Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Abduction (1)
- Abduction Enhancement (1)
- Bail (1)
- Character for truthfulness (1)
-
- Circuit Split (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Excessive Fines Clause (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Incarceration (1)
- Jail (1)
- Jury (1)
- Jury nullification (1)
- Jury verdict (1)
- Prior criminal convictions (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing Guidelines (1)
- Sentencing Reform Act (1)
- Seventh amendment (1)
- Sixth amendment (1)
- Textualism (1)
- Timbs (1)
- Witness impeachment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris
Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris
Pepperdine Law Review
The Excessive Fines Clause is one of the least developed clauses pertaining to criminal procedure in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has only interpreted the Clause a few times in its entire history. Yet, on any given day, hundreds of thousands of people languish in jails without having been convicted of anything, because most of these people are unable to meet the bail amount a judge sets. This Essay examines the surprisingly under-explored relationship between misdemeanor cash bail & pretrial detention and the Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail Clauses of the Eighth Amendment, using the Supreme …
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Pepperdine Law Review
Jury nullification traditionally refers to the jury’s power to deliver a verdict that is deliberately contrary to the law’s clearly dictated outcome. A spirited scholarship is built around this conception, with some painting nullification as democratic and others as anarchic. But this debate is largely unmoored from experience. In practice, courts have formally eliminated the jury’s authority to review the law and have established procedures that make it easier to prevent and overturn seemingly nullificatory verdicts. Thus, outside of a jury’s verdict acquitting a criminal defendant, jury nullification as traditionally understood does not exist. In no other context is a …
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (adopted by various states as well) allows for the introduction of certain convictions at trial to impeach the credibility— i.e., character for truthfulness—of any witness. The rule bifurcates its requirements between those that apply to criminal defendants—who, in theory, are afforded greater protection throughout the law than are all other participants in trials—and all remaining witnesses. The most important distinction between the standards that apply to these two classes of witnesses is that for prior crimes of criminal defendants to be introduced to impeach their credibility, those wrongdoings must survive a special balancing test spelled …