Constitutional Law Commons^™

You Have The Right To Remain Silent, But Anything You Don’T Say May Be Used Against You: The Admissibility Of Silence As Evidence After Salinas V. Texas, Andrew M. Hapner

Florida Law Review

In Salinas v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect’s refusal to answer an officer’s questions during a noncustodial, pre-Miranda, criminal interrogation is admissible at trial as substantive evidence of guilt. In a plurality decision, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that before a suspect can rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, the suspect must invoke the privilege. Consequently, because silence does not invoke the privilege, and because the petitioner failed to expressly invoke the privilege in words, the prosecutor’s use of his pre-Miranda silence during a noncustodial interrogation did not violate the Fifth Amendment. …

Guilt Without Mens Rea: How Florida’S Elimination Of Mens Rea For Drug Possession Is Constitutional, Marc B. Hernandez

Florida Law Review

The Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act is almost unique among criminal drug statutes in the United States. Like all states, Florida prohibits the possession, sale, and delivery of certain controlled substances. However, a recent revision of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Act removed Florida’s burden of proving one aspect of defendants’ mens rea in drug cases. Although several cases have challenged the Florida Comprehensive Drug Act for disregarding the traditional role of mens rea in criminal law and for subjecting innocent people to prosecution, the state of Florida continues to prosecute and obtain convictions under the statute.

This …

Democracy, The Constitution, And Legal Positivism In America: Lessons From A Winding And Troubled History, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Florida Law Review

This Article explores the political and philosophical background of the current debate between positivist “originalism” and evolutionary “living constitutionalism” and, more generally, the significance of positivist ideas for both democratic and constitutional theory. Noting the tensions between positivist and nonpositivist ideas that existed in early American constitutionalism, it focuses on the impact of John Austin’s theory of legal positivism in the United States after the Civil War and the way successive generations of Americans interpreted positivist ideas to develop their theories of democracy and constitutionalism. It argues that Austin inspired rival jurisprudential approaches that quickly, but misleadingly, became entangled with …

Lost In Compromise: Free Speech, Criminal Justice, And Attorney Pretrial Publicity, Margaret Tarkington

Florida Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unwritten Administrative Constitution, Emily S. Bremer

Florida Law Review

It is widely accepted that the powers of the federal government flow from the U.S. Constitution. Yet in practice, most federal power is exercised through administrative agencies, institutions not mentioned in the Constitution. Since the New Deal Era, administrative law—the seemingly disparate set of rules governing agency action that are found in statutes, judicial decisions, and executive directives—has accommodated the emergence of this fourth branch of government not contemplated by the Framers. Familiar principles, including the separation of powers, the rule of law, and individual liberties, permeate administrative law. But these principles cannot be expressly located in the U.S. Constitution. …

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Florida Law Review

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Regulating The Speech Of Judges And Lawyers: The First Amendment And The Soul Of The Profession, Rodney A. Smolla

Florida Law Review

The legal profession has historically asserted moral and legal authority to substantially control the speech of judges and lawyers. This impulse to control the speech of judges and lawyers is driven by many of the profession’s most strongly held interests and values. These include such interests as ensuring the fair administration of justice, the promotion of respect for the rule of law, the preservation of public confidence in the legal system, the preservation of the appearance of judicial impartiality, the maintenance of professionalism, and the safeguarding of the dignity of the profession. Some of these interests are palpable and may …

Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum

Florida Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. …

Constitutional Culpability: Questioning The New Exclusionary Rules, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Florida Law Review

This Article addresses the questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court’s recent exclusionary rule cases. The Hudson-Herring-Davis>/i> trilogy presents a new and largely unexamined doctrinal landscape for Fourth Amendment suppression hearings. Courts, litigators, and scholars are only now assessing what has changed on the ground in trial practice. Once an automatic remedy for any constitutional violation, the exclusionary rule now necessitates a separate and more searching analysis. Rights and remedies have been decoupled, such that a clear Fourth Amendment constitutional violation may not lead to the exclusion of evidence. Instead, it now leads to an examination of the conduct …

