Criminal Law Commons^™

Immigration Public Defenders: A Model For Going Beyond Adequate Representation, Matthew Chang

JCLC Online

What does adequate legal representation for noncitizen criminal defendants look like? After the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense attorneys became responsible for advising clients if and when there might be immigration consequences that accompany acceptance of a guilty plea deal, such as a potential risk of deportation. Currently, the criminal and immigration representation are completely divided. This Comment argues that the Padilla mandate alone, while important, fails to adequately provide noncitizen criminal defendants their Fifth Amendment Due Process Right and Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. Using the Supreme Court’s legal analysis in …

Interrogation And The Roberts Court, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Through 2010, the Roberts Court decided five cases involving the rules for police interrogation under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Kansas v. Ventris; Montejo v. Louisiana; Florida v. Powell; Maryland v. Shatzer; and Berghuis v. Thompkins. This Article argues that these decisions show the Roberts Court reshaping constitutional interrogation rules according to a new (as-yet unarticulated) principle: “fair play” in interrogations. The Warren Court believed that suspects in police interrogation were vulnerable to inherent compelling pressures; the Court correspondingly created procedural interrogation rules under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (Miranda and Massiah) to protect suspects. The Roberts Court does not …

Are Police Free To Disregard Miranda?, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Compelled Statements From Police Officers And Garrity Immunity, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professor Steven Clymer describes the problem created when police departments require officers suspected of misconduct to answer internal affairs investigators' questions or face job termination. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey, courts treat such compelled statements as immunized testimony. That treatment not only renders such a statement inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the suspect police officer, it also may require the prosecution to shoulder the daunting and sometimes insurmountable burden of demonstrating that its physical evidence, witness testimony, and strategic decisionmaking are untainted by the statement. Because police internal affairs …

Overbroad Civil Forfeiture Statutes Are Unconstitutionally Vague, Deborah Duseau, David Schoenbrod

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Constraints On Proving "Whodunnit?", John O. Sonsteng

Faculty Scholarship

American system places these constraints on the age old criminal law question: “WHODUNIT?” This article explores these issues.

Truth In Sentencing: Accepting Responsibility Under The United States Sentencing Guidelines, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The United States Sentencing Guidelines (hereinafter Guidelines) allow federal district courts to reduce a defendant's sentence if the defendant "clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct .... " In United States v. Perez-Franco, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the above Guidelines section on acceptance of responsibility did not require a defendant to accept responsibility for charges that were to be dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The Perez-Franco decision is an affront to the fundamental principle that a defendant ought to take personal responsibility for …

The Testimonial Component Of The Right Against Self-Incrimination, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Right Against Self-Incrimination -- "Public Safety" Exception, David C. Williams

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.