Law Commons^™

The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum In Criminal Procedure, Kay L. Levine, Jonathan R. Nash, Robert A. Schapiro

Faculty Articles

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in many contexts, scrutinizing government efforts to condition the tradeoff of rights for benefits with regard to speech, funding, and takings, among others. The Court has declined, however, to invoke the doctrine in the area of criminal procedure, where people accused of crime are often asked to—and often do—surrender their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in return for some benefit. Despite its insistence that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies broadly across the Bill of Rights, the Court’s jurisprudence demonstrates that the doctrine …

Supreme Irrelevance: The Court’S Abdication In Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Tonja Jacobi, Ross Berlin

Faculty Articles

Criminal procedure is one of the Supreme Court’s most active areas of jurisprudence, but the Court’s rulings are largely irrelevant to the actual workings of the criminal justice system. The Court’s irrelevance takes two forms: objectively, on the numbers, its jurisprudence fails to protect the vast majority of people affected by the criminal justice system; and in terms of salience, the Court has sidestepped the major challenges in the United States today relating to the criminal justice system. These challenges include discrimination in stops and frisks, fatal police shootings, unconscionable plea deals, mass incarceration, and disproportionate execution of racial minorities. …

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 …

Curiouser And Curiouser: Involuntary Medications And Incompetent Criminal Defendants After Sell V. United States, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The government should not place a defendant to whom it is administering involuntary medications in front of a jury. The test the Supreme Court created in Sell v. United States will likely result in the administration of involuntary medications to incompetent defendants in more than rare instances. Given the importance of the right to a fair trial, and the threat to this right posed by administering involuntary medications, the Supreme Court understandably cautions in its decision in Sell that the instances in which the government will be justified in administering such medications for the purpose of rendering a defendant competent …

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.

Attorney As Interpreter: A Return To Babble, Bill Piatt

Faculty Articles

Attorneys should not represent their clients and simultaneously act as interpreters. The harm far outweighs the benefit when an attorney acts as an interpreter for a client in litigation. In 1970, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Negron v. New York determined that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause requires that non-English speaking defendants be informed of their right to simultaneous interpretation of proceedings at the government's expense, however the use of an interpreter is still at the trial court's discretion.

Courts will ordinarily not appoint an interpreter in the absence of a request to do so, but the failure …

Tempia, Turner, Mcomber And The Military Rules Of Evidence: A Right To Counsel Trio With The New Look, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The potential for litigating right to counsel issues is ripe, and the new Military Rules of Evidence and recent case law ensure ample opportunity for litigation. Several significant developments in the law of military interrogations warrant an examination of a military suspect’s right to counsel. A series of Court of Military Appeals decisions have either clarified or expanded military case law on military interrogations. The pending new Military Rules of Evidence will implement a large amount of military case law, in some instances alter existing law, and more closely align military interrogation practices with prevailing civilian rules. Counsel should focus …