Class Actions And Justiciability, Sergio J. Campos

Florida Law Review

A lingering issue in class action law concerns the case or controversy requirement of Article III, otherwise known as the requirement of justiciability. For purposes of justiciability doctrines such as standing, mootness, and ripeness, is the class action brought by all class members, some class members, or just the class representative? This Article argues that the answer should be none of the above—it should be the class attorney. This Article first shows that the function of the class action is to assign dispositive control of, and a partial beneficial interest in, the class members’ claims to the class attorney. This …

Testimonial Is As Testimonial Does, Ben Trachtenberg

Florida Law Review

In the decade since Crawford v. Washington declared “testimony” to be the touchstone of the Confrontation Clause, courts—from the humblest criminal trial court to the Supreme Court itself—have struggled with two problems. First, defining “testimonial” has proven difficult. Second, in certain cases, the results of defining “testimonial” as Crawford would seem to require have proven unappealing. Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Crawford and the most vocal cheerleader of its new doctrine, has consequently had trouble maintaining a majority of Justices for what would seem to be straightforward applications of the opinion. Professor Richard D. Friedman …

The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman

Florida Law Review

In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, Professor Friedman argues that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. Friedman argues that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. …

From Wolves, Lambs (Part I): The Eighth Amendment Case For Gradual Abolition Of The Death Penalty, Kevin Barry

Florida Law Review

This spring, the Connecticut Supreme Court will take up a novel question, unprecedented in modern death penalty jurisprudence: Can a state gradually abolish its death penalty? Restated, can it leave the sentences of those currently on death row in place but abolish the death penalty going forward? This Article argues that it can. On simple statutory construction grounds, “prospective-only” repeals of death penalty legislation are not given retroactive effect. Although the constitutional considerations are admittedly less straightforward, prospective-only repeals do not offend the Constitution. The death penalty remains constitutional per se under the Eighth Amendment, and “as-applied” challenges under Atkins …

“Camels Agree With Your Throat” And Other Lies: Why Graphic Warnings Are Necessary To Prevent Consumer Deception, Ellen English

Florida Law Review

The government’s latest attempt to protect consumers from the perils of tobacco use is in jeopardy. In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which requires cigarette advertisements and packages to bear nine new textual health warnings and gives the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. In 2011, in compliance with the Act, the FDA issued a regulation, known as the graphic warning requirement, which mandates that a color graphic image accompany each of the nine textual warning statements. The graphic warning requirement now faces challenges from the tobacco industry, and the ambiguities current standards present …

Retroactive Application Of State Long-Arm Statutes, Dane Reed Ullian

Florida Law Review

A precondition to a court’s exercising any measure of authority over an individual or an entity is the court’s establishment of personal jurisdiction. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the forum state provides a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction over the nonresident and the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies the constitutional due process standard. Personal jurisdiction is one of the most commonly litigated issues today, due primarily to confusion over the constitutional standard.

Commentators and courts write extensively about the constitutional prerequisites for personal jurisdiction, but say little about state long-arm statutes. Perhaps this should …

Pardons And The Theory Of The “Second-Best”, Chad Flanders

Florida Law Review

This Article explains and defends a “second-best” theory of pardons. Pardons are second-best in two ways. First, pardons are second-best because they represent, in part, a response to a failure of justice: the person convicted was not actually guilty, or he or she was punished too harshly, or the punishment no longer fits the crime. In the familiar analogy, pardons act as a “safety valve” on a criminal justice system that doesn’t work as it ideally should. Pardons, in the nonideal world we live in, are sometimes necessary.

But pardons are also second-best because they can represent deviations from other …

The Rostrum Principle: Why The Boundaries Of The Public Forum Matter To Statutory Interpretation, Amy Widman

Florida Law Review

There is a section of dicta in the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform that might portend new ground, although not in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Rather, in his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia did a curious thing for those interested in statutory interpretation: He cited an op-ed in The New York Times that quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Justice Scalia used this quotation as evidence of meaning on the issue of whether Congress intended to draft a severable mandate, or more specifically, why the Court should not interpret the fact that Congress was silent as anything more than …