Law Commons^™

More Than Just A Factfinder: The Right To Unanimous Jury Sentencing In Capital Cases, Richa Bijlani

Michigan Law Review

For some defendants, sentencing may be even more harrowing than a determination of guilt or innocence. Those facing capital punishment have the most to lose at the sentencing phase. The Supreme Court is not ignorant to this reality, finding in Ring v. Arizona that “the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished” if it had no application to death penalty proceedings. Yet under its permissive jurisprudence, the Court has suggested that the Sixth Amendment is satisfied in the death penalty context even if its protections vanish postconviction. This Note argues instead that the Sixth Amendment—specifically the jury right—should protect defendants more …

Pepperdine University School Of Law Legal Summaries, Analise Nuxoll

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

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 …

Garbage In, Garbage Out: Revising Strickland As Applied To Forensic Science Evidence, Mark Loudon-Brown

Georgia State University Law Review

Sophisticated scientific evidence may be an undesirable subject matter for a judge to tackle anew, and it can be even more daunting for a defense attorney to confront, particularly one faced with a crushing caseload. It can be tempting to avoid a challenge to a vulnerable forensic science discipline—be it new, novel, or simply recently called into question—when a lawyer reasonably believes that the evidence will be admitted regardless.

Worse still, it may seem reasonable to disregard any adversarial challenge to incriminatory science altogether, and to opt instead for a different defense or to encourage a guilty plea. With hundreds …

It’S All Your Fault!: Examining The Defendant’S Use Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel As A Means Of Getting A “Second Bite At The Apple.”, Prentice L. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States Constitution provides individuals convicted of a crime with “a second bite at the apple.” The Sixth Amendment provides an avenue to appeal one’s conviction based on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” What were the Framers’ true intentions in using the phrase “effective assistance of counsel”? How does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 affect habeas corpus appeals? This article answers these questions through the eyes of Thomas—a fictional character who is appealing his murder conviction.

This article first looks at the history surrounding effective assistance of counsel and discusses the difficulties …

Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …

Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Far too many reporters and pundits collapse law into politics, assuming that the left–right divide between Democratic and Republican appointees neatly explains politically liberal versus politically conservative outcomes at the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia defied such caricatures. His consistent judicial philosophy made him the leading exponent of originalism, textualism, and formalism in American law, and over the course of his three decades on the Court, he changed the terms of judicial debate. Now, as a result, supporters and critics alike start with the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text rather than loose appeals to legislative …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

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.

Holland V. Illinois: Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Requirement Does Not Preclude Racially-Based Peremptory Challenges, Debra L. Dippel

Akron Law Review

This note recaps the Supreme Court's previous decisions regarding defendant's objections to jury composition, including both equal protection and fair cross-section requirement analyses. It also discusses Holland, examines the various opinions in the case, and reviews the arguments for and against abolishing peremptory challenges. Finally, the note proposes a solution for the questions which Holland leaves unanswered.

Idaho V. Wright: Who Can Speak For The Children Now?, Laura Barker

Akron Law Review

This note discusses how the Court reached the decision in Idaho v. Wright to exclude the hearsay testimony of a child abuse victim. The note examines the Court's reasoning and the effects which the exclusion of hearsay testimony of child abuse victims may have on future prosecutions. The note concludes that the Court's decision is likely to add chaos into the already difficult and complex arena of child abuse prosecution.

Gradually Exploded: Confrontation Vs. The Former Testimony Rule., Tim Donaldson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Observing live court testimony allows a jury to determine witness credibility. This is called demeanor evidence. Allowing the introduction of transcripts of prior testimony by a witness offends a defendant's right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Loss of demeanor evidence can heighten sensitivity surrounding the constitutional demands of unavailability and an opportunity for cross-examination. But the loss of this evidence is discounted when dealing with the admissibility of prior testimony as long as a defendant was formerly afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Demeanor evidence, however, is still treated as a non-essential component of …

Autopsy Reports And The Confrontation Clause: A Presumption Of Admissibility, Daniel J. Capra, Joseph Tartakovsky

Faculty Scholarship

Courts nationwide are divided over whether autopsy reports are “testimonial” under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Resolving that split will affect medical examiners as dramatically as Miranda did police. This article applies the latest Supreme Court jurisprudence to the work of modern medical examiners in a comprehensive inquiry. It argues that autopsy reports should be presumed non-testimonial—a presumption overcome only by a showing that law enforcement involvement materially influenced the examiner’s autopsy report.

The Limits Of Textualism In Interpreting The Confrontation Clause, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.

A Reporter's Privilege In Florida: Has The Conflict Between The First Amendment And Sixth Amendment Been Reconciled?, Jay B. Rosman

Barry Law Review

This article examines the reporter's privilege in Florida and the inherent conflict between the First Amendment and Sixth Amendment as it exists between the freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The salient question addressed is whether the conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment has been reconciled on the issue of a reporter's privilege by Florida courts and the Florida Legislature. The author provides both an analytic and empirical study. Analytically, the article looks to the two amendments to define a reporter's privilege and considers the history of the privilege. The article discusses …

Justice Kennedy's Sixth Amendment Pragmatism, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay, written as part of a symposium on the evolution of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence, surveys three areas of criminal procedure under the Sixth Amendment: sentence enhancements, the admissibility of hearsay, and the regulation of defense counsel’s responsibilities. In each area, Justice Kennedy has been a notable voice of pragmatism, focusing not on bygone analogies to the eighteenth century but on a hard-headed appreciation of the twenty-first. He has shown sensitivity to modern criminal practice, prevailing professional norms, and practical constraints, as befits a Justice who came to the bench with many years of private-practice experience. His touchstone is not …

