Criminal Law Commons^™

Temporary Insanity: The Strange Life And Times Of The Perfect Defense, Russell D. Covey

Russell D. Covey

The temporary insanity defense has a prominent place in the mythology of criminal law. Because it seems to permit factually guilty defendants to escape both punishment and institutionalization, some imagine it as the “perfect defense.” In fact, the defense has been invoked in a dizzying variety of contexts and, at times, has proven highly successful. Successful or not, the temporary insanity defense has always been accompanied by a storm of controversy, in part because it is often most successful in cases where the defendant’s basic claim is that honor, revenge, or tragic circumstance – not mental illness in its more …

Recidivism Recourse: Cracking Down On Florida's Sexually Violent Predators, Nicole Canha

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

When the government wants to impose exceptionally harsh punishment on a criminal defendant, one of the ways it accomplishes this goal is to divide the defendant’s single course of conduct into multiple offenses that give rise to multiple punishments. The Supreme Court has rendered the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and the rule of lenity incapable of handling this problem by emptying them of substantive content and transforming them into mere instruments for effectuation of legislative will. This Article demonstrates that all three doctrines originally reflected a substantive legal preference for life and liberty, and a …

The Corporate Conspiracy Vacuum (Formerly "Corporate Conspiracy: How Not Calling A Conspiracy A Conspiracy Is Warping The Law On Corporate Wrongdoing"), J.S. Nelson

J.S. Nelson

"Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now": Analyzing The Federal Prosecution Of Aliens Who Attempt To Stop Living Unlawfully In The United States, Sergio Garcia

Sergio Garcia

Abstract: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) makes it a crime for a previously deported alien to be “found in” the United States without the Attorney General’s consent. There is, however, a conflict among the circuits over whether an illegal alien is “found in” the United States for purposes of § 1326 when he voluntarily travels to a port of entry and is detained there by immigration authorities while he is seeking to leave the country. The circuit courts bordering Mexico and Canada disagree on this issue as a matter of law, as well as a matter of Congressional intent. This …

Criminal Justice Act Of 1964; State Malpractice Suit Against Appointed Counsel; Ferri V. Ackerman, Sandra J. Branda

Akron Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in Ferri v. Ackerman reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and held that an attorney appointed by a federal judge to represent an indigent defendant in a federal criminal trial is not, as a matter of federal law, entitled to absolute immunity in a state malpractice suit brought against him by his former client. In a unanimous opinion, the Court decided that the function of appointed counsel is more closely analogous to that of private retained counsel, who enjoy no immunity from malpractice prosecution than to that of judges and prosecutors who have traditionally been accorded …

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Multiple Representation; Cuyler V. Sullivan, Howard S. Essner

Akron Law Review

In Cuyler v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court finally resolved two important issues in the areas of criminal law and the sixth amendment right to counsel. In this case, the Court is faced with a situation with which it has dealt but twice before: joint representation of criminal defendants. Cuyler represents the culmination of the legal inquiry into the problems inherent whenever a single attorney represents more than one defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Sixth Amendment; Right To Counsel; Use Of Prior Uncounseled Convictions; Lewis V. United States And Baldasar V. Illinois, Rita Marks

Akron Law Review

Once again the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of the right to counsel. Within three months the Court rendered two decisions which appear to be inconsistent, not only with one another, but with prior decisions of the Court

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg

Akron Law Review

Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.

