Law Commons^™

Legislating Racial Fairness In Criminal Justice, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty years ago, in McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court rejected a capital defendant's claim that statistical evidence of racial discrimination in the administration of Georgia's death penalty system constituted a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, even as McCleskey effectively bars constitutional challenges to racial disparities in the criminal justice system where invidious bias is difficult to establish, the Court invites advocates to pursue legislation as a remedy to racial disparities. Indeed, the McCleskey Court offers as a rationale for its ruling the judiciary's institutional incompetence to remedy these disparities, holding that "McCleskey's arguments are best …

Summary Of Santana V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 121, Robert Stephens

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a conviction in the Eighth Judicial District Court of 19 counts of coercion resulting in five consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole and fourteen concurrently running life sentences. Appellant argues that the jury instructions did not instruct the jury to apply the reasonable person test and therefore seeks a new trial.

Summary Of Johnson V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 113, Jason Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a death sentence and conviction by jury of four counts of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, among other crimes, after a death sentence entered by a three judge panel was appealed and vacated.

Summary Of Thomas V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 114, 148 P.3d 727, James Robertson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a death sentence following a second penalty hearing conducted pursuant to a remand by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Summary Of Summers V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 112, Jason Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered after jury verdict, for first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and assault with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and assault with the use of a deadly weapon, and from sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Summary Of Rosas V. State, Nev. Adv. Op. No. 106, Sherry Moore

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The district court convicted Appellant of committing battery upon an officer and rejected Appellant’s proffered jury instruction on the crime resisting a public officer, a lesser-included offense of battery upon an officer.s

Summary Of Mitchell V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 107, Aubree Nielsen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from the denial of a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case.

Summary Of Calvin V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 100, Michelle L'Hommedieu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 178.400, Nevada's standard for a defendant's competency to stand trial, conforms to the standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States.

Summary Of State V. Rincon, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 99, Michelle L'Hommedieu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A motorist is driving below the speed limit is, by itself, insufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated warranting an investigative stop. While reasonable suspicion is not a stringent standard, it requires more than a mere observation that a motorist is driving slowly. There must be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual behavior before a reasonable suspicion arises justifying an investigative stop. Where no reasonable suspicion exists, an inquiry stop may nonetheless be justified under the community caretaking doctrine when a police officer has an objectively reasonable belief that a slow driver is in …

Crumbs From The Master's Table: The Supreme Court, Pro Se Defendants And The Federal Guilty Plea Process, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

This Article will commence with a review of the rather significant evolution of Rule 11, including a review of several pertinent Supreme Court decisions that have helped shape its current structure. Thereafter, the predominant judicial methodology for conducting Rule 11 hearings will be discussed. Specifically, this Article will take a brief but critical look at, inter alia, the examination techniques employed by the judiciary when conducting Rule 11 hearings, and conclude that the process typically employed inadequately assesses whether a defendant's guilty plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Next, this Article will discuss two very recent Supreme Court decisions--United …

The Jurisdictional Heritage Of The Grand Jury Clause, Roger A. Fairfax

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Estes V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96, Michael Hammer

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a conviction, by jury, of two counts of preventing or dissuading a person from testifying or producing evidence, one count of first-degree kidnapping, two counts of battery with intent to commit a crime, six counts of sexual assault of a minor under 14, two counts of coercion, and two counts of lewdness with a child under 14. The primary issue on appeal was the admissibility of evidence gathered while the Appellant was committed to a mental institution for the purpose of evaluating competency to stand trial.

The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing In The Post-Blakely Era, Douglas A. Berman, Steven L. Chanenson

Working Paper Series

Soon after the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington declared certain judicial fact-finding within a state sentencing guideline system unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor described the Court’s decision as a “Number 10 earthquake.” But two years after the Blakely ruling, the case’s broader impact and meaning for state criminal justice systems around the country has been largely overshadowed by developments in the federal sentencing system. Nevertheless, this is an exciting time for state sentencing. By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. Cunningham, this past spring, the Supreme Court brings state issues to the national stage once more.

State …

Civil Due Process, Criminal Due Process, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience And Legal Insanity In The Twenty-First Century, Richard E. Redding

Working Paper Series

Brain-damaged defendants are seen everyday in American courtrooms, and in many cases, their criminal behavior appears to be the product of extremely poor judgment and self-control. Some have a disorder in the frontal lobes, the area of the brain responsible for judgment and impulse control. Yet because defendants suffering from frontal lobe dysfunction usually understand the difference between right and wrong, they are unable to avail themselves of the only insanity defense available in many states, a defense based on the narrow McNaghten test. “Irresistible impulse” (or “control”) tests, on the other hand, provide an insanity defense to those who …

