Criminal Law Commons^™

Worthless Checks? Clemency, Compassionate Release, And The Finality Of Life Without Parole, Daniel Pascoe

Northwestern University Law Review

Life without parole (LWOP) sentences are politically popular in the United States because, on their face, they claim to hold prisoners incarcerated until they die, with zero prospect of release via the regularized channel of parole. However, this view is procedurally shortsighted. After parole there is generally another remedial option for lessening or abrogating punishment: executive clemency via pardons and commutations. Increasingly, U.S. legal jurisdictions also provide for the possibility of compassionate release for lifers, usually granted by a parole board.

On paper, pardon, commutation, and compassionate release are thus direct challenges to the claim that an LWOP sentence will …

Zero-Option Defendants: United States V. Mclellan And The Judiciary's Role In Protecting The Right To Compulsory Process, Wisdom U. Onwuchekwa-Banogu

JCLC Online

How does one obtain evidence located outside the United States for a criminal trial? For prosecutors, the answer is an exclusive treaty process: Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). Defendants, on the other hand, may only use an unpredictable, ineffective, non-treaty process: letters rogatory. The result is a selective advantage for law enforcement at the expense of the defendant. Though this imbalance necessarily raises Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause concerns, MLATs have remained largely undisturbed because defendants still have some form of process, albeit a lesser one. But what happens when the letters rogatory process is also closed off to the …

The Second Founding And Self-Incrimination, William M. Carter Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the most fundamental constitutional rights. Protection against coerced or involuntary self-incrimination safeguards individual dignity and autonomy, preserves the nature of our adversary system of justice, helps to deter abusive police practices, and enhances the likelihood that confessions will be truthful and reliable. Rooted in the common law, the privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination and Due Process Clauses. Although the Supreme Court’s self-incrimination cases have examined the privilege’s historical roots in British and early American common law, the Court’s jurisprudence has overlooked an important source of historical evidence: the …

Sentence Served And No Place To Go: An Eighth Amendment Analysis Of "Dead Time" Incarceration, Christopher B. Scheren

Northwestern University Law Review

Although the state typically releases incarcerated people to reintegrate into society after completing their terms, indigent people convicted of sex offenses in Illinois and New York have been forced to remain behind bars for months, or even years, past their scheduled release dates. A wide range of residency restrictions limit the ability of people convicted of sex offenses to live near schools and other public areas. Few addresses are available for them, especially in high-density cities such as Chicago or New York City, where schools and other public locations are especially difficult to avoid. At the intersection of sex offenses …

What If Criminal Lawmaking Becomes Trustworthy?, Zachary S. Price

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

One common theoretical perspective posits that courts should assume a counter-majoritarian role in criminal law because the political process systematically disfavors the interests of criminal suspects and defendants. Recent shifts in the politics of crime complicate this perspective’ s assumptions, raising the paradoxical possibility that welcome improvements in the politics of crime will weaken the theoretical case for counter- majoritarian judicial decisions. This Article tentatively considers whether, if at all, courts’ interpretive approach should change in response to any continuing moderation of historic “tough on crime” politics. It suggests that while arguments for narrow construction of criminal statutes will remain …

Fair Notice And Criminalizing Abortions, Brian G. Slocum, Nadia Banteka

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

The principle of legality requires that individuals receive “fair notice” of conduct that is criminal. Courts enforce this fair notice requirement through various interpretive principles and practices, including the void-for- vagueness doctrine. The void-for-vagueness doctrine remains undertheorized, however, despite its centrality to the interpretation of criminal statutes. We offer a new theory of the void-for-vagueness doctrine that accounts for recent Supreme Court decisions. Specifically, we propose a scalar theory that fair notice is a matter of degree, dependent on various factors. We explore the implications of this theory for anti-abortion statutes post-Dobbs and explain why many of these statutes do …

Forbidden Purposes: A New Path For Limiting Criminalization, Raff Donelson

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Activists and scholars have often complained that the American criminal justice system makes choices about criminalization and sentences based on nefarious reasons. For instance, critics have claimed that criminalization and sentencing decisions are made to provide cheap prison labor to the government or private industry, to boost the private prison industry, to offer employment in rural communities in the form of jobs managing correctional facilities, or to empower police to harass undesirables and remove them from public spaces. These accusations are very alarming, and the evidence may not confirm activists’ worst suspicions. But, supposing the extraordinary evidence could be adduced, …

