Law Commons^™

Kahler V. Kansas: How The Current Insanity Defense Regime Underserves Postpartum Psychosis Defendants, How The Supreme Court Failed To Act, And How Now Is The Perfect Time To Implement A Gender-Specific Postpartum Defense, Victoria Frazier

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ethical Considerations For Prosecutors: How Recent Advancements Have Changed The Face Of Prosecution, Joshua L. Sandoval

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The prosecutor acts as a minister of justice with sweeping discretion to charge an individual with a crime, plea a case in a manner supported by the strength of the evidence, proceed to trial on a case, and even dismiss a case. He must balance the interest of the victim, the community, and the constitutional rights of the accused in every decision he makes.

This article will explore the role of the American prosecutor and discuss various ethical issues encountered on a daily basis. After a brief introduction, the author will succinctly discuss the history of the prosecutor and will …

Skinning The Cat: How Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations For Animal Cruelty Offenders Can Prevent Future Violence, Ashley Kunz

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In 2017, the Texas legislature amended Texas Penal Code § 42.092, which governs acts of cruelty against non-livestock animals. The statute in its current form makes torturing, killing, or seriously injuring a non-livestock animal a third degree felony, while less serious offenses carry either a state jail felony or a Class A misdemeanor charge.

While a step in the right direction, Texas law is not comprehensive in that it fails to address a significant aspect of animal cruelty offenses: mental illness. For over fifteen years, Texas Family Code § 54.0407 has required psychiatric counseling for juveniles convicted of cruelty to …

Judicial Disqualification And Recusal In Criminal Cases, Edward L. Wilkinson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The United States Supreme Court has recognized circumstances in which the probability of judicial bias requiring disqualification or recusal is “too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” At the same time, the Texas Constitution contains a number of provisions barring a judge from presiding over a case under specific circumstances, while statutes and procedural rules either disqualify a judge or require him or her to be recused. Thus, whether a particular judge may preside over a given criminal case may be questioned under the Due Process Clause, the Texas Constitution, statue, or the rules of procedure. This Article will examine the …

The Collini Case: A Novel (Book Review), Michael S. Ariens

Faculty Articles

Ferdinand von Schirach is a German criminal defense lawyer who has previously published two vivid and brilliant short story collections. His latest book, The Collini Case: A Novel, like his short stories, gives the reader telling details that offer insights into the human condition. But The Collini Case seems less interested in its characters than in teaching about the continuing stain of Germany’s past. This leads von Schirach to use stock figures who have suffered stock tragedies and who engage in stock actions. The novel is simply not realistic enough to suspend disbelief, and only barely avoids being a melodrama. …

Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …

The Mentally Disordered Criminal Defendant At The Supreme Court: A Decade In Review, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In the past decade, at least eight cases involving issues at the intersection of criminal law and clinical psychology have reached the United States Supreme Court. Of particular interest are those cases which concern three general topics: the culpability of juvenile offenders; mental states and the criminal process, including the presentation of mental disorder evidence, competency to stand trial, and competency to be executed; and the preventive detention of convicted sex offenders.

Of these eight cases, two cases cases adopted categorical exclusions from certain kinds of punishment, three involved questions about mental states (and in two of these the Court …

Waiver, Certification, And Transfer Of Juveniles To Adult Court: Limiting Juveniles Transfers In Texas., Emily Ray

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

The adult criminal justice system is worse for juveniles who commit crimes. Underlying principles upon which the juvenile justice system was founded remain viable and worthy goals, and Texas law should reflect that understanding. Part II traces the development of juvenile justice in this country, including the evolution of the first American juvenile courts, and summarizes the due process rights afforded to juveniles by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Part III, I argue juvenile transfers to adult court should be limited in Texas with a special emphasis on young peoples' development, decision-making and reasoning abilities, and insights scientific research provides …

Rehabilitating Mental Disorder Evidence After Clark C. Arizona: Of Burdens, Presumptions, And The Rights To Raise Reasonable Doubt, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The right not to be found guilty of a crime absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a powerful right. It can be undermined, however, by rules that at first seem to have little to do with reasonable doubt or with burdens of proof.

