Law Commons^™

This Isn't A Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams Of High-Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One's Right To A Fair Trial, Ryan Fenn

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Since the invention of television in 1927, the American legal system faced drastic changes. In 1935, the first trial was broadcast to the public in the case of Bruno Hauptmann. During the trial, “[e]laborate telegraph equipment” was installed in the courtroom, with “sound and motion picture equipment . . . plainly visible in the [courtroom] balcony.” From 1935 on, broadcasting technology has been utilized in the courtroom to convey the inner workings of certain courts to the public, which has stimulated debate over whether the use of this technology is conducive to a fair trial under the Sixth and …

Taking The Gavel Away From The Executive Branch: The Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme Under S.B. 201 Is Ripe For Review And Unconstitutional, Jessica Crtalic

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2019, Senate Bill 201, also known as the Reagan Tokes Act, reintroduced an indeterminate sentencing scheme in Ohio whereby sentences are assigned in the form of a range. Under this sentencing scheme, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, through the parole board, has discretion to retain an inmate past the presumptive release date. This fails to afford the accused their guaranteed right to a jury trial, improperly places judiciary power in the hands of the executive branch, and scrutinizes the violation of due process such that the defendant is being denied a fair hearing and notice. Not only …

You Have The Right To Remain Silent, And It Can And Will Be Used Against You: Addressing Post-Arrest Pre-Miranda Silence, Maria P. Hirakis

Touro Law Review

The right to remain silent has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection. Since Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966, procedural safeguards have been put in place to inform individuals of this right upon arrest. Yet, a gray area exists when it comes to the use of an individual's silence post-arrest. It may surprise some that a point in time exists when an individual has not yet been read their Miranda rights post-arrest. Several circuit courts have taken the position that any silence that follows arrest but precedes the reading of Miranda …

A Small But Mighty Docket: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2019-20 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Jeremy Shur

Articles

With its 2019-20 Term disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court released just 53 signed decisions, the fewest decisions in a Term since the Civil War. But the Court's lighter docket still featured important criminal law and procedure cases touching on what constitutes reasonable individualized suspicion, the necessity of jury unanimity, and the proper form of the insanity defense.

Federal Guilty Pleas: Inequities, Indigence And The Rule 11 Process, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

In 2017 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued two little-noticed decisions—Lee v. United States and Class v. United States. While neither case captured the attention of the national media nor generated meaningful academic commentary, both cases are well deserving of critical examination for reasons independent of the issues presented to the Court. They deserve review because of a consequential shared fact; a fact representative of a commonplace, yet largely overlooked, federal court practice that routinely disadvantages the indigent (and disproportionately minority populations), and compromises the integrity of arguably the most consequential component of the federal criminal justice process. In each …

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

The New Impartial Jury Mandate, Richard Lorren Jolly

Michigan Law Review

Impartiality is the cornerstone of the Constitution’s jury trial protections. Courts have historically treated impartiality as procedural in nature, meaning that the Constitution requires certain prophylactic procedures that secure a jury that is more likely to reach verdicts impartially. But in Peña- Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017), the Supreme Court recognized for the first time an enforceable, substantive component to the mandate. There, the Court held that criminal litigants have a Sixth Amendment right to jury decisions made without reliance on extreme bias, specifically on the basis of race or national origin. The Court did not …

Reciprocal Immunity, Colin Miller

Indiana Law Journal

This essay advances a reciprocal rights theory. It argues that the Constitution precludes statutes and rules from providing nonreciprocal benefits to the State when the lack of reciprocity interferes with the defendant’s ability to secure a fair trial, unless reciprocity would implicate a significant state interest. Therefore, unless a significant State interest is involved, a grant of immunity to a prosecution witness should trigger reciprocal immunity to a directly contradictory defense witness.

Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief And Brief For The National Association For Public Defense And Kentucky Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Sneed V. Burress (U.S. March 24, 2017) (No. 16-8047)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

No abstract provided.

What Gideon Did, Sara Mayeux

All Faculty Scholarship

Many accounts of Gideon v. Wainwright’s legacy focus on what Gideon did not do—its doctrinal and practical limits. For constitutional theorists, Gideon imposed a preexisting national consensus upon a few “outlier” states, and therefore did not represent a dramatic doctrinal shift. For criminal procedure scholars, advocates, and journalists, Gideon has failed, in practice, to guarantee meaningful legal help for poor people charged with crimes.