The Rule Of Lenity As A Disruptor, Maciej Hulicki, Melanie M. Reid

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

This article discusses the application of the rule of lenity in the American legal system. Although this constitutes a substantial element of criminal law in the United States and has been duly established in jurisprudence and legal science, it has still not been adequately applied in judicial practice. The authors of the article reflect on this situation, analyzing the historical background and the origins of this principle, as well as its current implementation in the U.S. criminal law. The work also includes a comparative analysis, where the authors juxtapose the rule of lenity with similar principles known in civil law …

Extraterritorial State Criminal Law, Post-Dobbs, Darryl K. Brown

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Like the federal government, states can apply their laws to people beyond their borders. Statutes can reach out-of-state conduct, such as fraud, that has effects within the state, and in some circumstances, states can prosecute their own citizens for out-of-state conduct. Many applications of extraterritorial jurisdiction are well established and uncontroversial; state common law and the Model Penal Code provide for such authority. The practice draws little attention when states’ criminal laws are broadly similar and treat the same activities as crimes. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, however, state laws …

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Northwestern University Law Review

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

The Architecture Of Discretion: Implications Of The Structure Of Sanctions For Racial Disparities, Severity, And Net Widening, Ryan T. Sakoda

Northwestern University Law Review

About four million people are serving a term of probation, parole, or post-release supervision in the United States. Due to the extensive use of incarceration as a punishment for conditions violations, these community supervision programs are a major factor contributing to mass incarceration and, as this Article shows, can play a significant role in exacerbating racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

In recent years, jurisdictions throughout the United States have made reforms to their community supervision programs. A major trend in community supervision reform is the integration of new sanctioning structures, such as “swift and certain” sanctions, for conditions …

Why Criminal Defendants Cooperate: The Defense Attorney's Perspective, Jessica A. Roth, Anna D. Vaynman, Steven D. Penrod

Northwestern University Law Review

Cooperation is at the heart of most complex federal criminal cases, with profound ramifications for who can be brought to justice and for the fate of those who decide to cooperate. But despite the significance of cooperation, scholars have yet to explore exactly how individuals confronted with the decision whether to pursue cooperation with prosecutors make that choice. This Article—the first empirical study of the defense experience of cooperation—begins to address that gap. The Article reports the results of a survey completed by 146 criminal defense attorneys in three federal districts: the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District …

Felony Murder Liability For Homicides By Police: Too Unfair And Too Much To Bear, Maria T. Kolar

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

On November 23, 2020, a fifteen-year-old boy was gunned down by five Oklahoma City police officers, after he exited a convenience store and dropped the gun that he and a sixteen-year-old partner had earlier used to rob the store’s owner. Initially, the boy’s non-present partner was charged with first-degree (felony) murder for this killing. But after months of efforts by the boy’s mother and local activists, the district attorney also charged five officers with first-degree manslaughter for this same killing.

This case raises the question of whether Oklahoma—or any American state—can convict a defendant of felony murder based upon a …

The Problem Of Habitual Offender Laws In States With Felony Disenfranchisement, Daniel Loehr

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Habitual offender laws operate to increase the sentence of an individual if that person already has a felony conviction. At the same time, many people with felony convictions cannot vote or run for office due to felony disenfranchisement laws. Thus, habitual offender laws target a formally disenfranchised group—people with felony convictions. That creates an archetypal political process problem. As John Hart Ely argued, laws that target a formally disenfranchised group are tainted and deserve heightened constitutional scrutiny. When reviewing habitual offender laws under the Eighth Amendment, however, courts have applied the opposite of heightened scrutiny—they have applied an extreme form …

White-Collar Crime, Sentencing Gender Disparities Post-Booker, And Implications For Criminal Sentencing, Sarah Turner

JCLC Online

“White-collar crime” is an amorphous term that has yet to be conclusively defined since its first use in 1939. This category of criminal activity results in what can be characterized as either economic harm or an impediment to the government’s ability to run successfully while minimizing conflicts of interest. Sentencing of white-collar crimes came into question in the late twentieth century due to a perception that white-collar offenders were receiving much lower sentences than offenders committing more traditional crimes. Additionally, the relationship between sentencing outcomes and status characteristics like race, age, citizen status, and gender were cause for concern. Different …

