Law Commons^™

Weighing Pain: How The Harm Of Immigration Detention Must Be Factored In Custody Decisions, Linus Chan

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The United States is currently in the midst of a “third wave of potential pretrial detention reform.” And while certain reforms are gaining traction in an effort to reduce pretrial criminal detention, efforts to do the same for immigration detention have lagged. Reformers and abolitionists make the case that immigration detention needs to be either restricted or eliminated entirely. Nonetheless, the number of people held in detention for immigration purposes rises year after year. Not only do the numbers of people in immigration detention grow, but the systems in place have grown less concerned with the harsh consequences of detention …

Judicial Power To Regulate Plea Bargaining, Darryl K. Brown

William & Mary Law Review

Plea bargaining in the United States is in critical respects unregulated, and a key reason is the marginal role to which judges have been relegated. In the wake of Santobello v. New York (1971), lower courts crafted Due Process doctrines through which they supervised the fairness of some aspects of the plea bargaining process. Within a decade, however, U.S. Supreme Court decisions began to shut down any constitutional basis for judicial supervision of plea negotiations or agreements. Those decisions rested primarily on two claims: separation of powers and the practical costs of regulating plea bargaining in busy criminal justice systems. …

Is Guilt Dispositive? Federal Habeas After Martinez, Justin F. Marceau

William & Mary Law Review

Federal habeas review of criminal convictions is not supposed to be a second opportunity to adjudge guilt. Oliver Wendell Holmes, among others, has said that the sole question on federal habeas is whether the prisoner’s constitutional rights were violated. By the early 1970s, however, scholars criticized this rights-based view of habeas and sounded the alarm that postconviction review had become too far removed from questions of innocence. Most famously, in 1970 Judge Friendly criticized the breadth of habeas corpus by posing a single question: Is innocence irrelevant? In his view habeas review that focused exclusively on questions of rights in …

Mackey V. Montrym: Clarification On A Matter Of Timing , Alan J. Cohen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shadowing The Flag: Extending The Habeas Writ Beyond Guantanamo, Dawinder S. Sidhu

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The writ of habeas corpus activates courts’ duty to check arbitrary or unlawful restraints by the Executive on individual liberty. In times of war, courts have been compelled to determine whether the writ is available to individuals held by the Executive outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which World War II detainees were held in Germany, the Supreme Court answered in the negative, while in Boumediene v. Bush, involving post–9/11 detainees housedat Guantánamo, the Court reached the opposite conclusion. Operating within these two guideposts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District …

Know Your Limit: How Legislatures Have Gone Overboard With Per Se Drunk Driving Laws And How Men Pay The Price, Andrew Gore

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Sex, Booze, And Clarity: Defining Sexual Assault On A College Campus, Justin Neidig

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Your Honor, I Seen Him With That Gang: The Constitutionality Of The Federal Criminal Street Gang Statute In The Wake Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Jennifer E. Fleming

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Lawrence As An Eighth Amendment Case: Sodomy And The Evolving Standards Of Decency, Sheldon Bernard Lyke

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article offers an alternate reading of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the Texas sodomy statute that criminalized private, consensual, and adult same-sex intercourse. While most scholars discuss Lawrence as a substantive due process case and struggle to find meaning in the ambiguity of the decision's language, I propose that Lawrence is better read as an Eighth Amendment case. This Article argues that the majority opinion analyzed the constitutionality of the Texas sodomy law as it would analyze the cruelty and unusualness of a criminal law in an Eighth Amendment evolving standards of …

Roe At Thirty-Six And Beyond: Enhancing Protection For Abortion Rights Through State Constitutions, Linda J. Wharton

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In a series of decisions over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has seriously undermined Roe v. Wade's promise of full and meaningful federal constitutional protection for women's access to abortion. While the new Obama administration will enhance protection for reproductive rights at the federal level, the reality remains that reconstituting the Supreme Court with a majority of Justices amenable to fully restoring Roe's strict protections will likely take many years. This Article considers whether state constitutions are a promising avenue for enhancing protection for abortion rights.

This Article looks back on thirty years of reproductive rights litigation under …

Be They Fish Or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration Of Nonsexual Offenders, Ofer Raban

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Some Kind Of Hearing" In England, Charles H. Koch Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Specific Enforcement To Ensure Due Process In Plea Bargaining, Kevin D. Norwood

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dilemma Of The "Uniquely Juvenile" Offender

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juvenile Courts - Proper Quantum Of Proof In Juvenile Hearings. In Re Samuel Winship, 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970), Dennis L. Beck

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.