Law Commons^™

Why Do People Support Capital Punishment? The Death Penalty As Community Ritual, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 765 (2001), Donald L. Beschle

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Miranda Does Not Prevent Confessions: Some Lessons From Albert Camus, Arthur Miller And Oprah Winfrey, 51 Syracuse L. Rev. 863 (2001), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fatal Attraction? The Uneasy Courtship Of Brady And Plea Bargaining, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article discusses the natural attraction between Brady-a rule requiring disclosure of evidence favorable to a defendant-and plea bargaining-a practice where such information is at a premium for defendants. Part II describes how an increasing number of courts have adapted Brady to fit in the world of a plea bargain, in the process changing Brady's point of reference from the jury's verdict to the defendant's tactical decision to plead guilty. Part ill argues that this change in focus narrows Brady's substantive coverage and renders the rule practically unenforceable following most guilty pleas. Part IV then assesses the …

Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …

Future Dangerousness In Capital Cases: Always "At Issue", John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who, if not sentenced to death, will remain in prison with no chance of parole is constitutionally entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the fact, but only if the prosecution engages in conduct that places the defendant's future dangerousness "at issue." Based on data collected from interviews with South Carolina capital jurors, Professors Blume, Garvey and Johnson argue that future dangerousness is on the minds of most capital jurors, and is thus "at issue" in virtually all capital trials, regardless of the prosecution's conduct. Accordingly, the authors argue that …

Jury Selection Errors On Appeal, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Risks To Equal Protection In The Criminal Justice System, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Note has examined the consequences of a shift in the equal protection context - a move from a traditional particularized harm perspective to a constitutional risk perspective focused on systemic harms. It has also acknowledged the significant remedial difficulties associated with constitutional risk, but by focusing on discretion as the source of most equal protection risks, this Note has proposed a moderate doctrinal change: discretionary safeguards. To be sure, this Note leaves the project substantially incomplete. Constitutional risk's focus on statistical evidence requires careful discussion of the pitfalls judges face in this area and of how they can develop …

Good Enough For Government Work? The Tension Between Uniformity And Differing Regional Values In Administering The Federal Death Penalty, Rory K. Little

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Miranda In Comparative Law, Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

Not only have the Miranda warnings become a recognized procedure in police interrogations in the United States, but they have been adopted or strengthened over the years in formerly inquisitorial countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and most recently France, and are now recognized as having constitutional status. This article discusses the protections afforded to criminal suspects and defendants overseas when faced with interrogation by police, prosecutors, investigating magistrates or judges of the investigation. It compares the admonitions given to such suspects with those provided in the Miranda decision and discusses their constitutional, or statutory status. It further discusses when such …

Comparative Criminal Law And Enforcement: Russia, Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

This chapter assesses criminal law and enforcement in Russia. It addresses the history of the Russian criminal justice system and its reform, as well as Russia’s criminal procedure and substantive criminal law.

Allocution For Victims Of Economic Crimes, Jayne W. Barnard

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Child Witnesses And Procedural Fairness, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Professor Gershman's Article notes that courts and lawmakers have changed procedural and evidentiary rules to protect child witnesses in child sexual abuse cases. Gershman discusses how courts apply the changed rules with careful scrutiny in an effort to ensure that the interests of the child witness and the accused defendant are appropriately balanced.

The Prosecutor's Duty To Truth, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article discusses the prosecutor's duty to refrain from conduct that impedes the search for truth. A prosecutor may impede the truth-finding process in several ways: (1) distorting the truth by attacking the defendant's character, misleading and misrepresenting facts, and engaging in inflammatory conduct; (2) subverting the truth by making false statements and presenting false evidence; (3) suppressing the truth by failing to disclose potentially truth-enhancing evidence or obstructing defense access to potentially truth-enhancing evidence; and (4) other truth-disserving conduct that exploits defense counsel's misconduct and mistakes and prevents introduction of potentially truth-serving defenses. Part I also …

The Commercial Activity Exception Under The Fsia, Personhood Under The Fifth Amendment And Jurisdiction Over Foreign States: A Partial Roadmap For The Supreme Court In The New Millennium, Stephen J. Leacock

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Craft Of Due Process, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Israel's presentation "On the Costs of Uniformity and the Prospects of Dualism in Constitutional Criminal Procedure."

Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Mapp Goes Abroad, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Prudent Prosecutor, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Exploiting Trauma: The So-Called Victim's Rights Amendment, Lynne Henderson

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5

Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

When I was first introduced to the constitutional regulation of criminal procedure in the mid-1950s, a single issue dominated the field: To what extent did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose upon states the same constitutional restraints that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments imposed upon the federal government? While those Bill of Rights provisions, as even then construed, imposed a broad range of constitutional restraints upon the federal criminal justice system, the federal system was (and still is) minuscule as compared to the combined systems of the fifty states. With the Bill of Rights provisions …

A Suggestion On Suggestion, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci

Articles

Part I of the full article briefly describes the history and current slate of research into children's suggestibility. In this part, we argue that, although psychological researchers disagree considerably over the degree to which he suggestibility of young children may lead to false allegations of sexual abuse, there is an overwhelming consensus that children are suggestible to a degree that, we believe, must be regarded as significant. In presenting this argument, we respond to the contentions of revisionist scholars, particularly those recently expressed by Professor Lyon. We show that there is good reason to believe the use of highly suggestive …

Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …

Lawyers, Jails, And The Law’S Fake Bargains, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

It’S All About What You Know: The Specific Intent Standard Should Govern "Knowing" Violations Of The Clean Water Act, Randall S. Abate, Dayna E. Mancuso

Journal Publications

Part I of this Article examines the historical and conceptual foundations of the specific intent standard as applied both outside and within the environmental law context. Part II addresses the historical and conceptual foundations of the general intent standard, also outside and within the environmental law context. Part III reviews the history of the conflict between application of the specific intent and general intent standards in prosecutions for knowing violations of the Clean Water Act. Part IV presents arguments that support application of the specific intent standard to knowing violation cases under section 309(c)(2)(A) of the CWA. Part V analyzes …

Plea Bargaining In The Shadow Of Death, Joseph L. Hoffmann, Marcy L. Kahn, Steven W. Fisher

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Judicial Fact-Finding And Sentence Enhancements In A World Of Guilty Pleas, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Apprendi V. New Jersey: Back To The Future?, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Look Who's Extrapolating: A Reply To Hoffmann, Valerie West, Jeffery Fagan, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

In late March, a reporter called with news of a pirated copy of Professor Joseph Hoffinann's soon-to-be-published "attack" on our study, A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995. Did we care to comment? Obtaining our own copy revealed that Professor Hoffmann's fusillade missed its mark (he misstates what we did) and boomeranged (his mischaracterizations of our analysis accurately describe his own). We do care to comment, and Hoffmann and the Indiana Law Journal have graciously let us do so.

Hoffmann's main claim is that we "extrapolated" the 68% rate of reversible error we reported for capital verdicts …