Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 15 of 15

Full-Text Articles in Law

Autonomy Isn't Everything: Some Cautionary Notes On Mccoy V. Louisiana, W. Bradley Wendel Jul 2019

Autonomy Isn't Everything: Some Cautionary Notes On Mccoy V. Louisiana, W. Bradley Wendel

W. Bradley Wendel

The Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in McCoy v. Louisiana has been hailed as a decisive statement of the priority of the value of a criminal defendant’s autonomy over the fairness and reliability interests that also inform both the Sixth Amendment and the ethical obligations of defense counsel. It also appears to be a victory for the vision of client-centered representation and the humanistic value of the inherent dignity of the accused. However the decision is susceptible to being read too broadly in ways that harm certain categories of defendants. This paper offers a couple of cautionary notes, in response …


Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky Jun 2017

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.


Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin Mar 2016

Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin

David Kaye

In Crawford v Washington, the Supreme Court substantially changed its understanding of how the Confrontation Clause applies to hearsay evidence. Since then, the Court has issued three bitterly contested expert-evidence-related Confrontation Clause decisions, and each one has generated at least as many questions as answers. This article analyzes this trilogy of cases, especially the most recent, Williams v Illinois.

In Williams, the Court issued a bewildering array of opinions in which majority support for admitting the opinion of a DNA analyst about tests that she did not perform was awkwardly knitted together out of several incompatible doctrinal …


Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried Mar 2016

Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried

David Kaye

DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected.At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic area …


Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part Two, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola Dec 2014

Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part Two, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

Part One of this article addressed the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements. Part Two discusses the Sixth Amendment, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and impeachment issues.


Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen Aug 2014

Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …


Effective Assistance Of Counsel: In Quest Of A Uniform Standard Of Review, Theresa L. Springmann, John Eric Smithburn Nov 2013

Effective Assistance Of Counsel: In Quest Of A Uniform Standard Of Review, Theresa L. Springmann, John Eric Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

No abstract provided.


Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer Dec 2012

Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer

Sarah Mourer

The legislature has forgotten the lessons taught by Furman v. Georgia and today, the “untrammeled discretion” once held by juries is now held by the judiciary. Many death penalty sentencing procedures are unconstitutional, in violation of both the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, because the judge alone is authorized to sentence the defendant to life or death despite being uninformed of the jury’s factual findings. Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment as articulated in Ring v. Arizona, the factual findings upon which a death sentence rests must be found by the jury, and only the jury. Nevertheless, many jurisdictions permit the judge …


Massachusetts Firearms Prosecutions In The Wake Of Melendez-Diaz, Kevin P. Chapman Dec 2011

Massachusetts Firearms Prosecutions In The Wake Of Melendez-Diaz, Kevin P. Chapman

Kevin P. Chapman

The Supreme Court ruling in Melendez-Diaz fundamentally changed the way that firearms offenses are prosecuted in Massachusetts. This paper presents the history of firearms prosecutions and the current state of the law, and it raises several unanswered questions that could further change the nature of future firearms prosecutions.


Padilla V. Kentucky And The Evolving Right To Deportation Counsel: Watershed Or Work-In-Progress?, Daniel Kanstroom Nov 2011

Padilla V. Kentucky And The Evolving Right To Deportation Counsel: Watershed Or Work-In-Progress?, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

Though widely heralded by immigration and human rights lawyers as a “landmark,” possible “watershed,” and even “Gideon decision” for immigrants, Padilla v. Kentucky is perhaps better understood as a Rorschach test, than as a clear constitutional precedent. It is surely a very interesting and important U.S. Supreme Court case in the (rapidly converging) fields of immigration and criminal law in which the Court struggles with the functional relationship between ostensibly “civil” deportation proceedings and criminal convictions. This is a gratifying development, for reasons not only of justice, fairness, proportionality, and basic human decency, but also (perhaps) of doctrinal consistency. The …


Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein Jul 2011

Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.


Lessons From Hurricane Katrina: Prison Emergency Preparedness As A Constitutional Imperative, Ira P. Robbins Oct 2010

Lessons From Hurricane Katrina: Prison Emergency Preparedness As A Constitutional Imperative, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters ever to strike the United States, in terms of casualties, suffering, and financial cost. Often overlooked among Katrina's victims are the 8,000 inmates who were incarcerated at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) when Katrina struck. Despite a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, these men and women, some of whom had been held on charges as insignificant as public intoxication, remained in the jail as the hurricane hit, and endured days of rising, toxic waters, a lack of food and drinking water, and a complete breakdown of order within OPP. When the inmates …


The Requirement Of An Investigator In Public And Private Practice, Robert M. Sanger Dec 2009

The Requirement Of An Investigator In Public And Private Practice, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Trial lawyers do everything we can to avoid IAC and support the requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides that the accused has a right to counsel -- counsel that is not only present but also effective. Under Ake v. Oklahoma , the United States Supreme Court stated that the right includes the right to have experts and investigators. Since Ake, there has been much litigation, particularly in capital cases, regarding the right to have the use of such experts to do an effective job.  

The California courts have made it clear that the …


Justice Deserts: Spatial Inequality And Local Funding Of Indigent Defense, Lisa R. Pruitt Dec 2009

Justice Deserts: Spatial Inequality And Local Funding Of Indigent Defense, Lisa R. Pruitt

Lisa R Pruitt

This Article, written for a symposium on “Funding Justice,” maps legal conceptions of (in)equality onto the socio-geographic conception of spatial inequality in relation to indigent defense services in Arizona. In particular, we examine county-to-county variations in funding and structures for providing this constitutionally mandated service. We conclude that the State of Arizona’s current system for delivering indigent defense services puts it at serious risk of violating the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We outline county-level, legislative and judicial solutions to the problems we identify.
Like more than a third …


Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst Dec 2009

Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst

Stephen A Gerst

The Sixth Amendment right to an attorney is so fundamental that the United States Supreme Court has carefully developed requirements to ensure that an indigent defendant does not go to trial in any criminal case where there is a possibility of a deprivation of freedom without an attorney unless there is an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel on the record. However, the Supreme Court has not addressed what the record must show for finding that a defendant has lost his right to counsel as a result of the defendant's own misconduct toward the court or the defendant's attorney. …