Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Conceptualizing Blakely, Douglas A. Berman
Conceptualizing Blakely, Douglas A. Berman
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series
The Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington has generated impassioned judicial and academic criticisms, perhaps because the “earthquake” ruling seems to announce a destructive rule in search of a sound principle. Read broadly, the jury trial rule articulated in Blakely might be thought to cast constitutional doubt on any and all judicial fact-finding at sentencing. Yet judicial fact-finding at sentencing has a long history, and such fact-finding has been an integral component of modern sentencing reforms and seems critical to the operation of guideline sentencing. The caustic reaction to Blakely reflects the fact that the decision has sowed confusion …
Mental Disorder And The Civil/Criminal Distinction, Grant H. Morris
Mental Disorder And The Civil/Criminal Distinction, Grant H. Morris
University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series
This essay, written as part of a symposium issue to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the University of San Diego Law School, discusses the evaporating distinction between sentence-serving convicts and mentally disordered nonconvicts who are involved in, or who were involved in, the criminal process–people we label as both bad and mad. By examining one Supreme Court case from each of the decades that follow the opening of the University of San Diego School of Law, the essay demonstrates how the promise that nonconvict mentally disordered persons would be treated equally with other civilly committed mental patients was made and …
Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights Of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Ira Robbins
Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights Of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Ira Robbins
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators routinely results in injury to reputations,lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office. Yet, because these individuals are not parties to a criminal trial, they have neither the right to present evidence northe opportunity to clear their names. Thus, Professor Robbins argues that the practice violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law[.]” While prosecutors may offer many justifications to support the practice of namingunindicted co-conspirators, these reasons do not withstand …