The Fourth Amendment And The Problem Of Social Cost, Thomas P. Crocker

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court has made social cost a core concept relevant to the calculation of Fourth Amendment remedies but has never explained the concept’s meaning. The Court limits the availability of both the exclusionary rule and civil damages because of their “substantial social costs.” According to the Court, these costs primarily consist of letting the lawbreaker go free by excluding evidence or deterring effective police practices that would lead to more criminal apprehension and prosecution. But recent calls for systemic police reform by social movements have a different view of social cost. So too do calls for reforming qualified immunity. …

Flint's Fight For Environmental Rights, Noah D. Hall

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay reviews the recent development of environmental rights within U.S. constitutional law, advanced through a series of federal court decisions in the wake of the Flint water crisis. The residents of Flint were poisoned and lied to by their government for nearly two years. They experienced how American environmental governance has failed at the state and federal levels and how our environmental laws leave individuals and communities unprotected. And then Flint fought back, in the courts, for five years. Flint residents have been overwhelmingly successful, achieving some justice for themselves and advancing substantive rights and remedies within our constitutional …

Are Constitutional Rights Enough? An Empirical Assessment Of Racial Bias In Police Stops, Rohit Asirvatham, Michael D. Frakes

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article empirically tests the conventional wisdom that a permissive constitutional standard bearing on pretextual traffic stops—such as the one announced by the Supreme Court in Whren v. United States—contributes to racial disparities in traffic stops. To gain empirical traction on this question, we look to state constitutional law. In particular, we consider a natural experiment afforded by changes in the State of Washington’s rules regarding traffic stops. Following Whren, the Washington Supreme Court first took a more restrictive stance than the U.S. Supreme Court, prohibiting pretextual stops by police officers, but later reversed course and instituted a …

Modern Sentencing Mitigation, John B. Meixner Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

Sentencing has become the most important part of a criminal case. Over the past century, criminal trials have given way almost entirely to pleas. Once a case is charged, it almost always ends up at sentencing. And notably, judges learn little sentencing-relevant information about the case or the defendant prior to sentencing and have significant discretion in sentencing decisions. Thus, sentencing is the primary opportunity for the defense to affect the outcome of the case by presenting mitigation: reasons why the nature of the offense or characteristics of the defendant warrant a lower sentence. It is surprising, then, that relatively …

Friends Without Benefits: Criminal Insider Trading Liability And The "Personal Benefit" Test After Blaszczak, Curtis A. French

JCLC Online

The U.S. Supreme Court established the “personal benefit” test in Dirks v. SEC to determine whether a tippee assumed a fiduciary duty to not trade based on or disclose inside information when a tipper breached his or her fiduciary duty by improperly disclosing such information to the tippee. Under the personal benefit test, a tipper breaches his or her fiduciary duty if the tipper derives a personal benefit, either directly or indirectly, from disclosing the inside information to a tippee. The Supreme Court provided examples as to what constitutes a personal benefit, such as the tipper’s expectation of reputational benefits …

Reexamining The Application Of Duress And Necessity Defenses To Prison Escape In The Context Of Covid19, Bill Clawges

JCLC Online

The classic example of the necessity defense involves a prisoner escaping from a burning prison. Surely, the law would not require them to stay in the prison when doing so would put their life at an immediate and grave risk. This example epitomizes the purpose of the necessity defense; society would rather the prisoner survive and leave prison than die ablaze while obeying the letter of the law. In recent years, the difference between the two justification defenses of necessity and duress has become blurred, especially in cases involving prison escape. Both are equally applicable, and both are relevant in …

Losing Someone Then Losing Yourself: Helping Juveniles In The Justice System Experiencing Grief With A Trauma-Informed Pretrial Diversion Program, Sydney Ford

JCLC Online

Grief is something we all experience at some point in our lives. When a child experiences grief and loss, those emotions, if not addressed, can cause adverse effects. Many of our country’s detained youth have fallen victim to these effects because they have been unable to address the underlying grief that causes their behaviors. Because of this, this Article advocates for creating a trauma-informed pretrial diversion program focused on helping grieving youth. First, this Article examines the overwhelming number of grieving children in our juvenile justice system, and how their grief has led them to where they are today. Second, …

The Saga Of Reginald Mcfadden—"Pennsylvania's Willie Horton" And The Commutation Of Life Sentences In The Commonwealth: Part Ii, Regina Austin

