Law Commons^™

A Comparative Examination Of Police Interrogation Of Criminal Suspects In Australia, Canada, England And Wales, New Zealand, And The United States, Carol A. Brook, Bruno Fiannaca, David Harvey, Paul Marcus, Renee Pomerance, Paul Roberts

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The interrogation process is central to the investigation and resolution of criminal matters throughout the world. It is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of comparative criminal procedure to study and appreciate the different approaches to the interrogation process in different nations. This Article developed through a series of conversations between six international criminal justice professionals— practicing attorneys, scholars, and judges—regarding the interrogation practices and rules in their respective countries. Providing a comparative look at this important area, this Article examines the applicable practices and procedures in the common law nations of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the …

"Buy One Get One Free": How Reindictment Policies Permit Excessive Searches, Katie Carroll

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government decides to stop prosecuting a case, it files a nolle prosequi with the court. Nolle prosequis are slightly different from motions to dismiss. Unlike a motion to dismiss with prejudice, a prosecutor may later reindict a defendant with the same crime without a double jeopardy issue arising after dropping the same case through nolle prosequi. Furthermore, many states do not require judicial approval for a nolle prosequi. Therefore, prosecutors can gain a number of advantages by using nolle prosequi, like avoiding speedy trial deadlines or having a second chance to win important evidentiary hearings.

The advantages of …

Touch Dna And Chemical Analysis Of Skin Trace Evidence: Protecting Privacy While Advancing Investigations, Mary Graw Leary

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article addresses touch DNA, chemical analysis of skin traces, and the implications for crime scene investigation, arguing that changes in how trace evidence is analyzed require alterations in the law’s approach to its use. Part I discusses the history of traditional DNA analysis. Part II examines the emergence of touch DNA and related technologies and how they differ from traditional DNA analysis. Part III outlines the specific risks created by the collection and storing of results under the current outdated jurisprudence. Part IV focuses on specific risks to suspects and victims of crime. Part V proposes a legal framework …

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Information Overload On The Capital Jury's Ability To Assess Aggravating And Mitigating Factors, Katie Morgan, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Since 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court has required that death penalty regimes meet two requirements. First, in order to minimize arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty, states must reserve capital punishment to a narrow class of offenders, those most deserving of death. States have done so by requiring that the prosecution prove at least one aggravating factor, i.e., some circumstance that separates the capital defendant on trial from those ineligible to be executed. Second, states must allow for individualization in sentencing by permitting the defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in order to persuade the jury that he is …

Is Silence Sacred? The Vulnerability Of Griffin V. California In A Terrorist World, Lissa Griffin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Here Is The Church, Now Who Owns The Steeple? A Revised Approach To Church Property Disputes, Adam E. Lyons

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article reviews two approaches to the implementation of neutral principles of law--the constitutionally permissible method of resolving property disputes between bodies in a religious hierarchy. Though both approaches may be valid, the formal title approach, as implemented by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Presbytery of Beaver- Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, leads to problems in application that have been rectified by that court's more recent decision in In re Church of St. James the Less. It is the contention of this Article that future courts and practitioners facing church property disputes can draw guidance from the St. James decision …

Confrontation, Equity, And The Misnamed Exception For "Forfeiture" By Wrongdoing, James F. Flanagan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Old Chief, Crowder, And Trials By Stipulation, David Robinson Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Robinson argues that the meaning of "unfair prejudice" and the scope of trial judges' discretion in employing Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is still uncertain following the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Old Chief and its vacation and remand of United States v. Crowder and United States v. Davis. Robinson evaluates the evidentiary implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions by discussing each case and analyzing the implications of the three cases read together.

Professor Robinson examines the possible effects of stipulations and admissions on the Rule 403 balancing test …

Prior Bad Acts And Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 And 414, Jason L. Mccandless

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This note presents a Due Process analysis of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. These rules, which took effect in July 1995, overturn the exclusionary requirements of Rule 404 exclusively in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation. The new rules allow similar crimes to serve as evidence for purposes other than those stated in Rule 404(b). Now, federal prosecutors may offer evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged sexual misconduct to demonstrate that the defendant committed the sex offense for which he currently is being charged. Rules 413 and 414 reevaluate the historic concern that evidence of prior acts …

Accomplices' Confessions And The Confrontation Clause, Welsh S. White

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The admissibility of an accomplice's confession against a criminal defendant has long been a subject of concern in Anglo-American law. The Supreme Court has held that accomplices' confessions to the police are presumptively unreliable under the Confrontation Clause, without clearly expressing what facts would lend to the reliability of such statements. However, Professor White argues that in Williamson v. United States, the Court adopted an empirical framework that will make such confessions more likely to be admissible against an accused.

In this Article, Professor White first explores the traditional skepticism towards accomplices' confessions and explains the nature of the current …