Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado: Carving Out A Racial-Bias Exception To The No-Impeachment Rule, John Austin Morales
Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado: Carving Out A Racial-Bias Exception To The No-Impeachment Rule, John Austin Morales
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Sixth Amendment safeguards an accused in criminal proceedings and affords them “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Consistent with this right, the no-impeachment rule prohibits a juror from testifying after a verdict has been handed down about the jurors’ deliberations. While there are limited exceptions to the no-impeachment rule, juror expressed racial bias is not one of them. When presented with the dilemma of a juror using racial bias in deliberations, courts must weigh two competing doctrines that serve as the foundation to our judicial system: (1) affording a defendant his or her …
Confronting Silence: The Constitution, Deaf Criminal Defendants, And The Right To Interpretation During Trial, Deirdre M. Smith
Confronting Silence: The Constitution, Deaf Criminal Defendants, And The Right To Interpretation During Trial, Deirdre M. Smith
Maine Law Review
For most deaf people, interactions with the hearing community in the absence of interpretation or technological assistance consist of communications that are, at most, only partly comprehensible. Criminal proceedings, with the defendant's liberty interest directly at stake, are occasions in which the need for deaf people to have a full understanding of what is said and done around them is most urgent. Ironically, the legal “right to interpretation” has not been clearly defined in either statutory or case law. Although the federal and state constitutions do not provide a separate or lesser set of rights for deaf defendants, their situation …
Undocumented Citizens Of The United States: The Repercussions Of Denying Birth Certificates, Anna L. Lichtenberger
Undocumented Citizens Of The United States: The Repercussions Of Denying Birth Certificates, Anna L. Lichtenberger
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Moving Beyond Lassiter: The Need For A Federal Statutory Right To Counsel For Parents In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek S. Sankaran
Moving Beyond Lassiter: The Need For A Federal Statutory Right To Counsel For Parents In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek S. Sankaran
Articles
In New York City, an indigent parent can receive the assistance of a multidisciplinary legal team—an attorney, a social worker, and a parent advocate—to defend against the City’s request to temporarily remove a child from her care. But in Mississippi, that same parent can have her rights to her child permanently terminated without ever receiving the assistance of a single lawyer. In Washington State, the Legislature has ensured that parents ensnared in child abuse and neglect proceedings will receive the help of a well-trained and well-compensated attorney with a reasonable caseload. Yet in Tennessee, its Supreme Court has held that …
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
Before Miranda was decided, the Court had not squarely confronted the issue of when a violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs. Over fifty years ago, the Court acknowledged that the right against self-incrimination has two interrelated facets: The Government may not use compulsion to elicit self-incriminating statements; and the Government may not permit the use in a criminal trial of self-incriminating statements elicited by compulsion. Back then, the “conceptual difficulty of pinpointing” when a constitutional violation occurs — when the Government employs compulsion, or when the compelled statement is actually admitted at trial — was unimportant. Chavez v. Martinez forced …
Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel
Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel
Articles
When the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) brought the first habeas cases challenging the Executive’s right to detain prisoners in a law free zone at Guantanamo in 2002, almost no legal commentator gave the plaintiffs much chance of succeeding. Yet, two years later in 2004, after losing in both the District Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush handed CCR a resounding victory. Four years later, the Supreme Court again ruled in CCR’s favor in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas and declaring the Congressional …
Fundamental Norms, International Law, And The Extraterritorial Constitution, Jules Lobel
Fundamental Norms, International Law, And The Extraterritorial Constitution, Jules Lobel
Articles
The Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, decisively rejected the Bush Administration's argument that the Constitution does not apply to aliens detained by the United States government abroad. However, the functional, practicality focused test articulated in Boumediene to determine when the constitution applies extraterritorially is in considerable tension with the fundamental norms jurisprudence that underlies and pervades the Court’s opinion. This Article seeks to reintegrate Boumediene's fundamental norms jurisprudence into its functional test, arguing that the functional test for extraterritorial application of habeas rights should be informed by fundamental norms of international law. The Article argues that utilizing international law’s …
Right To Trial By Jury, Court Of Appeals People V. Knowles
Right To Trial By Jury, Court Of Appeals People V. Knowles
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Five Views Of Federalism: "Converse-1983" In Context, Akhil R. Amar
Five Views Of Federalism: "Converse-1983" In Context, Akhil R. Amar
Vanderbilt Law Review
In 1987, I published an overly long article in the Yale Law Journal entitled Of Sovereignty and Federalism. In it, I advanced a "converse-1983" model of federalism-a model that highlighted the ways in which state laws can provide remedies when federal officials violate federal constitutional rights. For example, prior to the 1971 landmark of Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by federal officers had no clear federal cause of action; but state trespass law often provided a remedy, and enabled citizens to recover when their "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" had been …
The First Amendment, Burt Neuborne
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Using The Constitution: Separation Of Powers And Damages For Constitutional Violations, James A. Thomson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Nonoriginalist Constitutional Rights And The Problem Of Judicial Finality, Daniel O. Conkle
Nonoriginalist Constitutional Rights And The Problem Of Judicial Finality, Daniel O. Conkle
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
The Legitimacy Of Judicial Review In Individual Rights Cases: Michael Perry's Constitutional Theory And Beyond, Daniel O. Conkle
The Legitimacy Of Judicial Review In Individual Rights Cases: Michael Perry's Constitutional Theory And Beyond, Daniel O. Conkle
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Rights In Juvenile Court, Joseph L. Rubin
Constitutional Rights In Juvenile Court, Joseph L. Rubin
Cleveland State Law Review
On June 20, 1966, the United States Supreme Court noted that it had probable jurisdiction in the case of In Re Gault. Ten months and three weeks later, the Supreme Court reached a landmark decision on judicial handling of juvenile delinquency matters. On May 15, 1967, the court handed down a ruling that many of the constitutional procedural protections previously observed only in adult trials are also applicable to children in juvenile court proceedings. This decision portends a major change in the manner in which most of the nation's three thousand juvenile courts have been functioning. The significance of this …
Constitutional Law - Trial By Jury - Waiver Of Absence Of Part Of Jury And Consent To Continue With Remainder, Malcolm L. Denise
Constitutional Law - Trial By Jury - Waiver Of Absence Of Part Of Jury And Consent To Continue With Remainder, Malcolm L. Denise
Michigan Law Review
The relator in this quo warranto proceeding attacked his previous conviction in a criminal trial on the ground that the verdict was void because rendered by only eleven persons. During that trial, one of the original jurors had been unable to continue, and the relator and the prosecutor had both consented to proceed before the remaining jurors. It was held that the right to be tried by a jury of twelve given an accused by the constitution of the state is a privilege purely for his own protection, and that he could legally waive this, just like any other similar …