Assessing Divisibility In The Armed Career Criminal Act, Ted Koehler

Michigan Law Review

When courts analyze whether a defendant's prior conviction qualifies as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act's "residual clause," they use a "categorical approach," looking only to the statutory language of the prior offense, rather than the facts disclosed by the record of conviction. But when a defendant is convicted under a "divisible" statute, which encompasses a broader range of conduct, only some of which would qualify as a predicate offense, courts may employ the "modified categorical approach." This approach allows courts to view additional documents to determine whether the jury convicted the defendant of the Armed Career …

Issues Concerning Charges For Driving While Intoxicated In Texas Federal Courts., Brian L. Owsley

St. Mary's Law Journal

Each year numerous defendants appear in courts located in Texas, both state and federal, charged with offenses related to driving while intoxicated (DWI). Defendants appearing before state courts are prosecuted pursuant to Texas statutes, regulations, and binding case law. In certain circumstances, defendants appearing in federal courts face the same statutory elements of a crime and the same potential penalties as in a Texas state court. In many of the cases, however, statutory elements and potential penalties differ. Furthermore, certain rights and regulations afforded to Texas state defendants are unavailable to those charged in federal courts located in the state. …

A Primer On Batson, Including Discussion Of Johnson V. California, Miller-El V. Dretke, Rice V. Collins, & Synder V. Louisiana., Mikal C. Watts, Emily C. Jeffcott

St. Mary's Law Journal

Fundamental to the existence of the rights guaranteed to every citizen is the assurance that the right to equal protection under the law will be defended at all costs. Key to the United States’ system of adjudication is the right to a trial by jury, which is embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution. These rights are also incorporated into all state constitutions through the Fourteenth Amendment. During jury selection, the judicial system permits the elimination of a certain number of jurors without cause. This form of elimination is known as a peremptory challenge. Over time, however, …

Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts: The Future Of The Confrontation Clause, Joseph Henn

Barry Law Review

The purpose of this article is to show the error in the majorities’ decision in Melendez-Diaz by approaching the issue from two perspectives. First, by investigating the cases and legal doctrines created by the Supreme Court in the years preceding Melendez-Diaz, this article will demonstrate why the case was erroneously decided. Second, this article explores the possibility that the majority decision was correct and thus the recently devised standard in Crawford v. Washington is inherently flawed. This article will further discuss the prior application of law before the Melendez-Diaz decision, offer analysis on the string of cases that led …

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 …

Utter Excitement About Nothing: Why Domestic Violence Evidence-Based Prosecution Will Survive Crawford V. Washington., Donna D. Bloom

St. Mary's Law Journal

In response to domestic violence involving victims who do not wish to cooperate in the prosecution of their abuser, prosecutors endeavor to frame cases around other evidence establishing a defendant’s guilt regardless of the victim’s testimony. Domestic violence cases set for trial are being thrown out of Texas courts because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reasserts a defendant’s right to confront his accuser in court. Prosecutors believe that strong legal arguments exist to continue successfully prosecuting abusers without the cooperation of the victim at trial. This is through the continued admission of certain hearsay statements, despite Crawford …

The Effect Of 8 U. S. C. 1324(D) In Transporting Prosecutions: Does The Confrontation Clause Still Apply To Alien Defendants, Donna F. Coltharp

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.

One such …

The Effect Of 8 U. S. C. 1324(D) In Transporting Prosecutions: Does The Confrontation Clause Still Apply To Alien Defendants., Donna F. Coltharp

St. Mary's Law Journal

Cases prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. §1324 present special challenges for the Government and for defendants. Under §1324, it is a crime to transport or smuggle aliens into the United States. Prosecuting transporters or smugglers may present a challenge if a witness is unavailable. Even though transporting or smuggling always has witnesses—the alien(s) who hired the smuggler or transporter—not all witnesses have prolonged detentions, and some are returned to their native country. The transporter or smuggler may then assert their Sixth Amendment right. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause requires that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to …

The Decision In United States V. Brown: The Fifth Circuit Interprets Justice Is Blind Literally., Robert M. Anselmo

St. Mary's Law Journal

In United States v. Brown, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts use of anonymous jury orders. The use of anonymous juries, however, is either a necessary protection for jury members or an unfair procedural practice. The Fifth Circuit’s support for anonymous juries included concerns over threats, intimidation, and possible attempts to influence juror members in order to secure a favorable verdict. The promise of a jury of one's peers is a cornerstone of the United States judicial system. Implicit in this guarantee is the assurance of an impartial jury. Nonetheless, a jury that sits in fear may not fulfill …

Toward A More Effective Standard Of Review: The Potential Effect Of Burdine V. Johnson On Legal Malpractice In Texas., Rebecca A. Copeland

St. Mary's Law Journal

If the presence of a sleeping attorney is so egregious as to result in a reversal of a criminal conviction, it is surely enough to warrant the imposition of civil damages upon the same attorney. A recent trend of cases in which criminal defendants alleged ineffective assistance of counsel—due to sleeping attorneys—resulted in courts being unable to create a uniform analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel, and the Supreme Court has devised a two-prong analysis by which claims of ineffective assistance must be reviewed. Burdine v. Johnson …

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 …

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 …