Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Eighth Amendment (2)
- Admissible (1)
- Adverse spousal testimonial privilege (1)
- Anglo-American law (1)
- Antisubordination (1)
-
- Black Defendants (1)
- CIMT (1)
- CONGRESS (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Crime involving moral turpitude (1)
- Criminal (1)
- Criminal constitutional jurisprudence (1)
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Decency (1)
- Due process clause (1)
- ELECTIONS CLAUSE (1)
- EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (1)
- Evolving Standards of Decency (1)
- FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT (1)
- FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1)
- FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- INA (1)
- Immigration and Nationality Act (1)
- Individualized sentencing (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Juror Discretion (1)
- Moral (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Marital Disharmony: Examining The Adverse Spousal Testimonial Privilege And Its Impact In Washington State, Sabrina Suen
Marital Disharmony: Examining The Adverse Spousal Testimonial Privilege And Its Impact In Washington State, Sabrina Suen
Washington Law Review
In Washington State, RCW 5.60.060(1) provides that “[a] spouse or domestic partner shall not be examined for or against his or her spouse or domestic partner, without the consent of the spouse or domestic partner.” This evidence rule, known as the adverse spousal testimonial privilege, allows a defendant to exclude witness testimony by their spouse under most circumstances. A product of common law tradition, this privilege stems from a time when the law treated women as chattel with no independent legal rights. Since Washington State codified the adverse spousal privilege, the United States Supreme Court amended the federal spousal testimonial …
Evaluating Congress's Constitutional Basis To Abolish Felony Disenfranchisement, James E. Lauerman
Evaluating Congress's Constitutional Basis To Abolish Felony Disenfranchisement, James E. Lauerman
Washington Law Review
In the past three years, members of Congress unsuccessfully introduced a series of federal voting rights legislation, most recently the Freedom to Vote Act. One goal of the legislation is to abolish felony disenfranchisement. Felony disenfranchisement is the practice of revoking a citizen’s right to vote due to a prior felony conviction. The Freedom to Vote Act aims to restore voting rights for every citizen who has completed their prison sentence. A ban on felony disenfranchisement would be historic, as the practice stretches back to ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court consistently upholds the practice by …
No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller
No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller
Washington Law Review
For nearly seventy years, the Court has assessed Eighth Amendment claims by evaluating “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this Article, I examine the evolving standards of decency test, which has long been a punching bag for critics on both the right and the left. Criticism of the doctrine has been fierce but largely academic until recent years. Some fault the test for being too majoritarian, while others argue that it provides few constraints on the Justices’ discretion, permitting their personal predilections to rule the day. For many, the test is seen …
Renewing The Vagueness Challenge To Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Melissa London
Renewing The Vagueness Challenge To Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Melissa London
Washington Law Review
Noncitizens who have been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) can be deported. However, the INA fails to provide a definition for “moral turpitude” or a list of crimes that necessarily involve “moral turpitude.” As a result, judges are given wide discretion to decide when a crime is morally reprehensible enough to render a noncitizen deportable. This moral determination in the CIMT analysis has led to disparate results among the lower courts, which deprives noncitizens of meaningful notice of what conduct could render them deportable. In 1951, the Supreme Court held …
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley
Washington Law Review
For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …
The Eighth Amendment Power To Discriminate, Kathryn E. Miller
The Eighth Amendment Power To Discriminate, Kathryn E. Miller
Washington Law Review
For the last half-century, Supreme Court doctrine has required that capital jurors consider facts and characteristics particular to individual defendants when determining their sentences. While liberal justices have long touted this individualized sentencing requirement as a safeguard against unfair death sentences, in practice the results have been disappointing. The expansive discretion that the requirement confers on overwhelmingly White juries has resulted in outcomes that are just as arbitrary and racially discriminatory as those that existed in the years before the temporary abolition of the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia.1 After decades of attempting to eliminate the requirement, conservative justices …