Law Commons^™

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 …

Increasing Substantive Fairness And Mitigating Social Costs In Eviction Proceedings: Instituting A Civil Right To Counsel For Indigent Tenants In Pennsylvania, Robin M. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The U.S. Constitution provides criminal defendants the right to a court-appointed attorney but gives no similar protection to civil litigants. Although federal law does not supply any categorical rights to counsel for civil litigants, all 50 states have instituted the right in at least one category of civil law that substantially impacts individuals’ rights. Since 2017, several U.S. cities have enacted such a right for tenants facing eviction. In so doing, these cities responded to American families’ increasing rent burden, the recent publication of nationwide eviction data, the sociological research concerning the impact of eviction, and the lack of procedural …

Restoring The Presumption Of Innocence: Protecting A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial By Closing The Door On 404(B) Evidence, Aaron Diaz

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence to govern evidentiary procedures and “eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” In criminal cases, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) seeks to prevent prosecutors from improperly introducing a defendant’s past misdeeds. Nevertheless, prosecutors often attempt to introduce a defendant’s past misconduct to suggest that a defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, which is improper character evidence. Unsurprisingly, 404(b) is one of the most litigated evidence rules and has generated more published opinions than any other subsections of the Rules. And despite efforts to amend Rule 404(b), the rule has remained virtually untouched. …

The Right To A Well-Rested Jury, Caroline Howe

Michigan Law Review

The vast amount of control that state trial judges exercise over the dynamics of their courtrooms is well established. The length of trial days and jury deliberations, however, has received little scholarly attention. Longstanding research has conclusively established the disruptive effects of sleep deprivation on many of the mental facilities necessary for juries to competently fulfill their duties. By depriving juries of sleep, trial judges may be compromising the fair rights of criminal defendants for the sake of efficiency. This Note argues that trial judges must use their discretion to ensure juries are well-rested, keeping jurors’ needs in mind. Further, …

Balancing Sorna And The Sixth Amendment: The Case For A "Restricted Circumstance-Specific Approach", John F. Howard

Marquette Law Review

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is in place to protect the public, children especially, from sex offenders. Under SORNA, anyone and everyone convicted of what the law defines as a “sex offense” is required to register as a “sex offender,” providing accurate and up-to-date information on where they live, work, and go to school. Failure to do so constitutes a federal crime punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. But how do federal courts determine whether a particular state-level criminal offense constitutes a “sex offense” under SORNA? Oftentimes when doing comparisons between state and federal law for …

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 …

"It's Not You, It's Your Caseload": Using Cronic To Solve Indigent Defense Underfunding, Samantha Jaffe

Michigan Law Review

In the United States, defendants in both federal and state prosecutions have the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. That right is in jeopardy. In the postconviction setting, the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is prohibitively high, and Congress has restricted federal habeas review. At trial, severe underfunding for state indigent defense systems has led to low pay, little support, and extreme caseloads—which combine to create conditions where lawyers simply cannot represent clients adequately. Overworked public defenders and contract attorneys represent 80 percent of state felony defendants annually. Three out of four countywide public defender systems and fifteen …

Hurst V. Florida’S Ha’P’Orth Of Tar: The Need To Revisit Caldwell, Clemons, And Proffitt, Craig Trocino, Chance Meyer

University of Miami Law Review

In Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court held Florida’s death penalty scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because judges, rather than juries, found sentencing facts necessary to impose death. That Sixth Amendment ruling has implications for Florida’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

Under the Eighth Amendment rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, capital juries must appreciate their responsibility for death sentencing. Yet, Florida has instructed juries that their fact-findings merely support sentencing recommendations, while leaving the ultimate sentencing decision to a judge. Because Hurst clarifies that the Sixth Amendment requires juries to find the operative set of facts on which sentences are …

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

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.

