Criminal Law Commons^™

Atryzek V. State, 268 A.3d 37 (R.I. 2022), Emily Hogan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Central Park Five As “Discrete And Insular” Minorities Under The Equal Protection Clause: The Evolution Of The Right To Counsel For Wrongfully Convicted Minors, Todd K. Beharry

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Confessions, Convictions And Controversy: An Examination Of False Confessions Leading To Wrongful Convictions In The United States Throughout History, Kirandeep Kaur

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Requiring Miranda Warnings For The Christmas Day Bomber And Other Terrorists, Malvina Halberstam

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Blind Spot In Miranda Rights: Juveniles' Lack Of Understanding Regarding, Wadad Barakat

St. Thomas Law Review

This Comment addresses the negative implications of juveniles who waive their Miranda rights due to lack of knowledge, fear, and lack of cognitive capabilities." First, this Comment will provide insight regarding the Fifth Amendment, the history of Miranda, and key cases that lead to the reform of Miranda. Second, this Comment will discuss juveniles' perspective of the Miranda language along with the police's perspective. In particular, it will emphasize the complexity of the language as it stands today and how juveniles' cognitive abilities are insufficiently developed to understand it. Lastly, this Comment will propose guidelines to prevent minors from giving …

The Price Of Silence: How The Griffin Roadblock And Protection Against Adverse Inference Condemn The Criminal Defendant, Kelsey Craig

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1965, the Supreme Court held in Griffin v. California that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination prohibits judges and prosecutors from pointing to a defendant's failure to testify as substantive evidence of guilt. This doctrine assumes that such a prosecutorial or judicial "adverse comment" compels a negative inference-that the defendant is hiding something. The Griffin Court held that this assumption amounts to an unfair penalty on a defendant's invocation of a constitutionally protected right. This doctrine, however, makes a dangerous misstep in additionally assuming that the prohibition of adverse comment and the administration of limiting instructions curtail a …

Book Review: Psychiatric Justice, Alice M. Batchelder

Akron Law Review

In an era in which extensive judicial emphasis has been placed on "due process of law" in criminal proceedings, both in the federal courts and in the state courts, Dr. Szasz's book serves as a jarring reminder that in at least one vital area of the concept of due process, much remains to be done. The emerging definition of due process has enunciated the rights guaranteed the individual by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and viewed within that framework, this book, although published in 1965, remains particularly timely, for Szasz, speaking as a psychiatrist, endeavors to demonstrate how …

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.

Mental Sanity And Confessions: The Supreme Court's New Version Of The Old "Voluntariness" Standard, Alfredo Garcia

Akron Law Review

Although the voluntariness standard has not been entirely superseded by Miranda v. Arizona because it is applicable to confessions obtained through police coercion, in spite of compliance with Miranda's technical requirements, it has receded into relative obscurity in the wake of Miranda. In Colorado v. Connelly, however, the United States Supreme Court confronted a novel case which neatly juxtaposed questions relevant to the voluntariness test with issues arising from Miranda's dictates. This article will examine the issues raised in Connelly, critique the Court's application of both the voluntariness standard and Miranda to the facts of Connelly, …

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 …

The Right To A Fair Trial In The Age Of Facebook, Lori Andrews

Lori B. Andrews

No abstract provided.

United States V. Patane: The Beginning Of The End Of Miranda, Bryce Chauncey Loveland

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Drunk: Expanding The Scope Of Implied Consent Through Fifth Amendment Voluntariness Standards, Avi Goldstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifteen Years And Death: Double Jeopardy, Multiple Punishments, And Extended Stays On Death Row, Michael J. Johnson

Michael P. Johnson

Fifteen Years and Death is a Note that considers a completely novel application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to excessive time on death row. Traditionally, death penalty opponents have attacked the now fifteen-year average wait time on death row as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, but this argument has fallen flat time and time again as courts have been reluctant to find merely living in prison to be “cruel” or “unusual.” Most courts do admit, however, that such time on death row does constitute some sort of punishment. As originally imagined, the Double …

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 …

Double Jeopardy Law And The Separation Of Powers, Alex Tsiatsos

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

This article examines the most significant cases from the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia over the past year. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes to the law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 Session in the field of criminal law and procedure.

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 …

Double Jeopardy, Court Of Appeals: People V. Vasquez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Suffolk County: People V. Shulman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy, Supreme Court, Appellate Term Second Judicial Department: People V. Steele

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does New York's Death Penalty Statute Violate The New York Constitution?, Honorable Stewart F. Hancock Jr., Christopher Quinn, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bargaining About Future Jeopardy, Daniel C. Richman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The debate about how much protection criminal defendants should have against successive prosecutions has generally been conducted in the context of how to interpret the Double Jeopardy Clause. The doctrinal focus of this debate ignores the fact that for the huge majority of defendants-those who plead guilty instead of standing trial-the Double Jeopardy Clause sin- ply sets a default rule, establishing a minimum level of protection when defendants choose not to bargain about the possibility of future charges. In this Article, Professor Richman examines the world that exists in the shadow of minimalist double jeopardy doctrine, exploring the dynamics of …

Preface: Double Jeopardy In Washington And Beyond, Justice Philip A. Talmadge

Seattle University Law Review

The prohibition against double jeopardy is of ancient lineage in western civilization. In a ringing and scholarly dissent that rewards reflection, Justice Hugo Black said:

Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization. Its roots run deep into Greek and Roman times. Even in the Dark Ages, when so many other principles of justice were lost, the idea that one trial and one punishment were enough remained alive through the canon law and the teachings of the early Christian writers. By the thirteenth century …

Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures And Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit The Crime, Barbara A. Mack

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will attempt to distill from this confusion a meaningful double jeopardy policy, applicable to parallel civil and criminal proceedings, that takes into account the history of double jeopardy, recent changes in statutory law, and the contemporary chaotic state of parallel civil and criminal proceedings. Under current law, double jeopardy protects against three abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. This Article will show that the multiple punishments prong has little basis in law, other than reliance …

The Double Jeopardy Implications Of In Rem Forfeiture Of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization Of A Constitutional Violation, Andrew L. Subin

Seattle University Law Review

Over the past decade, the government has escalated its "war on drugs." Although the "war" has not decreased drug use or limited the availability of drugs on the street, the government continues to sacrifice the constitutional rights of its citizens in an effort to escalate the hostility. Since the "zero tolerance" policy of the Reagan Administration, the government has relied heavily on the forfeiture of property related to drug crimes as a tool to deter and punish the illegal distribution of drugs. The federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881, allows the government to seize any property used to facilitate …

Sotto Voce: The Supreme Court's Low Key But Not Insignificant Criminal Law Rulings During The 1992 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.