Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Nevada V. Inzunza, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 26, 2019), Christopher Gonzalez
Nevada V. Inzunza, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Dec. 26, 2019), Christopher Gonzalez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court affirmed a pretrial motion to dismiss of an indictment after it determined that the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice after an analysis under the Barker-Doggett factors. The Court afforded “the only possible remedy” after it was found that a 26 month delay resulted from the State’s gross negligence and the delay was prejudicial to Inzunza.
Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff
Anderson (Arnold) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (Sept. 5, 2019), Alexandra Matloff
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that if a trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness is unable to testify because the defendant wrongfully procured the witness’s unavailability and acted with intent to do so, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception can be applied in order to deny a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that in determining whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies, the trial court must hear the opposing parties’ arguments in the absence of a jury.
Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum
Confrontation After Ohio V. Clark, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Clark, provides an occasion to take stock of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation since the court’s landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford strengthened a defendant’s right to confront his accusers face-to-face, underscoring that cross-examination is the constitutionally preferred method for testing the reliability of accusatory statements. Clark could eliminate that right in a wide range of cases where, although the reliability of a declarant’s out-of-court statements is critically important, a defendant has no right to confrontation.
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. …
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …