Law Commons^™

The Federalization Of Crime And Sentencing, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Aveux Incités Par Les Officiers Chargés De L’Application De La Loi, L’Expérience Des Etats-Unis, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …

What If There Is No Client?: Prosecutors As "Counselors" Of Crime Victims, Stacy Caplow

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Aggravation And Mitigation In Capital Cases: What Do Jurors Think?, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Capital Jury Project in South Carolina interviewed jurors who sat in forty-one capital murder cases. The Project asked jurors a range of questions relating to crime, the defendant, the victim, the victim's family, the jurors' deliberations, the conduct of counsel, and background characteristics of the jurors. In this essay, Professor Stephen P. Garvey presents and examines data from the Project relating to the importance jurors attach to various aggravating and mitigating factors. The results suggest that jurors have a discernible moral compass. According to the data, jurors found especially brutal killings, killings with child victims, future dangerousness, and lack …

Death By Default: State Procedural Default Doctrine In Capital Cases, John H. Blume, Pamela A. Wilkins

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Before 1991, South Carolina capital defendants benefitted from lenient policies of error preservation. However, in 1991 the South Carolina Supreme Court put an end to these policies and began enforcing default rules that are more draconian than those of any other American jurisdiction with a death penalty. Furthermore, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decisions have made it difficult for trial practitioners to discern the rules under which they must operate. Taken in combination, the strictness of the new procedural policy, the lack of clarity regarding the applicable rules, and the South Carolina Supreme Court’s often ad hoc approach to enforcing …

Lawyering Up, Jack M. Beermann, Susan Bandes

Faculty Scholarship

The widespread dissemination of knowledge about the Miranda protections is often referred to as one of the most successful efforts ever made to educate the American public about its constitutional rights. Studies confirm that a high percentage of the public is aware of Miranda, largely due to television and other mass media. This article asks the question: if television is educating the public about its Miranda rights, what exactly is it teaching us? As fans of the cop show NYPD Blue (a show in which the interrogation and confession are often the dramatic focus) we use that show to explore …

Section 4: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Investigating And Trying A Homicide Case, Andrea Lyon

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Post-Mccleskey Racial Discrimination Claims In Capital Cases, John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In federal habeas corpus proceedings, Earl Matthews, an African American, South Carolina death row inmate, alleged that his death sentence was the result of invidious racial discrimination that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To support his contention, Matthews presented statistical evidence showing that in Charleston County, where a jury convicted him and sentenced him to death, the prosecutor was far more likely to seek a death sentence for a Black defendant accused of killing a white person than for any other racial combination of victims and defendants, and also that such a Black defendant was more …

But Was He Sorry? The Role Of Remorse In Capital Sentencing, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What role does remorse really play in capital sentencing? We divide this basic question in two. First, what makes jurors come to believe a defendant is remorseful? Second, does a belief in the defendant's remorse affect the jury's final judgment of life or death? Here we present a systematic, empirical analysis that tries to answer these questions.

What makes jurors think a defendant is remorseful? Among other things, we find that the more jurors think that the crime is coldblooded, calculated, and depraved and that the defendant is dangerous, the less likely they are to think the defendant is remorseful. …

Lie Detection: The Supreme Court's Polygraph Decision, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In United States v. Scheffer, decided this past Term, the Supreme Court considered for the first time the admissibility of polygraph evidence. The Court held that exclusion of such evidence on behalf of a criminal defendant was supported by valid justifications and offended no constitutional right to present a defense.

Can Shaming Punishments Educate?, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

So-called "shaming" penalties have received a fair amount of attention in the popular press and, thanks primarily to the work of Dan Kahan and Toni Massaro, in the legal literature as well. Unfortunately, the current debate focuses on "shame" as the main way to understand what these penalties are all about. I argue that at least some of these so-called shaming penalties are better understood as "educative" penalties. I develop this "educating model" and contrast it with the "shaming model." I also suggest that penalties fitting the educating model have more normative appeal than those fitting the shaming model.

Unconscious Racism And The Criminal Law, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Compromise And Continuity: Miranda Waivers, Confession Admissibility, And The Retention Of Interrogation Protections, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Coping With "Loss": A Re-Examination Of Sentencing Federal Economic Crimes Under The Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article has three objectives. First, it attempts to rethink the sentencing of federal economic criminals in light of the basic purposes of sentencing and of the Guidelines' particular structure and objectives. Second, it examines the deficiencies in the current sentencing guidelines regarding theft, fraud, and other economic crimes, and the problem areas in the case law construing those guidelines. Third, it proposes and analyzes a consolidated guideline, together with accompanying application notes, for sentencing virtually all theft and fraud cases (a draft of which follows the text of this Article as Appendix A).

The Mccleskey Puzzle: Remedying Prosecutorial Discrimination Against Black Victims In Capital Sentencing, Evan Tsen Lee, Ashutosh Bhagwat

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Integrated Criminal Justice Technologies: An Introduction, J. Clark Kelso

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Taking The Cop Out Of Copping A Plea: Eradicating Police Prosecution Of Criminal Cases, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An End To Silence: Women Prisoners’ Handbook On Identifying And Addressing Sexual Misconduct, 2nd Ed., Brenda V. Smith, Marcia Greenberger, Nancy Duff Campbell, Deborah Brake, Joanna Grossman, Kathie Donnelly, Laura Cutiletta, Christina Davis, Marelisa Fabrega, Kristin Flynn, Kristin Holman, Jessica Jackson, Heather Lamberg, Kimberly Harris, Shauna Helton, Alvin Stith, Aurie Hall, Jonathan Smith, Andie Moss, Theresa Hunt Katsel, Drs. Elaine Carmen, Shelley Neiderbach

Reports

The National Women’s Law Center is a non-profit organization that has been working since 1972 to advance and protect women’s legal rights. The Center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including education, employment, reproductive rights, health, family support and income security, with special attention given to the concerns of low-income women.

As a legal arm of the women’s movement, the Center has litigated ground-breaking cases and filed briefs in landmark Supreme Court decisions; advocated before state and federal policymakers to shape legislation and policies affecting women’s lives; and educated the public about issues important …

Batson Ethics For Prosecutors And Trial Court Judges, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Individual Liability For Conduct By Criminal Organizations In The United States, Peter J. Henning

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond The Fourth Amendment: New Strategies For Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 U. Colo. L. Rev. 693 (1998), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Deciding The Stop And Frisk Cases: A Look Inside The Supreme Court's Conference, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

In our system of constitutional decision-making, the Supreme Court makes law as an institution in its formal written opinions. The Court and its individual members make their official legal marks in the printed pages of the United States Reports. In June 1968, in Terry v. Ohio and Sibron v. New York, the two decisions that approved the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of police stop and frisk practices, the Court filled many official pages with rich discussion. Over the ensuing thirty years, these Court and individual opinions have shaped the course of constitutional analysis in our courts and guided the …

Mental Culpability And Prosecutorial Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that a prosecutor's intent is always relevant to the courts' analysis of misconduct, and that the courts should always consider a prosecutor's intent in determining whether a rule was violated and whether the verdict was prejudiced. Part II of this Article examines the use of the objective test to analyze a prosecutor's trial conduct. Part II offers several reasons courts give for avoiding inquiry into a prosecutor's mental culpability, analyzes those reasons, and concludes that although the application of an objective test is sufficient to correct misconduct in some instances, it does not foreclose application of a …

Car Wars: The Fourth Amendment's Death On The Highway, David A. Harris

Articles

In just the past few terms, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions that have increased police discretion to stop and question drivers and passengers and search both these persons and their vehicles. These cases are only the latest in a line that has slowly but surely made it ever easier for police to do these things without being concerned with procedural or constitutional obstacles.

This article traces the history of those cases, and argues that, however much protection the Fourth Amendment might accord to an ordinary citizen in his or her home or even walking down the street, it …

The Crisis In The Ideology Of Crime, John L. Diamond

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sentencing In England: The Rise Of Populist Punishment, Aaron J. Rappaport

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Confrontation: The Search For Basic Principles, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right "to be confronted with the Witnesses against him."' The Confrontation Clause clearly applies to those witnesses who testify against the accused at trial. Moreover, it is clear enough that confrontation ordinarily includes the accused's right to have those witnesses brought "face-toface," in the time-honored phrase, when they testify.2 But confrontation is much more than this "face-to-face" right. It also comprehends the right to have witnesses give their testimony under oath and to subject them to crossexamination. 3 Indeed, the Supreme Court has treated the accused's …