Criminal Law Commons^™

The Death Penalty And The Fifth Amendment, Joseph Blocher

Northwestern University Law Review

Can the Supreme Court find unconstitutional something that the text of the Constitution “contemplates”? If the Bill of Rights mentions a punishment, does that make it a “permissible legislative choice” immune to independent constitutional challenges?

Recent developments have given new hope to those seeking constitutional abolition of the death penalty. But some supporters of the death penalty continue to argue, as they have since Furman v. Georgia, that the death penalty must be constitutional because the Fifth Amendment explicitly contemplates it. The appeal of this argument is obvious, but its strength is largely superficial, and is also mostly irrelevant to …

War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford

Northwestern University Law Review

In this essay, Ford considers provisions of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which place restrictions on the disposition of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay. These provisions raise substantial separation of powers issues regarding the ability of Congress to restrict detention operations of the Executive. These restrictions, and similar restrictions found in earlier NDAAs, specifically implicate the Executive's powers in foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Ford concludes that, with the exception of a similar provision found in the 2013 NDAA, the restrictions are constitutional.

Prosecuting Online Threats After Elonis, Michael Pierce

Northwestern University Law Review

In Elonis v. United States, decided last term, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction for online threats on the ground that the lower court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding mens rea. In doing so, however, the Court declined to articulate which mens rea standard would have sustained a conviction. It is thus currently uncertain which mens rea the government must prove when prosecuting online threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The Elonis Court discussed three potential mens rea standards; as universal standards for online threats, each leaves something to be desired. Fortunately, federal courts need not …

Moving Beyond Miranda: Concessions For Confessions, Scott W. Howe

Northwestern University Law Review

The law governing police interrogation provides perverse incentives. For criminal suspects, the law rewards obstruction and concealment. For police officers, it honors deceit and psychological aggression. For the courts and the rest of us, it encourages blindness and rationalization. This Article contends that the law could help foster better behaviors. The law could incentivize criminals to confess without police trickery and oppression. It could motivate police officers involved in obtaining suspect statements to avoid chicanery and duress. And, it could summon courts and the rest of us to speak more truthfully about whether suspect admissions are the product of informed, …

Qualified Immunity For Officers’ Reasonable Reliance On Lawyers’ Advice, Edward C. Dawson

Northwestern University Law Review

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have known that her conduct violated clearly established law. Courts disagree over whether and how an officer’s receipt of legal advice before acting supports the qualified immunity defense by showing that, based on the advice, a reasonable officer would have thought that her conduct would not violate clearly established law. This Article argues that legal advice should support the qualified immunity defense. It argues that when an officer asserts reliance on legal advice as supporting qualified immunity, a court should consider whether in the circumstances the officer …

Not All Plea Breaches Are Equal: Examining Heredia’S Extension Of Implicit Breach Analysis, Kevin Arns

Northwestern University Law Review

When the government enters into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant that stipulates that the government will give a specific sentence recommendation in exchange for the defendant’s guilty plea, it can implicitly breach that agreement by clearly distancing itself from the recommendation at the sentencing hearing. In most circuits, the implicit breach of a non-court-binding plea agreement—an agreement where the defendant is bound to the guilty plea even if the court rejects the sentence recommendation—entitles defendants to a remedy. However, in 2014, the Ninth Circuit was the first circuit to hold that a defendant is entitled to a remedy …