Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure; prosecutors; criminal discovery; Brady v. Maryland (1)
- Federalism; punishment (1)
- Judge Henry Friendly (1)
- Justice Antonin Scalia (1)
- Lafler v. Cooper (1)
-
- Missouri v. Frye (1)
- Plea bargaining (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Strickland; criminal procedure (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Veterans; culpability; posttraumatic stress disorder; PTSD; mitigation; punishment; retribution; blame; military; just and unjust war; war crimes (1)
- Wainwright; Supreme Court; criminal procedure (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federalism And The Eighth Amendment, Youngjae Lee
Federalism And The Eighth Amendment, Youngjae Lee
Faculty Scholarship
How many “cruel and unusual punishments” clauses are there? Michael Mannheimer, in his article, Cruel and Unusual Federal Punishments, argues that there are two—one for the federal government and one for state governments.1 Mannheimer contends that courts have been unduly neglecting the former and mistakenly applying the latter to the federal government without adequate reflection.2 Mannheimer further argues that the Eighth Amendment is primarily a device to promote state sovereignty and that we should accordingly read it as requiring that federal punishments be no more severe than state punishments for equivalent crimes.3 I cannot do justice in this brief Response …
Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, Bruce A. Green
Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
In general, discovery is far narrower in federal criminal cases than in federal civil litigation. Under current federal law, prosecutors do not have to disclose evidence and information that is favorable to the defense for its use in investigating, advising the defendant, plea negotiations or trial, unless the favorable evidence falls within one of several narrow categories or might be probative enough to produce an acquittal. Proponents of broader federal criminal discovery law express concern both that disclosure is too limited to ensure fair outcomes and provide a fair process in criminal cases and that prosecutors do not universally comply …
Shields, Swords, And Fulfilling The Exclusionary Rule's Deterrent Function, James L. Kainen
Shields, Swords, And Fulfilling The Exclusionary Rule's Deterrent Function, James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
When the exclusionary rule prevents the prosecution from using evidence necessary to bring a case to trial, the rule deters illegality while raising no issue about how it might interfere with usual factfinding processes. However, when a case proceeds to trial although a court has suppressed some prosecution evidence, courts need to decide the extent to which the defendant may benefit from the absence of the proof without opening the door to its admission. The exclusion of any relevant evidence raises similar questions, and courts often say the exclusionary rule is a shield from suppressed evidence, but not a sword …
The Right To Plea Bargain With Competent Counsel After Cooper And Frye: Is The Supreme Court Making The Ordinary Criminal Process Too Long, Too Expensive, And Unpredictable In Pursuit Of Perfect Justice, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of criminal defendants who were deprived of a favorable plea offer because of their lawyers’ professional lapses. In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that “[t]he ordinary criminal process has become too long, too expensive, and unpredictable,” because of the Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence; that plea bargaining is “the alternative in which...defendants have sought relief,” and that the two new decisions on the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in plea bargaining would add to the burden on the criminal process. This essay examines several aspects of …
Military Veterans, Culpability, And Blame, Youngjae Lee
Military Veterans, Culpability, And Blame, Youngjae Lee
Faculty Scholarship
Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the State than offenders without such backgrounds. Two rationales for a differential treatment of military veterans who commit crimes are …
Gideon’S Amici, Why Do Prosecutors So Rarely Defend The Rights Of The Accused?, Bruce A. Green
Gideon’S Amici, Why Do Prosecutors So Rarely Defend The Rights Of The Accused?, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
In Gideon v. Wainwright, twenty-three state attorneys general, led by Walter F. Mondale and Edward McCormack, joined an amicus brief on the side of the criminal accused, urging the Supreme Court to recognize indigent defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel in felony cases. This was a unique occurrence. Although amicus filings by public entities have increased significantly since then, including in criminal cases, government lawyers rarely submit amicus briefs in the Supreme Court supporting criminal defendants’ procedural rights, and never en masse as in Gideon. The states’ public support for Gideon’s position points up the special nature of the …
Why Strickland Is The Wrong Test For Assessing Violations Of The Right To Testify, Daniel J. Capra, Joseph Tartakovsky
Why Strickland Is The Wrong Test For Assessing Violations Of The Right To Testify, Daniel J. Capra, Joseph Tartakovsky
Faculty Scholarship
A criminal accused has a constitutional right to testify in his own defense. The right has an undisputed place alongside the most important "personal" rights, like the right to remain silent or the right to represent oneself. But in the 1990s, courts began to apply the ineffective-assistance test of Strickland v. Washington to evaluate claims by a defendant that his right to testify was abridged. In practice this nullifies the right. Moreover, the Strickland test is inapposite because it focuses on counsel and not the defendant's right to testify. This Article proposes a new test to better secure and enforce …