Drawing on original historical research, this Article instead chronicles what Gideon did—the doctrinal and institutional changes it inspired between 1963 and the early 1970s. Gideon shifted the legal profession’s policy consensus on indigent defense away from …

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Mu'min V. Virginia: Sixth And Fourteenth Amendments Do Not Compel Content Questions In Assessing Juror Impartiality, Cheryl A. Waddle

Akron Law Review

This note synopsizes the Supreme Court's prior decisions regarding the adequacy of voir dire in capital cases surrounded by prejudicial pretrial publicity. This note will then discuss Mu'Min and explore the weaknesses in the Court's analogies to its prior decisions. Next, the note will propose arguments in favor of mandating content questioning. Finally, this note will explore possible nonconstitutional reasons for requiring content questioning in cases where juror partiality should be presumed.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company: Pre-Empting Prejudice, Andrea K. Huston

Akron Law Review

In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether parties in a civil case may use their peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury.

This Note will discuss the various limitations that courts have placed on the use of peremptory challenges, and the position of the Supreme Court. This Note will also discuss the Court's expansion of the state action doctrine, and the impact Edmonson will have on future cases.

Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for …

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumed Guilty, Terrence Cain

Faculty Scholarship

It would probably surprise the average American to learn that prosecutors need only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes. Although the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution require that the government prove each element of an alleged criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of statutory presumptions has relieved the government of this responsibility, and in some cases, has even shifted the burden to the defendant to disprove the presumption. Likewise, the Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to have the jury and the jury alone determine whether the government has met its burden and ultimately …

Disentangling Symmetries: Speech, Association, Parenthood, Laurence H. Tribe

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, And The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Ben L. Trachtenberg

Faculty Publications

Using the example of a recent major terrorism prosecution, this article addresses “coventurer hearsay” in the context of the ongoing Confrontation Clause debate concerning the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. Courts have recently begun admitting hearsay evidence pursuant to a revisionist interpretation of the coconspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule. Under the new “lawful joint venture” theory, a hearsay statement may be admitted as a coconspirator statement if made in furtherance of a “joint undertaking” - defined as pretty much any cooperative activity - even if the “conspiracy” is not illegal. Because this new interpretation …

How Much Does It Matter Whether Courts Work Within The "Clearly Marked" Provisions Of The Bill Of Rights Or With The "Generalities" Of The Fourteenth Amendment?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

We know that it really mattered to Justice Hugo Black. As he made clear in his famous dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California] Black was convinced that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply the complete protection of the Bill of Rights to the states.2 And, as he also made plain in his Adamson dissent, he was equally convinced that working with the "specific" or "explicit" guarantees of the first Eight Amendments would furnish Americans more protection than would applying the generalities of the Fourteenth Amendment.3

Procedural Obstacles To Reviewing Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claims In State And Federal Postconviction Proceedings., Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal postconviction petitions. This is hardly surprising given reports of trial attorneys who refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the day of trial, and fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence offered at trial. Unfortunately, the current structure of indigent defense funding makes it impossible for many public defenders to provide effective representation to their clients.

Some Effects Of Identity-Based Social Movements On Constitutional Law In The Twentieth Century, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Michigan Law Review

What motivated big changes in constitutional law doctrine during the twentieth century? Rarely did important constitutional doctrine or theory change because of formal amendments to the document's text, and rarer still because scholars or judges "discovered" new information about the Constitution's original meaning. Precedent and common law reasoning were the mechanisms by which changes occurred rather than their driving force. My thesis is that most twentieth century changes in the constitutional protection of individual rights were driven by or in response to the great identity-based social movements ("IBSMs") of the twentieth century. Race, sex, and sexual orientation were markers of …

Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein

Michigan Law Review

The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department, People V. Taylor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scottsboro Boys In 1991: The Promise Of Adequate Criminal Representation Through The Years, Charles W. Wolfram

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rock V. Arkansas, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. These claims have focused on the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Defendants have contended that the introduction of testimony from a grand jury proceeding which cannot be subjected to cross-examination fatally compromises the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lower courts are split over admitting grand jury testimony in these circumstances, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. As a result, …

Scott V. Illinois, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Tucker, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law-Confessions-Admission Of Illegally Obtained Confession In State Criminal Prosecution Is Harmless Error Not Requiring Reversal Of Conviction--People V. Jacobson, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Defendant voluntarily admitted that he had murdered his daughter to a social worker, two ambulance attendants, and three police officers sent to investigate the incident. He continued to declare his guilt to these officers after his arrest, on the way to the police station, and at the police station where he was interrogated without the benefit of counsel although he had not waived his right to counsel. All of the confessions-approximately ten-were admitted in evidence at the defendant's trial over his objection that the two confessions obtained during the interrogation should have been excluded since he had been denied his …

Right To Counsel In Criminal Cases, Edward T. Haggins

Cleveland State Law Review

"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law... He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step of the proceedings against him." These words, written in 1932 by Mr. Justice Sutherland for the majority in the famous case of Powell v. Alabama underline the fundamental right of a defendant in American criminal proceeding to have the assistance of counsel.