In the recent case of Clark v. Arizona, the Supreme Court considered whether states may enact rules that categorically prohibit criminal defendants from offering mental disorder evidence for the purpose of raising reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea element of a charged offense. In Arizona law, mental disorder evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of disproving …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, no uniform approach exists in determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction as a technique to impeach a witness. This lack of uniformity leads to significant consequences for the parties and poses a potential prejudicial effect on the truthful character of a witness. Furthermore, there is currently no bright-line judicial standard when evaluating the admissibility of certain prior convictions. Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Theus v. State provided a non-exhaustive set of factors for trial judges to consider, the court has yet to clarify particular aspects of how to properly apply Texas Rule …

The Castle Doctrine: An Expanding Right To Stand Your Ground Comment., Denise M. Drake

St. Mary's Law Journal

Recently, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 effectively terminating a person’s “duty to retreat” when confronted with a criminal attack of either great bodily injury or death. Complicated issues of innocence and guilt arise when one employs deadly force as a means of self-defense. Furthermore, tragic mistakes occur when people preemptively resort to deadly force before the realization of such a threat. Societal questions still exist concerning the possibility that self-defense will turn into self-justice. Critics argue the law encourages a vigilante society, substituting law enforcement help with self-justice. Conversely, supporters believe the bill serves as a deterrent from …

A Meaningless Relationship: The Fifth Circuit's Use Of Dismissed And Uncharged Conduct Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Recent Development., Erin A. Higginbotham

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Fifth Circuit’s failure to require the uncharged conduct to have a meaningful relationship with the conduct of conviction is flawed. An amendment of section 5K2.21 specifically approved the consideration of uncharged or dismissed offenses to serve as a basis for an upward departure to reflect the actual seriousness of the offense. Confusion amongst federal circuit courts of appeal arose as to whether such conduct included uncharged or dismissed criminal offenses. Interpreting the amendment’s language has caused a circuit split. The Fifth Circuit erroneously interpreted section 5K2.21 as to require nothing more than a “remote connection” between the uncharged crime …

The Growing Role Of Fortuity In Texas Criminal Law, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

Texas’ recent departure from culpability based crimes now means luck plays a bigger role in the punishment for these crimes. Texas has departed from the traditional notion of punishment based on individual fault, and has arrived at a place where these “new” ways of conceptualizing criminal responsibility adequately and satisfactorily account for the interests served by a more restrictive definition of criminal fault. Traditionally, criminal responsibility attached only when mens rea combined with volitional conduct--or the withholding of some required act--to produce a public harm.

In Texas, there seems to be a trend to punish actors for the harm they …

Aboilishing The Texas Jury Shuffle., Michael M. Gallgher

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article argues that the Texas Legislature should abolish the jury shuffle and join the other forty-nine states who have already done so. The jury shuffle, when requested, is a procedure which results in a random shuffling of the names of the jury pool members. Texas attorneys currently possess an entirely cost and risk free procedure through which they can discriminate against potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or anything else that suits their fancy. An attorney can request a jury shuffle without stating a reason and a judge cannot ask why a shuffle was requested or …

Stranded In The Wastelands Of Unregulated Roadway Police Powers: Can Reasonable Officers Ever Rescue Us., Keith S. Hampton

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article describes the present state of roadway police power and explores the vulnerability of drivers and occupants to police abuse, specifically using pretextual stops. Today, state and federal courts have made many police power accommodations to the constitutional reasonableness requirement. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence justifies almost all conceivable police seizures of people in vehicles. If the police officer can point out any traffic law violation, he can arrest. And if he can arrest under those circumstances, then the already blurred line between detentions and arrest becomes inconsequential, constitutionally speaking. This Article proposes that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals …

Hines 57: The Catchall Case To The Texas Kidnapping Statute., Karen Bartlett

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Recent Development asserts that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to define “substantial interference” in relation to the kidnapping statute, opens the floodgates for every act of confinement or movement committed in the course of a substantive offense constituting kidnapping. The Court maintains it is up to the jury to define the term. If the Texas Legislature does not narrowly define the kidnapping statute, virtually every assault, robbery, sexual assault, and some murders will constitute both the substantive offense plus kidnapping. Furthermore, such logic would in effect bootstrap murder into capital murder, which happened in Herrin v. State. …

By Any Means Necessary: Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Texas' Dna Testing Law In The Adjudication Of Free-Standing Claims Of Actual Innocence, Daryl E. Harris

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Trial Rights And Psychotropic Drugs: The Case Against Administering Involuntary Medications To A Defendant During Trial, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

This paper explores the legal problems that arise when the government undertakes to render a criminal defendant competent to stand trial, by administering involuntary psychotropic medications. Among these problems are the infringement of the defendant's trial rights, such as the right to receive assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses, as well as interference with the defendant's ability to testify and to present evidence of a mental illness. This paper explores these problems with special reference to the case of Russell Weston, who has been charged with murder in the deaths of two Capitol police officers and who spent more …

Appeals From Pleas Of Guilty And Nolo Contendere: History And Procedural Considerations., Kevin Yeary

St. Mary's Law Journal

The changing history of appeal rights—made through decisional interpretation by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals—highlights the importance of staying current on interpretations of procedural and substantive rules. Lawyers owe their clients a duty to understand the history of the right to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea. Additionally, they owe their clients a duty to understand substantive and procedural requirements for maintaining such appeals, as well as to stay abreast of changes affecting these appeals. Recently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handed down several opinions drastically reshaping the landscape for appeals following pleas of guilty and …

Having It All: Pleading Guilty Without Forfeiting The Right To Appeal, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

Pleading guilty and moving for an appeal of a pretrial suppression ruling has not been viewed as an efficient allocation of judicial resources. However, it is terribly inefficient to force the State to trial solely to preserve appeal rights on a pretrial objection. Attempts by courts and the legislature to balance these competing interests have produced a confusing and dangerous mix of contradictory rules.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) 25.2 is the latest iteration of such rules. Appeals may be taken following a negotiated guilty plea or nolo contendere plea, if “the substance of the appeal was raised by …

A Call For Comment: Restyling And Amending The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In August 2000, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure published—for public comment—proposed amendments to the entire set of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposals mark the culmination of a two-year project to “restyle” the rules—to modernize and reorganize and to make them internally consistent in format and style. Not since the rules were first promulgated in 1946 has there been such a significant change in the structure, format, and substance. This article first addresses the rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then examines the restyling process. Finally, it notes several of …

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives And Effective Representation In Capital Cases Essay., Jeffrey J. Pokorak

St. Mary's Law Journal

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses …

Use Of A Pen Register May Be A Search Within The Purview Of Article I, Section 9 Of The Texas Constitution., Angie Patrick

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Richardson v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Richardson’s second petition for discretionary review to determine whether law enforcement’s use of a pen register constitutes a search. The use of a pen register may be a search within the purview of Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Courts use the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, from Katz v. United States, to determine whether a search has occurred under the Fourth Amendment. In Richardson, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the use of a pen register equates to a search despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in …

Trying To Make Ends Meet: Reconciling The Law And Practice Of Human Rights Amnesties Symposium - Human Rights In The Americas - Commentary., Robert O. Weiner

St. Mary's Law Journal

The problem of amnesty for widespread human rights violations in the Americas illustrates the credibility gap in public international law. This Commentary reviews applicable standards and attempts to identify a minimum state response to past human rights violations. It also examines the question of amnesties, offers certain legal interpretations, and presents some criteria for an amnesty framework which might be reconcilable with the state’s international obligations. This Commentary’s aim is not to suggest amnesties are a proper response to the problem of past human rights abuses, however, it does acknowledge amnesties have so far been the most common response. It …

Use Of Excessive Physical Force Against An Inmate May Constitute Cruel And Unusual Punishment Even Though The Prisoner Does Not Suffer Significant Injury., Anthony A. Avey

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Hudson v. McMillian, the Supreme Court held that use of excessive physical force against an inmate may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the prisoner does not suffer any significant injury. The Eighth Amendment has evolved significantly since its adoption in 1791, becoming a complex line of authority which over time expanded the rights of criminals and convicts. Recent cases have attempted to mold the varying Eight Amendment standards into a more cohesive legal doctrine. These efforts were meant to clarify the doctrine of cruel and unusual punishments; however, the divergent interpretations of these decisions rendered Eighth Amendment …

Heitman V. State: The Question Left Unanswered., Matthew W. Paul, Jeffrey L. Van Horn

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Heitman v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appeared to break with the court’s prior holdings to announce it would no longer “automatically adopt and apply” to the search and seizure provisions of the Texas Constitution “the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.” The reaction to Heitman was immediate and striking. Heitman is obviously a significant decision that could impact Texas criminal jurisprudence for decades. Yet, the decision left many questions unanswered, including whether the search and seizure provision should be construed as placing greater restrictions on law enforcement than the Fourth Amendment of the United States …

The Twentieth Annual Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture: Military Justice For The 1990'S - A Legal System Looking For Respect, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The Kenneth J. Hodson Chair of Criminal Law was established at The Judge Advocate General’s School on June 24, 1971. The chair was named after Major General Hodson, who served as The Judge Advocate General from 1967 to 1971. General Hodson retired in 1971, but immediately was recalled to active duty to serve as the Chief Judge of the Army Court of Military Review. He served in that position until 1974. General Hodson served over thirty years on active duty. During that time, he was active in the American and Federal Bar Associations, and he authored much of the military …

The Scope Of The Eighth Amendment Does Not Include A Per Se Bar To The Use Of Victim Impact Evidence In The Sentencing Phase Of A Capital Trial., Jimmie O. Clements Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Payne v. Tennessee, the United States Supreme Court held the scope of the Eighth Amendment does not include a per se bar to the use of victim impact evidence in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. As a result of Payne, the realm of information admissible during the sentencing phase of a capital trial now includes victim impact evidence. The use of victim impact evidence improperly diverts the sentencer’s attention away from the defendant’s moral blameworthiness to the victim’s character and reputation. Although advocates of victim’s rights may see this decision as a victory, the reasoning of the …

Why The Criminal Justice System Can't Control Crime, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.