Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Criminal Procedure Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 48

Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray Apr 2024

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …


The Nonexistent Speedy Trial Right, Colleen Cullen Apr 2024

The Nonexistent Speedy Trial Right, Colleen Cullen

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Constitution and all fifty states guarantee a speedy trial right for individuals accused of crimes. The controlling United States Supreme Court case, decided over fifty years ago, described the Sixth Amendment as a fundamental right with Fourteenth Amendment Due Process implications. Although the right to a speedy trial is a universally recognized right, this Article compellingly demonstrates the right is actually nonexistent throughout the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated this previously unrecognized problem in courthouses across the country, which has led to news outlets finally covering the issue of the nonexistent speedy trial. This …


Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris Apr 2022

Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris

Pepperdine Law Review

The Excessive Fines Clause is one of the least developed clauses pertaining to criminal procedure in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has only interpreted the Clause a few times in its entire history. Yet, on any given day, hundreds of thousands of people languish in jails without having been convicted of anything, because most of these people are unable to meet the bail amount a judge sets. This Essay examines the surprisingly under-explored relationship between misdemeanor cash bail & pretrial detention and the Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail Clauses of the Eighth Amendment, using the Supreme …


Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly Mar 2022

Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly

Pepperdine Law Review

Jury nullification traditionally refers to the jury’s power to deliver a verdict that is deliberately contrary to the law’s clearly dictated outcome. A spirited scholarship is built around this conception, with some painting nullification as democratic and others as anarchic. But this debate is largely unmoored from experience. In practice, courts have formally eliminated the jury’s authority to review the law and have established procedures that make it easier to prevent and overturn seemingly nullificatory verdicts. Thus, outside of a jury’s verdict acquitting a criminal defendant, jury nullification as traditionally understood does not exist. In no other context is a …


A Comparative Study On Death Penalty Statutes And Their Effects On Certain Minority Groups In Light Of Furman V. Georgia, Analise Nuxoll Jun 2019

A Comparative Study On Death Penalty Statutes And Their Effects On Certain Minority Groups In Light Of Furman V. Georgia, Analise Nuxoll

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Part One of this comment will address the recent history of the death penalty in the United States, focusing on Furman v. Georgia, which placed a four-year moratorium on the death penalty in 1972. Part Two examines which states still have death penalty statutes and the reasons for choosing the selected states for further analysis. Part Two also addresses the difference between facial and as-applied attacks on the state statutes and the reason for analyzing the statutes under as applied unconstitutionality. Part Three explains the thought behind choosing to examine the death penalty’s effect on racial minorities, low socio-economic classes, …


Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco Apr 2018

Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco

Pepperdine Law Review

In Vogt v. City of Hays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is more than a trial right and applies to the use of compelled statements in probable cause hearings as well as in criminal trials. While the Self-Incrimination Clause states that the right applies “in a criminal case,” there is a circuit split regarding the definition of a “criminal case.” The Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in finding that the right against self-incrimination applies to more than a trial, relying on the common …


The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek May 2013

The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott May 2013

The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


People V. Brisendine: Search And Seizure In California , Donald E. Buddenbaum May 2013

People V. Brisendine: Search And Seizure In California , Donald E. Buddenbaum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith May 2013

The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard Feb 2013

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …


United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr Feb 2013

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.


United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton Feb 2013

United States V. Ross: Search And Seizure Made Simple, Donald L. Dalton

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross vastly simplified the process of searching closed containers found in an automobile during a lawful Carroll search yet, at the same time, placed in question the importance of the search warrant in the scheme of fourth amendment jurisprudence by equating the policeman's determination of probable cause with that of the magistrate.


Federal Discretion In The Prosecution Of Local Political Corruption, Andrew T. Baxter Feb 2013

Federal Discretion In The Prosecution Of Local Political Corruption, Andrew T. Baxter

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal prosecutors' awareness of political corruption at the state and local levels has recently increased concomitantly to the incidence of disclosures and prosecutions of similar corruption at the federal level. Because local law enforcement officials have frequently been unable or unwilling to pursue local political corruption, federal prosecutors have increasingly assumed responsibility for the policing of non-federal political criminal activity, even in the absence of definitive statutory grounds. In this article, the author examines the legal basis upon which federal prosecution of local political corruption is conducted. It is asserted that existing federal judicial and legislative limitations provide an inexact …


Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth Feb 2013

Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth

Pepperdine Law Review

On January 1, 1982, the new California drunk driving law went into effect. This law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle where one's blood alcohol level is .10 or more. The law also marks a legislative attempt to curtail the practice of plea bargaining in drunk driving cases and significantly increases the penalties imposed upon those convicted of drunk driving. This Comment will discuss the provisions of the new drunk driving law and examine its constitutionality.


