professor Loewy contends that the failure of juries to take reasonable doubt seriously contributes to this phenomenon. Professor Loewy via an illustrative fictitious case explains that juries might be reluctant to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt because of their concern about putting dangerous criminals back on the street. He then asks whether we really want juries to take reasonable doubt seriously. Concluding that we do, he examines how we can do that. Loewy concludes that the best …
Deadly Dilemmas Ii: Bail And Crime, Larry Laudan, Ronald J. Allen
Deadly Dilemmas Ii: Bail And Crime, Larry Laudan, Ronald J. Allen
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This is another in a series of papers examining the interaction between the implications of the deadly dilemma of governing that virtually all governmental action involves unavoidable conflict between equally laudatory goals and the conventional way of thinking about social errors. Typically the pursuit of any particular goal has as its consequence precisely the kind of harm that is desired to be avoided. For example, serious felons are sent to prison in part to protect innocent parties from their future predations, but those same felons often prey upon fellow prisoners, including murder. Moreover, felonies committed in prison only begin the …
The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …
Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak
Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …
Innocence, Evidence, And The Courts, Morgan Cloud
Innocence, Evidence, And The Courts, Morgan Cloud
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Roberts Court's Failed Innocence Project, Janet C. Hoeffel
The Roberts Court's Failed Innocence Project, Janet C. Hoeffel
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In this article, Professor Hoeffel discusses the Roberts Court's obvious struggle with its actual innocence jurisprudence. It is a struggle that was only theoretical in the days before DNA exonerations. While the Court had two opportunities to clarify the role of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, it has declined to do so. In House v. Bell, the Court ratcheted up the standard of proof for freestanding constitutional claims of innocence to a level no petitioner could understand, much less meet. Then, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, the Court held that …
White Collar Innocence: Irrelevant In The High Stakes Risk Game, Ellen S. Podgor
White Collar Innocence: Irrelevant In The High Stakes Risk Game, Ellen S. Podgor
Chicago-Kent Law Review
When one thinks of "wrongful convictions and reliability in the criminal justice process" one often thinks of street crime convictions of defendants later proven innocent through DNA or other scientific evidence. But this essay presents a new dimension to this issue—the white collar crime context. Three stories are considered here: Arthur Andersen LLP, Jamie Ois, and Jeffrey Skilling—all of whom proceeded to trial after criminal charges were brought against them. These three are contrasted with KPMG, Gene Foster, and Andrew Fastow, all of whom secured plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements with reduced sentences and finite results. The concern here …
The Role Of Innocence Commissions: Error Discovery, Systemic Reform Or Both?, Kent Roach
The Role Of Innocence Commissions: Error Discovery, Systemic Reform Or Both?, Kent Roach
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This article examines the role of innocence commissions as emerging criminal justice institutions. It draws a distinction between commissions devoted to the correction of errors in individual cases and commissions which make systemic reform recommendations in an effort to prevent wrongful convictions in future cases. The British and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission are examined as examples of the former type of commission while Canadian public inquiries and commissions in Illinois, California and Virginia are examined as examples of the latter type of commission. Innocence commissions have had difficulties combining error correction and …
Second Thoughts On Damages For Wrongful Convictions, Lawrence Rosenthal
Second Thoughts On Damages For Wrongful Convictions, Lawrence Rosenthal
Chicago-Kent Law Review
After the DNA-inspired wave of exonerations of recent years, there has been widespread support for expanding the damages remedies available to those who have been wrongfully accused or convicted. In this article, Professor Rosenthal argues that the case for providing such compensation is deeply problematic, whether advanced in terms of no-fault or fault-based liability. Although a regime of strict liability is sometimes thought justifiable as a means of creating an economic incentive to scale back such liability-producing conduct to optimal levels, this rationale has little application to the criminal justice system. Instead, a regime of strict liability would operate as …
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Intentional wrongful convictions in cases involving child offenders may occur when judges have insufficient evidence proving any crime by the child but feel a strong need for the courts to intervene in the child's life and behavior. They believe that the negative factors attached to such a status are worth suffering if the child gains entry into a desired state program. This is wrongfully convicting the child "for the child's own good." Juvenile court judges too often receive knowledge of the child's background and previous record prior to any trial or hearing in order to devise the best result for …
Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver
Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …
The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy
The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Since John Roberts Jr. became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there has been a measurable decline in the number of cases addressing Fourth Amendment questions. This article examines the reasons for that decline and predicts the substantial elimination of Fourth Amendment litigation in the Roberts Court. The prediction is based on several premises, including the lack of interest of the Justices on the Court concerning search and seizures principles and two significant recent cases, Pearson v. Callahan and United States v. Herring, which presage a significant decline in the number of lower court cases addressing the merits of …
Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby
Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.
This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …
Fourth Amendment Federalism And The Silencing Of The American Poor, Andrew E. Taslitz
Fourth Amendment Federalism And The Silencing Of The American Poor, Andrew E. Taslitz
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Virginia v. Moore, police officers searched Moore incident to an arrest for a minor traffic infraction for which Virginia statutory law in fact prohibited arrest. The officers found cocaine on Moore's person, arresting him for that crime too. The United States Supreme Court ultimately found that the arrest for the traffic infraction and the subsequent search were valid under the federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Central to the Court's reasoning was its insistence that the state statute was irrelevant. Any contrary conclusion, explained the Court, would wrongly make the Fourth Amendment's meaning vary from place to place. Professor Taslitz …
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The institutionalist branch of "Law and Courts" studies how judges incorporate institutional constraints into their decision-making processes. Congressional constraints on judicial review, as the literature currently stands, fall into one of two general classes: overrides and Court-curbing measures. This taxonomy, however, is incomplete. Neither overrides nor curbing measures are needed to explain the not uncommon situation where a policy-oriented Justice deviates from a preferred vote based on the belief that such a vote will prompt Congress to alter an "insulated base rule" in a way that disrupts the Justice's larger policy agenda. An "insulated base rule" is a Congressional policy …