Constitutional Law Commons^™

Freedom From Incarceration: Why Is This Right Different From All Other Rights?, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

American constitutional jurisprudence has long accepted the notion that the exercise of certain rights can only be restricted by the government if the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has identified such rights as fundamental often by relying on an expansive interpretation of the word "liberty" in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In this Article, Professor Colb argues that the Supreme Court has failed to recognize the right to physical liberty itself as a fundamental right. She demonstrates that at present conduct that is not itself constitutionally protected may serve as the basis for imprisonment even …

Eliminating Double Talk From The Law Of Double Jeopardy, Eli J. Richardson

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, And The Subsequent-Prosecution Dilemma, Elizabeth T. Lear

UF Law Faculty Publications

The choice to embrace a real-offense regime probably constitutes the single most controversial decision made by the Federal Sentencing Commission in drafting the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Real-offense sentencing bases punishment on a defendant's actual conduct as opposed to the offense of conviction. The Guidelines sweep a variety of factors into the sentencing inquiry, including criminal offenses for which no conviction has been obtained. Under the Guidelines, therefore, prosecutorial charging decisions and even verdicts of acquittal after jury trial may have little impact at sentencing.

Long before the adoption of the Guidelines, courts bent on rationalizing the real-offense regime devised …

Losing The Right To Confront: Defining Waiver To Better Address A Defendant's Actions And Their Effects On A Witness, David J. Tess

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note examines the current legal landscape regarding a defendant's waiver of the right to confrontation. This Part explores the justifications courts have provided for finding a waiver of the confrontation right, both through the use of the traditional "intentional relinquishment of a known right" standard and the less precise formulations of waiver found in cases of defendant misconduct. Part II offers a critique of the reasoning courts employ to find waiver of the right to confrontation. In the process, the analysis explores general theories of waiver which have been advanced by other commentators. In so doing, …

Double Jeopardy All Over Again: Dual Sovereignty, Rodney King, And The Aclu, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Admission Of Hearsay Evidence Where Defedant Misconduct Causes The Unavailability Of A Prosecution Witness, Paul T. Markland

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Gate Is Open But The Door Is Locked - Habeas Corpus And Harmless Error, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Brecht is a paradigm of the Rehnquist Court's result-oriented approach to habeas corpus and harmless error. The decision purports to be a principled application of the policies of finality, federalism, and judicial economy that underlay the Court's new habeas and harmless error jurisprudence. It is, in fact, an unwarranted and unprincipled extension of those policies. Depending on how the lower federal courts interpret and implement the decision, Brecht could have a devastating impact on the way state prosecutors and judges administer criminal justice, as well as the ability of state prisoners to redress constitutional violations.

The Sixth Amendment On Ice-United States V. Jones: Whether Sentence Enhancements For Failure To Plead Guilty Chill The Exercise Of The Right To Trial, Andrew Neal Siegel

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sotto Voce: The Supreme Court's Low Key But Not Insignificant Criminal Law Rulings During The 1992 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preserving A Community Voice: The Case For Half-And-Half Juries In Racially-Charged Criminal Cases, 28 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1994), Daniel W. Van Ness

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Note, Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Silence: Taking A Stand On Fifth Amendment Implications For Court-Ordered Therapy Programs, Jessica Wilen Berg

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hardening Of The Attitudes: Americans' Views On The Death Penalty, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

American support for the death penalty has steadily increased since 1966, when opponents outnumbered supporters, and now in the mid-1990s is at a near record high. Research over the last 20 years has tended to confirm the hypothesis that most people’s death penalty attitudes (pro or con) are based on emotion rather than information or rational argument. People feel strongly about the death penalty, know little about it, and feel no need to know more. Factual information (e.g., about deterrence and discrimination) is generally irrelevant to people’s attitudes, and they are aware that this is so. Support for the death …

Equal Protection: People V. Walker

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Overbroad Civil Forfeiture Statutes Are Unconstitutionally Vague, Deborah Duseau, David Schoenbrod

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.