A Constitutional Determination Of The Duty Of Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel: An Analysis Of Jones V. Barnes , Catherine D. Purcell Feb 2013

A Constitutional Determination Of The Duty Of Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel: An Analysis Of Jones V. Barnes , Catherine D. Purcell

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture And Federal Drug Felonies: An Expansion Of A Harsh English Tradition Into A Modern Dilemma, William J. Hughes, Edward H. O'Connell Jr. Feb 2013

In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture And Federal Drug Felonies: An Expansion Of A Harsh English Tradition Into A Modern Dilemma, William J. Hughes, Edward H. O'Connell Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla Feb 2013

Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla

Pepperdine Law Review

At the end of the 1982 term, in Jones v. United States, the United States Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia statute requiring the automatic and indefinite commitment of persons acquitted by reason of insanity. While under the D.C. statute the acquittee is periodically given the opportunity to gain release, the practice of involuntarily confining someone who has been acquitted raises serious due process and equal protection issues. This note examines the Court's analysis of these issues, focusing on a comparison of the elements necessary for an insanity defense with the showing required by the due process clause for …


Proposition 8: California Law After In Re Lance W. And People V. Castro, Mark Dyer Klein, Randall A. Cohen Jan 2013

Proposition 8: California Law After In Re Lance W. And People V. Castro, Mark Dyer Klein, Randall A. Cohen

Pepperdine Law Review

Until recently, California provided a relatively high level of constitutional protection to criminal defendants. With the passage of Proposition 8 in 1982, the California voters expressed their desire to decrease this level of protection in order to remove impediments to the effective prosecution of criminally accuseds. This comment will examine two of the major provisions of Proposition 8 and their effect on California law in light of major cases decided by the California Supreme Court in 1985.


The Grand Jury Subpoena: Is It The Prosecutor's "Ultimate Weapon" Against Defense Attorneys And Their Clients?, Tara A. Flanagan Jan 2013

The Grand Jury Subpoena: Is It The Prosecutor's "Ultimate Weapon" Against Defense Attorneys And Their Clients?, Tara A. Flanagan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


New Jersey V. T.L.O.: The Supreme Court Severely Limits Schoolchildrens' Fourth Amendment Rights When Being Searched By Public School Officials, Missy Kelly Bankhead Jan 2013

New Jersey V. T.L.O.: The Supreme Court Severely Limits Schoolchildrens' Fourth Amendment Rights When Being Searched By Public School Officials, Missy Kelly Bankhead

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers Jan 2013

Coy V. Iowa: A Constitutional Right Of Intimidation, John A. Mayers

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Thompson V. Oklahoma: Debating The Constitutionality Of Juvenile Executions, Susan M. Simmons Jan 2013

Thompson V. Oklahoma: Debating The Constitutionality Of Juvenile Executions, Susan M. Simmons

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Judicial Sentencing Error: Thomas V. Morris And The Double Jeopardy Clause , Paul G. Flynn Jan 2013

Judicial Sentencing Error: Thomas V. Morris And The Double Jeopardy Clause , Paul G. Flynn

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee Jan 2013

Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii Jan 2013

The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Right To Waive Competent Counsel: Extending The Faretta Waiver, Augustine Gerard Yee Nov 2012

The Right To Waive Competent Counsel: Extending The Faretta Waiver, Augustine Gerard Yee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk Nov 2012

Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


United States V. Alvarez-Machain: Kidnapping In The "War On Drugs" - A Matter Of Executive Discretion Or Lawlessness?, Michael G. Mckinnon Nov 2012

United States V. Alvarez-Machain: Kidnapping In The "War On Drugs" - A Matter Of Executive Discretion Or Lawlessness?, Michael G. Mckinnon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Punishment Need Not Fit The Crime: Harmelin V. Michigan And The Eigth Amendment, Scott K. Petersen Nov 2012

The Punishment Need Not Fit The Crime: Harmelin V. Michigan And The Eigth Amendment, Scott K. Petersen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.