Existence Of A Suicide Pact As A Complete Defense To A Survivor's Criminal Liability: State V. Sage, Diana M. Keating

Akron Law Review

Can one who encourages another's suicide through a suicide pact be absolved of criminal liability? The Ohio Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative in State v. Sage. The court held that a suicide survivor's proof that another's death resulted from a mutual suicide pact acts as a complete defense to criminal liability. Not since 1872 has the Ohio Supreme Court discussed criminal liability for suicide pact members who aid and abet another's suicide. The Sage court did not differentiate between classic suicide pacts where each member agrees to commit suicide, and suicide-murder pacts where one person agrees …

Bad News: Privacy Ruling To Increase Press Litigation, The Florida Star V. B.J.F., Mary Ellen Hockwalt

Akron Law Review

This note analyzes the history and precedent upon which the Court relied in reaching Florida Star's "harsh outcome." Next, the note discusses how the Court, by refusing to extend its holding beyond the facts of the case and give broad Constitutional protection to publications of truth, failed to provide lower courts with any guidance in deciding future invasion of privacy actions. Finally, the note examines the Court's balancing test: weighing the privacy interests of a crime victim against the newspaper's freedom to print truthful information.

Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora

Akron Law Review

Wiggins v. State presented two unique issues: (1) whether it was proper to authorize courtroom security personnel to use prophylactic apparel while escorting a defendant merely suspected of having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and (2) the extent to which this handling procedure impacted the jury.

This Note will analyze the Wiggins decision, emphasizing the court's reasoning as it pertains to the following: (1) the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial for defendants either having or being suspected of having AIDS; (2) the permissible exercise of discretion by the trial judge in authorizing precautions during the course of the …

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co.: State Action Or Inaction - Does It Matter?, Chad Murdock

Akron Law Review

This note first reviews the facts of Edmonson. Second, this note examines the history of judicial inquiry into the use of peremptory challenges. Third, this note reviews the application of Batson to civil cases. Finally, this note analyzes the extension of the state action doctrine in Edmonson and discusses an alternative to the Edmonson approach to state action

State V. Sorenson: The Adequacy Of The Residual Exceptions In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Five-Part Test Puts An End To The Criticism, Robert G. Renis

Akron Law Review

In State v. Sorenson, a seven-year-old girl's father and uncle had sexual intercourse with her. The court allowed a social worker to testify as to what the girl had told her. Finally, a court has set forth a detailed test for use in determining the admissibility of hearsay evidence in child sexual abuse cases. This casenote will analyze the court's five-part test, and discuss how it was applied in Sorenson. The casenote will then compare the Sorenson test (used in conjunction with the residual exceptions) to statutes providing for specific hearsay exceptions in child sexual abuse cases.

Evidentiary Use Of Prior Acquittals: When Analysis Exceeds Reality, Paul Harper

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this note is to assess the basis and propriety of that decision and to highlight some potential problems with the Court's conclusion. Additionally, this casenote will attempt to envision how this holding may affect future prosecutions.

Finally it will offer an alternative model which may more adequately address the tension between the government's legitimate prosecutorial interests and the defendant's interest in finality of judgment.

Do We Know How To Punish?, Benjamin L. Apt

Benjamin L. Apt

A number of current theories attempt to explain the purpose and need for criminal punishment. All of them depend on some sort of normative basis in justifying why the state may penalize people found guilty of crimes. Yet each of these theories lacks an epistemological foundation; none of them explains how we can know what form punishments should take. The article analyses the epistemological gaps in the predominant theories of punishment: retributivism, including limited-retributivism; and consequentialism in its various versions, ranging from deterrence to the reparative theories such as restorative justice and rehabilitation. It demonstrates that the common putative epistemological …

The Challenge And Dilemma Of Charting A Course To Constitutionally Protect The Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant From The Death Penalty, Lyn Entzeroth

Akron Law Review

This article examines these issues in the context of an important and emerging constitutional challenge to the death penalty: whether the death penalty can be imposed on capital defendants who suffer from severe mental illness at the time of the commission of their crimes. The American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill all endorse a death penalty exemption for the severely mentally ill. Recent law review articles suggest that such an exemption may even be compelled by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. …

Finding Nino: Justice Scalia's Confrontation Clause Legacy From Its (Glorious) Beginning To (Bitter) End, Joëlle Anne Moreno Professor

Akron Law Review

Until very recently, Justice Scalia has steered the Court’s modern confrontation jurisprudence. However, as discussed below, his leadership is increasingly threatened by deep divisions on questions of historical accuracy, constitutional interpretation, and the practical realities of twenty-first century criminal prosecutions.

Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

When the government wants to impose exceptionally harsh punishment on a criminal defendant, one of the ways it accomplishes this goal is to divide the defendant’s single course of conduct into multiple offenses that give rise to multiple punishments. The Supreme Court has rendered the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and the rule of lenity incapable of handling this problem by emptying them of substantive content and transforming them into mere instruments for effectuation of legislative will.

This Article demonstrates that all three doctrines originally reflected a substantive legal preference for life and liberty, and a …

The Clear Initiative And Mental States: 1½ Problems Solved, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2008), Timothy P. O'Neill

Timothy P. O'Neill

No abstract provided.

New Law, Old Cases, Fair Outcomes: Why The Illinois Supreme Court Must Overrule People V Flowers, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 727 (2012), Timothy P. O'Neill

Timothy P. O'Neill

No abstract provided.

Shredded Fish Redux, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

The Yates case, in which certiorari had been granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had been discussed in a previous column of Criminal Justice. The article was entitled “Shredded Fish” because the sea captain in Yates was prosecuted under the document shredding provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for destroying fish. That case has now been decided by the United States Supreme Court in Yates v. United States, on February 25, 2015. The case involves the rule of lenity as well as a discussion of overcriminalization.

O'Connor's Firsts, Phyllis L. Crocker

Akron Law Review

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor will make her mark on the Ohio court system and on the laws of Ohio in many ways. She made two significant marks her first day as Chief Justice: she was the first woman elected to the position of Chief Justice in Ohio and in her swearing-in speech she called for review of the death penalty in Ohio.1 Both were meaningful to me personally and as a citizen of Ohio. I appreciated her acknowledging her place in history and her willingness to tackle, right from the beginning of her tenure, the important topic of the death …

The International Criminal Court And Proximity To The Scene Of The Crime: Does The Rome Statute Permit All Of The Icc's Trials To Take Place At Local Or Regional Chambers?, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2010), Stuart K. Ford

Stuart Ford

No abstract provided.

Science Is Not Waiting For The Courts, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

The Forensic Science Community and the federal government are moving far beyond the courts in an effort to improve the quality of scientific evidence and expert testimony in the courts. Major events in forensics have caused a top to bottom reconsideration of what should count as expert testimony. Last month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) convened the first set of meetings of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC). This is a forward-looking approach to forensic science.

The first OSAC meetings were held on February 16 and 17, 2015, at …

To Furman Or Not To Furman, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

In capital litigation, the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia and following cases required capital punishment systems to have a form of "narrowing" so that the death penalty was imposed only on the worst of the worst. The death penalty states have failed to successfully implement this concept. As a result, "narrowing" is currently raised in all capital cases by competent defense counsel both at trial and in post conviction litigation. It is raised in addition to all other issues, including issues related to the questions of whether exclusion from the death penalty should be expanded and whether …

A Judicial Cure For The Disease Of Overcriminalization, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

No abstract provided.

Justice-As-Fairness As Judicial Guiding Principle: Remembering John Rawls And The Warren Court, Michael Anthony Lawrence

Michael Anthony Lawrence

This Article looks back to the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence during the years 1953-1969 when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice, a period marked by numerous landmark rulings in the areas of racial justice, criminal procedure, reproductive autonomy, First Amendment freedom of speech, association and religion, voting rights, and more. The Article further discusses the constitutional bases for the Warren Court’s decisions, principally the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process clauses.

The Article explains that the Warren Court’s equity-based jurisprudence closely resembles, at its root, the “justice-as-fairness” approach promoted in John Rawls’s monumental 1971 work, A Theory of …

Decisions Rules And Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation In Criminal Law, Meir Dan-Cohen

Meir Dan-Cohen

No abstract provided.