A Contractarian Argument Against The Death Penalty, Claire Oakes Finkelstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Opponents of the death penalty typically base their opposition on contingent features of its administration, arguing that the death penalty is applied discriminatory, that the innocent are sometimes executed, or that there is insufficient evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent efficacy. Implicit in these arguments is the suggestion that if these contingencies did not obtain, serious moral objections to the death penalty would be misplaced. In this Article, Professor Finkelstein argues that there are grounds for opposing the death penalty even in the absence of such contingent factors. She proceeds by arguing that neither of the two prevailing theories of …

Section 5: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Write On!, Steven L. Chanenson

Working Paper Series

Modern federal appellate review of sentences is a recent phenomenon introduced by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Before United States v. Booker, courts of appeal focused on enforcing the technical rules of the federal sentencing guidelines and did so with (over)zealous enthusiasm. In the new post-Booker world, appellate judges are supposed to review sentences for "reasonableness." But how are they supposed to determine what is - or is not - a reasonable sentence? The answer to this puzzle rests in the mind of the District Judge. This short essay argues that the sentencing judge must explain his reasons, and …

Wishing Petitioners To Death: Factual Misrepresentations In Fourth Circuit Capital Cases, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Silent Criminal Defendant And The Presumption Of Innocence: In The Hands Of Real Jurors, Is Either Of Them Safe, Mitchell J. Frank, Dawn Broschard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Departures, Model Sentencing Guidelines §5.1, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the twelfth of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929. This segment of the project contains rules governing the imposition of sentences …

'Tis A Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This essay introducing the June 2006 edition of the Federal Sentencing Reporter (Vol. 18, No. 5) describes two important contributions to the movement for real reform of the federal sentencing system. First, Professor Bowman summarizes the recommendations of the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative (CPSI) report on federal sentencing. The CPSI report, reproduced in this Issue, cautions against any over-hasty legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, suggests some near-term improvements to the existing federal sentencing system, and then sets out a framework for a reformed and markedly simplified federal sentencing regime. Second, Professor Bowman describes …

Desert, Democracy, And Sentencing Reform, Alice Ristroph

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Democratic Prosecutor: Explaining The Constitutional Function Of The Federal Grand Jury, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Integrated Perspective On The Collateral Consequences Of Criminal Convictions And Reentry Issues Faced By Formerly Incarcerated Individuals, Michael Pinard

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the emergent focus on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and the reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals. Specifically, the article details the ways in which legal scholars, policy analysts, elected officials, legal services organizations and community based organizations have begun to address these components of the criminal justice system. The article argues that these various groups have compartmentalized collateral consequences and reentry by focusing almost exclusively on one component to the exclusion of the other. In doing so, they have narrowed the lens through which to view these components, and have therefore missed opportunities to develop integrated …

Offenses Involving Immigration, Naturalization And Passports: Model Sentencing Guidelines 211, 212, 213, 214, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

This article is part of the Model Sentencing Guidelines Working Group's project which is designed to develop a guidelines regime that would simplify the existing federal sentencing guidelines. Among the most frequently used guidelines in today's federal sentencing system are those pertaining to immigration offenses. Some of these guidelines are difficult and cumbersome to apply as the Commission asks courts to use too many sentencing factors, often without distinguishing them in importance. The proliferation of such factors has also restricted the power of federal courts to make their own decisions as to the severity of individual offenses. For that reason, …

Summary Of Stockmeier V. Psychological Review Panel, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 50, Gregory A. Hubbard

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Psychological Review Panel (“Psych Panel”) held a hearing to consider whether a prisoner serving consecutive sentences for sex offenses was a threat to society if he were released on parole. The Psych Panel decided not to certify the prisoner for release, partially based on new allegations made by the victim during the hearing. The prisoner filed a district court petition for a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus, challenging the Psych Panel’s actions. The district court denied and dismissed the petition. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying and dismissing the …

Summary Of Mejia V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 43, David T. Gluth

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Mejia appealed a judgment of the Eighth Judicial District Court after a jury convicted him of one count of sexual assault against a minor under 14 years of age and seven counts of lewdness with a minor under 14 years of age. Mejia was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in ten years for each count of lewdness.

The Right To Be Hurt. Testing The Boundaries Of Consent., Vera Bergelson

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

People's right to consent to pain, injury or death has always been one of the most controversial issues in criminal law and moral philosophy. In recent years, that issue has moved to the forefront of public, legislative, and academic debates in the United States and abroad due to a series of high-profile criminal trials, which involved consenting victims in various contexts--from sadomasochism and cannibalism to experimental medical treatment and mercy killing.

Currently, American criminal law does not recognize consent of the victim as a defense to bodily harm, except in a few historically defined circumstances. That rule has been criticized …

Ambiguity Aversion And The Criminal Process, Alex Stein, Uzi Segal

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.