Criminal Law Commons^™

Applying Citizens United To Ordinary Corruption: With A Note On Blagojevich, Mcdonnell, And The Criminalization Of Politics, George D. Brown

Notre Dame Law Review

Federal criminal law frequently deals with the problem of corruption in the form of purchased political influence. There appear to be two distinct bodies of federal anticorruption law: one concerning constitutional issues in the prevention of corruption through campaign finance regulation, and one addressing corruption in the form of such crimes as bribery, extortion by public officials, and gratuities to them. The latter body of law primarily presents issues of statutory construction, but it may be desirable for courts approaching these issues to have an animating theory of what corruption is and how to deal with it. At the moment, …

The Crime Of Conspiracy Thrives In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Lengthy Term-Of-Years Sentences For Juvenile Non-Homicide Offenders, Rebecca Lowry

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I discusses the development of the Court's ' kids are different" decisions. Part II argues that the rationale behind Graham applies not only to life-without-parole sentences but also to lengthy term-of-years sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders. Part III suggests a constitutional mandate as to when states must provide a meaningful opportunity for release and explores other legislative action states can employ to comply with Graham.

Resentencing In The Shadow Of Johnson V. United States, Leah Litman

Articles

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down a decision many years in the making—Johnson v. United States. Johnson held that the ‘‘residual clause’’ of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. Although Johnson may have been overshadowed in the final days of a monumental Supreme Court term, the decision is a significant one that will have important consequences for the criminal justice system. ACCA’s residual clause imposed a severe 15-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and many federal prisoners qualify for ACCA’s mandatory minimum. Johnson did away with ACCA’s residual clause such that defendants will no …

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti

Akron Law Review

"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …

Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst

Akron Law Review

“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”

Does The "One-Party Consent" Exception Effectuate The Underlying Goals Of Title Iii?, Thomas C. Daniels

Akron Law Review

Title III is an attempt to balance two purposes - protection of private citizens and control of organized crime. 9 Because of these diametric purposes, discussion of all aspects of Title III is beyond the scope of this comment. The first section of this comment will discuss the Supreme Court's past and present position on the use of electronic surveillance. The remainder of the comment will trace the development of the "one-party consent" exception as codified in Title III, analyzing its continued validity and applicability to private unauthorized electronic surveillance.

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.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company: Pre-Empting Prejudice, Andrea K. Huston

Akron Law Review

In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether parties in a civil case may use their peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury.

This Note will discuss the various limitations that courts have placed on the use of peremptory challenges, and the position of the Supreme Court. This Note will also discuss the Court's expansion of the state action doctrine, and the impact Edmonson will have on future cases.

Justice Blackmun And Criminal Justice: A Modest Overview, Stephen L. Wasby

Akron Law Review

Justice Harry A. Blackmun was nominated for a position on the Supreme Court in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon after the Senate rejected Nixon's nominations of Judges Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. Blackmun, as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for eleven years, had written opinions that reflected "judicial restraint, an appreciation for the limits of judicial authority and deference to state and legislative prerogatives" as well as conservatism on defendants' rights and civil liberties issues. These strains of thought made him attractive to a president looking for someone supporting the "war …

The Impact Of New Justices: The U.S. Supreme Court And Criminal Justice Policy, Christopher E. Smith

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court is an important policy-making institution. In criminal justice, for example, the high court issues decisions affecting institutions, actors, and processes throughout the justice system, from police investigations through corrections and parole. The Court's policy decisions affecting criminal justice are produced by the votes of the nine justices who select, hear, decide, and issue opinions in cases. It is widely recognized, and probably axiomatic, that the Supreme Court's decision-making patterns are determined by the Court's membership at any given moment in history. When five or more justices support a specific outcome in a case, they can form a …

Finding Time For Federal Habeas Corpus: Carey V. Saffold, Karen M. Marshall

Akron Law Review

This Note begins by looking at the history of the writ of habeas corpus in the United States. There is a brief overview of the background and history of the AEDPA, specifically targeting the changes the AEDPA made to the law of federal habeas corpus. Next, the habeas corpus procedure in California is reviewed. Finally, this Note explains the Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Saffold, focusing on the Court’s policy rationale and what the lack of support for habeas corpus means for the future of the writ.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist: His Law-And-Order Legacy And Impact On Criminal Justice, Madhavi M. Mccall, Michael A. Mccall

Akron Law Review

In this article, we explore Chief Justice Rehnquist’s criminal justice decisions through an empirical analysis of the Court’s decision-making tendencies for the most recent natural court and a review of selected criminal justice decisions written by Justice Rehnquist throughout his career. To start, we limit the analysis, with only two exceptions, to decisions actually written by Justice Rehnquist. Although Chief Justice Rehnquist, in that position, had an important role in leading other justices to agree with him by assigning cases, we gleaned a substantial amount of information regarding his decisional patterns and policy preferences by analyzing the opinions he personally …

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Fourth Amendment Right: Samson Court Errs In Choosing Proper Analytical Framework, Errs In Result, Parolees Lose Fourth Amendment Protection, Rachael A. Lynch

Akron Law Review

This Note will follow the Fourth Amendment from its origins to its modern application to parolee rights, as evidenced by the Samson Court. Part II focuses on the Fourth Amendment, from the circumstances surrounding its adoption to modern court cases that have applied its tenets to prisoners, probationers, and, finally, parolees. Part III details the Supreme Court’s decision in Samson v. California, including a thorough discussion of the facts that gave rise to the case and lower court decisions. Part IV explores the problems with the Court’s framework and suggests other possible frameworks the Court could have used to come …

