Law Commons^™

The State (Never) Rests: How Excessive Prosecutor Caseloads Harm Criminal Defendants, Adam M. Gershowitz, Laura R. Killinger

Laura R. Killinger

No abstract provided.

The State (Never) Rests: How Excessive Prosecutor Caseloads Harm Criminal Defendants, Adam M. Gershowitz, Laura R. Killinger

Adam M. Gershowitz

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Anxiety, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Stephen E Henderson

The Political Economy Of Criminal Procedure Litigation, Anthony O'Rourke

Anthony O'Rourke

Criminal procedure has undergone several well-documented shifts in its doctrinal foundations since the Supreme Court first began to apply the Constitution’s criminal procedure protections to the States. This Article examines the ways in which the political economy of criminal litigation – specifically, the material conditions that determine which litigants are able to raise criminal procedure claims, and which of those litigants’ cases are appealed to the United States Supreme Court – has influenced these shifts. It offers a theoretical framework for understanding how the political economy of criminal litigation shapes constitutional doctrine, according to which an increase in the number …

Prisoner's Rights And The Correctional Scheme: The Legal Controversy And Problems Of Implementation - A Symposium - Introduction, Donald W. Dowd

Donald W. Dowd

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae -- Heien V. State Of North Carolina, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity cannot be predicated on conduct that does not violate the law. Put differently, if reasonableness — or reasonable suspicion — is to mean anything, it means that apparent violations of the law must be based on actual violations of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision sends a message to drivers throughout the country that they cannot be wrong about what the law requires, even where law enforcement is wrong — dead wrong — about what the law proscribes.

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is frequently accused of doctrinal incoherence. A primary reason is the persistence of two competing conceptions of “unreasonable” search and seizure. The first is libertarian in character; it understands the Fourth Amendment’s command of reasonableness as establishing a constitutional boundary on investigative powers. On this view, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure keeps society free by limiting the government’s investigative reach. The second conception understands the Fourth Amendment's prohibition as freedom against unjustified government intrusion. This conception of reasonableness is essentially pragmatic in character, balancing liberty and law-enforcement interests.

This article interrogates these competing conceptions by …

The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter

Judith L Ritter

By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …

"Bad Juror" Lists And The Prosecutor's Duty To Disclose, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

United States V. Leon And Its Ramifications, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

Jailhouse Informants, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

“A More Majestic Conception:” The Importance Of Judicial Integrity In Preserving The Exclusionary Rule, Robert M. Bloom, David H. Fentin

Robert M. Bloom

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Warren Court held that the so-called exclusionary rule was applicable to the states. Subsequent Supreme Courts have shown their disenchantment with the rule by seeking to curb its applicability. Most recently, the Court has characterized the exclusionary rule as a “massive remedy” to be applied only as a “last resort.” The Courts’ analytical framework for the last thirty-five years for cutting back the exclusionary rule was a balancing test which weighed the costs of suppressing reliable evidence with the benefits of deterring future police violations. This balancing has been used most recently in two …

Warrant Requirement -- The Burger Court Approach, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Infirmity Of Warrantless Nsa Surveillance: The Abuse Of Presidential Power And The Injury To The Fourth Amendment, Robert M. Bloom, William J. Dunn

Robert M. Bloom

In recent months, there have been many revelations about the tactics used by the Bush Administration to prosecute their war on terrorism. These stories involve the exploitation of technologies that allow the government, with the cooperation of phone companies and financial institutions, to access phone and financial records. This paper focuses on the revelation and widespread criticism of the Bush Administration’s operation of a warrantless electronic surveillance program to monitor international phone calls and emails that originate or terminate with a United States party. The powerful and secret National Security Agency heads the program and leverages its significant intelligence collection …

Inevitable Discovery: An Exception Beyond The Fruits, Robert M. Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

Accounting For Federalism In State Courts - Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained Lawfully By Federal Agents, Robert M. Bloom, Hillary J. Massey

Robert M. Bloom

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court also has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades, for example by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether …

Second Amendment Plumbing After Heller: Of Incorporation, Standards Of Scrutiny, Well-Regulated Militias And Criminal Street Gangs, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ended one debate about the Second Amendment while beginning another.

Prior to Heller, the principal point on which courts and scholars had joined issue was whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms or a right to participate in an organized militia. In Heller, the Court came down on the individual-rights side while resolving little else about the extent to which the Second Amendment will constrain the power to regulate firearms. Among the many questions left for future litigation, the two most important …

Against Orthodoxy: Miranda Is Not Prophylactic And The Constitution Is Not Perfect, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

In the four decades since the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, two point of consensus have emerged about that decision. The first area of agreement is that Miranda’s rationale for requiring its now-famous warnings is wrong, or at least dramatically overstated. In Michigan v. Tucker, the Court first labeled Miranda warnings as “prophylactic standards.” For their part, Miranda’s advocates do not spend much time defending its conception of unwarned custodial interrogation as inherently coercive. The second point of agreement is that Miranda has turned out to be a failure combating the coercive nature of custodial interrogation. Despite Miranda, coerced confessions …

Symposium Introduction -- Miranda At 40: Applications In A Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

The groundbreaking case of Miranda v. Arizona raise[d] questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. This Introduction to the 2007 Chapman Law Review Symposium summarizes the contemporary examination of Miranda's influence, past and present, along with the continuing debate today. The experiences and precedents that have evolved in the past 40 years helps to explore the evolution of the criminal law and procedural dictates set forth in Miranda. Complications with custodial interrogation - and the impulses and incentives involved …

Subsidiarity, Federalism, And Federal Prosecution Of Street Crime, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

No abstract provided.

Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights Of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

The Revitalization Of The Common-Law Civil Writ Of Audita Querela As A Post-Conviction Remedy In Criminal Cases: The Immigration Context And Beyond, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Recent Development, Kirby V. Illinois, Stephen W. Gard

Stephen W. Gard

Pre-indictment identification confrontations, without presence of counsel, held constitutionally permitted.