Law Commons^™

"You Crossed The Fog Line!"—Kansas, Pretext, And The Fourth Amendment, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

In Whren, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned pretextual traffic stops. In practice the holding of Whren condones police investigations that target certain suspect classes of people, like Hispanics, for increased police scrutiny. In permitting pretextual stops, the Court ignored the risk that such practices will encourage police to distort the truth, overlooked the cost of under-enforcement of the laws, and ignored the consequences to the criminal justice system of race and ethnicity based discrimination.

Kansas law exacerbates these risks by making fog-line stops a model for protecting ulterior motives from a sifting judicial inquiry. In Kansas, it makes …

An Exclusionary Rule For Police Lies, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Our legal system treats the police as if they are impartial fact gatherers, trained and motivated to gather facts both for and against guilt, rather than biased advocates attempting to disprove innocence, which is the reality. Because of its partiality in favor of officers, the criminal justice system lacks the appropriate structure to expose and effectively deter police lies, which distort the truth about criminal or unconstitutional conduct.

This Article, presented in three parts, argues that the current system should be changed to provide the structure necessary to promote honest police work. Specifically, it urges a modification to the exclusionary …

A Return To The Grand Jury To Promote A Zen Zeal In Prosecutors, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

DNA evidence has freed at least 209 convicted people. Sometimes DNA evidence exonerates a person. Other times, it does not. When it does not exonerate, a prosecutor must decide whether to persist in further prosecution of the defendant. I propose a fresh, but simple, solution for prosecutors who face such choices. To protect the interests of defendants and victims, and to assuage society’s need for fair and accurate outcomes, prosecutors should represent these cases to a grand jury. The grand jury is an easily convened neutral party that can dispassionately evaluate the evidence, old and new, and determine whether a …

Finding A Happy And Ethical Medium Between A Prosecutor Who Believes The Defendant Didn't Do It And The Boss Who Says That He Did, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The increasing prevalence of DNA testing has proven that, at times, our criminal justice system renders wrongful convictions. Extrapolating from such significant errors, we can infer that smaller mistakes also occur. Because criminal prosecution is not an exact science, like DNA evidence, prosecutors can disagree about aspects of a case-whether to reward a cooperating defendant with a sentence reduction, whether to indict a defendant under a mandatory minimum statute, and even whether a defendant is guilty of a crime. This Essay examines the tension that arises when the prosecutor handling a case disagrees with her boss about one or more …

A Non-Romantic View Of Expert Testimony, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill

Scholarly Articles

The Daubert trilogy as a whole deflects attention away from abstract identifications of scientific validity (including the demarcation controversy aimed at rooting out allegedly junk science from the courtroom), and toward the application of expertise to the particular case at hand. That emphasis on application is reflected as well in post-trilogy scholarship, wherein we see three patterns or contours that both help quiet the debates and provide useful guidance to judges and lawyers. First, there is a pragmatic recognition, in various forms, that the focus should be on how science is being used rather than on science in the abstract. …

Why Judges Applying The Daubert Trilogy Need To Know About The Social, Institutional, And Rhetorical -- And Not Just The Methodological Aspects Of Science, Lewis H. Larue, David S. Caudill

Scholarly Articles

In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodology, this Article identifies in recent cases (i) a pragmatic perspective on the part of federal appellate judges when they reverse trial judges who tend to idealize science (i.e., who do not appreciate the local and practical goals and limitations of science), and (ii) an educational model of judicial gatekeeping that results in reversal of trial judges who defer to the social authority of science (i.e., who mistake authority for reliability). Next, this Article observes that courts (in the cases it analyzes) are not interested …

Probability And Proof In State V. Skipper: An Internet Exchange, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

United States V. Leon, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Bose Corp. V. Consumers Union Of United States, Inc., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Berkemer V. Mccarty, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

United States V. Payner, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

North Carolina V. Butler, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Parker V. Randolph, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Commonwealth Of Massachusetts V. White, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Wood V. Strickland, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Oregon V. Hass, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Schneble V. Florida, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Gravel V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.