Newsroom: Nason '05 Cited By U.S. Supreme Court, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Examining Crack Cocaine Sentencing In A Post-Kimbrough World, Michael B. Cassidy

Akron Law Review

This article examines Kimbrough’s effect on crack cocaine sentencing. Part I discusses the rise of crack cocaine use in the United States during the 1980s. Part II provides a short history on modern federal sentencing, including the Sentencing Reform Act, the Commission’s Guidelines, and its reports to Congress concerning the 100-to-1 ratio. Part III examines the Supreme Court’s recent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence through its seminal cases, Apprendi and Blakely. In Part IV, this article analyzes the Court’s Booker holding as well as Kimbrough and Gall v. United States, two cases that clarified Booker and its application to crack cocaine cases. …

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right: Federal Death Eligibility Determinations And Judicial Trifurcations, Michael D. Pepson, John N. Sharifi

Akron Law Review

Broadly speaking, the purpose of this article is to bring attention to this radical and irreconcilable disparity between the unequivocal Sixth Amendment right of confrontation criminal defendants are afforded at trial,and the limited, qualified right of confrontation the FDPA grants federal capital defendants during death-eligibility determinations, which occur as part of the sentencing phase. It advances the argument that there is no tenable principled distinction on which this disparate procedural treatment may rest. We will attempt to demonstrate that, as written, the statutory provision that governs the admission of evidence at capital sentencings—18 U.S.C. § 3593(c)—is unconstitutional on its face …

Developmental Detour: How The Minimalism Of Miller V. Alabama Led The Court's "Kids Are Different" Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence Down A Blind Alley, Mary Berkheiser

Akron Law Review

With its narrow ruling, Miller has taken the Eighth Amendment kids are different jurisprudence on a deleterious detour that could lead Miller and Jackson and others like them to a certain dead end. Where Miller went wrong is the subject of this paper. It begins with Graham and the significance of the Court’s ruling that the Eighth Amendment categorically precludes imposition of a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile nonhomicide offender. Next, this paper turns to the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller, parsing the Court’s reliance on precedent and the reasoning that led it to adopt a ruling …

Bright Lines, Black Bodies: The Florence Strip Search Case And Its Dire Repercussions, Teresa A. Miller

Akron Law Review

Part I is a brief history of Search and Seizure law, focusing on seismic doctrinal shifts that occurred from the 1950s to the present. As a framework for the important cases, the Founders’ concerns about abuse of governmental authority are discussed, as well as the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Various governmental programs will also be presented, such as the War on Drugs and its call for a large-scale federal anti-drug policy, first initiated by President Richard Nixon in 1969. Part II is a description of the central reasoning presented in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, including the …

Florence V. Board Of Chosen Freeholders: Police Power Takes A More Intrusive Turn, Wayne A. Logan

Akron Law Review

This symposium affords an opportunity to reflect upon the combined force of Florence and one of its foundational precedents, also decided by a 5-4 vote: Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. In Atwater, the Court afforded police explicit authority to arrest individuals for very minor offenses (there failure to wear a seatbelt) without a warrant, paving the way not only for arrests such as experienced by Albert Florence, but also a myriad of others, based on laws contained in state, local and federal codes. With Atwater, the Court refused to limit the governmental power to subject individuals to the trauma …

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.

Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not remove a long-term lawful permanent resident from the United States based on a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The decision clarified the meaning of an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removal, an important question under the U.S. immigration laws. In the removal proceedings, Adrian Moncrieffe, a black immigrant from Jamaica, did not challenge his arrest and drug conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not review the facts surrounding, or the lawfulness of, the criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the traffic …

Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

This article argues that in creating the public safety exception to the Miranda requirements, the Supreme Court implicitly analogized to the criminal law doctrines of self-defense and defense of others. Thus, examining the justifications of self-defense and defense of others can be useful in determining the contours of the public safety exception and the related "rescue doctrine" exception. In particular, the battered woman syndrome -- which is recognized in a majority of the states and has been successfully invoked by defendants in some self-defense cases -- could provide a conceptual analogue for arguments about whether law enforcement officers were faced …

'A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet': How Aggregate Sentencing Violates Miller V. Alabama, Elizabeth C. Kingston

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

In The Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review Of State Criminal Prosecutions, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed …

In The Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review Of State Criminal Prosecutions, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Section 25 has long been thought to be one of the most important provisions of the most important jurisdictional statute enacted by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave concrete institutional shape to a federal judiciary only incompletely defined by Article III. And section 25 supplied a key piece of the structural relationship between the previously existing state court systems and the new federal court system that Congress constructed …

Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evolving Standards Of Domination: Abandoning A Flawed Legal Standard And Approaching A New Era In Penal Reform, Spearit

Articles

This Article critiques the evolving standards of decency doctrine as a form of Social Darwinism. It argues that evolving standards of decency provided a system of review that was tailor-made for Civil Rights opponents to scale back racial progress. Although as a doctrinal matter, evolving standards sought to tie punishment practices to social mores, prison sentencing became subject to political agendas that determined the course of punishment more than the benevolence of a maturing society. Indeed, rather than the fierce competition that is supposed to guide social development, the criminal justice system was consciously deployed as a means of social …