JCLC Online

The saga of the commutation of Reginald McFadden is a tortuous story of blunders, coincidences, and numerous instances of governmental officials tempting fate. It has the makings of a Serial true-crime podcast. In states throughout the country, there are lifers who are unfairly paying the price for the actions of one person who should never have had her or his life sentence commuted. This is the second in a series of two essays that explore Reginald McFadden’s commutation. This Part considers whether, in hindsight, there was any sound basis for McFadden’s release given the policy grounds for commutations and describes …

Regulating Police Chokeholds, Trevor George Gardner, Esam Al-Shareffi

JCLC Online

This Article presents findings from an analysis of police chokehold policies enacted at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government. In addition to identifying the jurisdictions that restricted police chokeholds in the wake of George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, the Article conveys (via analysis of an original dataset) the considerable variance in the quality of police chokehold regulation. While many jurisdictions regulate the police chokehold, the strength of such regulations should not be taken for granted. Police chokehold policies vary by the type of chokehold barred (“air choke” and/or carotid choke), the degree of the chokehold restriction, …

Forced Prison Labor: Punishment For A Crime?, Wafa Junaid

Northwestern University Law Review

The Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude carves out an exception to its protections that allows the use of forced labor as “punishment for a crime” when an individual is “duly convicted.” Courts have interpreted this language as placing a categorical bar on Thirteenth Amendment claims alleged by individuals who are incarcerated. Yet, a consistent understanding of the term “punishment” that draws from the term’s use in the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause supports a narrower interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s punishment exception. This Note argues that individuals cannot be denied Thirteenth Amendment protections unless they are explicitly …

Qualified Immunity And Unqualified Assumptions, Teressa E. Ravenell, Riley H. Ross Iii

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Section 1983 gives people the right to sue a government official for violating their constitutional rights. Qualified immunity provides these same officials with an affirmative defense -- even if they violated the constitution, they are not liable for monetary damages if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. The qualified immunity is based upon the basic assumption that “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” If the law was clearly established the official will be liable. If not, the Court has reasoned that it would be unfair …

Prison Medical Deaths And Qualified Immunity, Andrea Craig Armstrong

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

The defense of qualified immunity for claims seeking monetary damages for constitutionally inadequate medical care for people who are incarcerated is misguided. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, medical illness is the leading cause of death of people incarcerated in prisons and jails across the United States. Qualified immunity in these cases limits accountability for carceral actors, thereby limiting incentives for improvements in the delivery of constitutionally adequate medical care. The qualified immunity defense also compounds other existing barriers, such as higher subjective intent standards and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to asserting legal accountability of prison and jail …

Policing Suspicion: Qualified Immunity And "Clearly Established" Standards Of Proof, Seth W. Stoughton, Kyle Mclean, Justin Nix, Geoffrey Alpert

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

This Article explores the intersection of Fourth Amendment standards of proof and the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity. It illustrates how the juxtaposition of the Court’s insistence on a low level of specificity for the development of suspicion and a high degree of specificity for the imposition of liability makes it exceedingly difficult to hold officers accountable for violating constitutional rights. And it offers both a path for future research into the development of suspicion and suggestions for methods that police agencies can use to improve the development and articulation of suspicion. Ultimately, it contends that policing in the …

Civil Rights Litigation In The Lower Courts: The Justice Barrett Edition, Aaron L. Nielson, Paul Stancil

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has joined the United States Supreme Court, most observers predict the law will shift on many issues. This common view presumably contains at least some truth. The conventional wisdom, however, overlooks something important: the Supreme Court’s ability to shift the law is constrained by the cases presented to it and how they are presented. Lower courts are thus an important part of the equation. Elsewhere, the authors have offered a model of certiorari to demonstrate how lower courts in theory can design their decisions to evade Supreme Court review; they also explain why such …

Fetal Protection Laws And The "Personhood" Problem: Toward A Relational Theory Of Fetal Life And Reproductive Responsibility, Amanda Gvozden

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Fetal Protection Laws (FPLs) are laws that define and provide punishments for any number of crimes, including homicide, committed “against a fetus.” Previous literature has suggested that FPLs need to be explicit about who the intended target of this legislation is. Specifically, comments concerned about the use of FPLs against pregnant women in relation to their own pregnancies suggested that states include language in their FPLs that make it clear that the law ought not be applied to women for harm to their own fetuses. Indeed, some states like California have taken measures to curtail the application of FPLs to …