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 …

Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak

University of Baltimore Law Forum

On May 28, 2013, Torrey Johnson5 struggles to raise both his hands, handcuffed and seated shoulder-to-shoulder between two other defendants in the first row of the closed circuit television (“CCTV” or “videoconference”) bail review hearing room within the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (“Centeral Booking”). There are two more rows of defendants behind Mr. Johnson, all in yellow jumpsuits, being watched by correctional officers. Separated by a three-foot wall, Mr. Johnson’s public defender sits out of sight from the video camera’s field of view, about ten feet away from her client. The judge quickly reads through Mr. Johnson’s rights. …

Disqualifying Defense Counsel: The Curse Of The Sixth Amendment, Keith Swisher

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Lawyer disqualification—the process of ejecting a conflicted lawyer, firm, or agency from a case—is fairly routine and well-mapped in civil litigation. In criminal cases, however, there is an added ingredient: the Sixth Amendment. Gideon, which is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary, effectively added this ingredient to disqualification analysis involving indigent state defendants although it already existed in essence for both federal defendants and defendants with the wherewithal to retain counsel. Once a defendant is entitled to counsel, the many questions that follow include whether and to what extent conflicts of interest—or other misconduct—render that counsel constitutionally ineffective. Most cases and commentary …

Reinventing The Wheel: Constructing Ethical Approaches To State Indigent Legal Defense Systems., Bill Piatt

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Indigent defense remains in a state of crisis. Almost fifty years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, lack of funding, favoritism, inefficiency, and poorly-designed indigent[1]defense plans plague the system, which can best be characterized as being in a state of disrepair. As a result, accused indigent individuals, a vulnerable population, suffer from a lack of adequate representation. This Article reviews the history and implementation of various indigent-defense systems and examines the ethical issues arising from their operation. It offers a guide to reconstructing a model system, including the suggestion that attorneys first recommit the profession to …

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, …

A Structural Vision Of Habeas Corpus, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

As scholars have recognized elsewhere in public law, there is no hermetic separation between individual rights and structural or systemic processes of governance. To be sure, it is often helpful to focus on a question as primarily implicating one or the other of those categories. But a full appreciation of a structural rule includes an understanding of its relationship to individuals, and individual rights can both derive from and help shape larger systemic practices. The separation of powers principle, for example, is clearly a matter of structure, but much of its virtue rests on its promise to help protect the …

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.

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 …

Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.

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

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 Ins And Outs, Stops And Starts Of Speedy Trial Rights In Colorado--Part I, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

This two-part article discusses the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the basics of the speedy trial statute.

See Part II at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/551/.

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 …

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 …

Victims' Rights And The Constitution: Moving From Guaranteeing Participatory Rights To Benefiting The Prosecution Symposium: Thoughts On Death Penalty Issues 25 Years After Furman V. Georgia., Robert P. Mosteller

St. Mary's Law Journal

Supporters of victims’ rights can be broadly grouped into three categories according to their basic goals. One category seeks to guarantee participatory rights in a governmental process (“Participatory Rights”). A second category of support for the victims’ rights amendment comes from those who are animated by a pro-prosecution, anti-defendant perspective on criminal law and procedure (“Prosecutorial Benefit”). The third group supporting victims’ rights is comprised of those who demand greater protection and support for victims by the government (“Victim Protection and Aid”). The first serious attempt to amend the United States Constitution on behalf of crime victims happened in 1982. …

The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions Comment., Shelley A. Nieto Dahlberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt infringes upon criminal defendants’ and prisoners’ fundamental rights; therefore, it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under the United States and Texas Constitutions. This Comment attempts to address and answer issues regarding the REACT belt. The belt constitutes cruel and unusual punishment with the potential to deprive prisoners of their due process rights. The belt disrupts attorney-client communication and destroys a criminal defendant’s presumption of innocence. Furthermore, other alternatives provide effective means to prevent unruly prisoners from destroying the integrity of the courts. Part II of this Comment discusses how the belt works, and …

Cross-Examination

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …