Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (47)
- Criminal Law (37)
- Evidence (29)
- Courts (19)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (18)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (15)
- Law and Society (15)
- Legislation (13)
- State and Local Government Law (13)
- Legal Remedies (11)
- Legal History (10)
- Juvenile Law (9)
- Organizations Law (8)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (7)
- Fourteenth Amendment (6)
- Jurisprudence (6)
- Litigation (6)
- Law and Psychology (5)
- Civil Procedure (4)
- Judges (4)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (4)
- Legal Profession (4)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Law and Gender (3)
- Education Law (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Human Rights Law (2)
- Rule of Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Criminal procedure (17)
- Evidence (16)
- Criminal law (15)
- California (14)
- Criminal Procedure (11)
-
- Constitution (10)
- Right to counsel (10)
- Crime (9)
- Fourth Amendment (8)
- Self-incrimination (8)
- Sixth Amendment (8)
- Crime victims (7)
- Criminal justice system (7)
- Search (7)
- Search and seizure (7)
- Sentencing (7)
- Victims of crimes (7)
- Victims' rights (7)
- Capital punishment (6)
- Constitutional law (6)
- Criminal (6)
- Law Enforcement (6)
- Privacy (6)
- Supreme Court (6)
- Trial (6)
- Defendant (5)
- Fifth Amendment (5)
- Jury (5)
- Police (5)
- Seizure (5)
Articles 1 - 30 of 110
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Prosecutorial Storytelling Through Intrinsic Evidence, Brian Chen
Prosecutorial Storytelling Through Intrinsic Evidence, Brian Chen
Pepperdine Law Review
Crimes make for compelling stories. So juries make for an eager audience. Jurors want to—indeed, expect to—learn what the defendant did, how they did it, and why they deserve punishment. Capable prosecutors know how to deliver. Trial narratives empower jurors to link discrete pieces of evidence and infer facts from circumstantial proof. Only then can they render a verdict consistent with their sense of justice. Federal courts thus afford wide leeway for prosecutors to present their case as they please, with the evidence at their disposal. The Federal Rules of Evidence delineates the scope of that discretion. Under Rule 404(b), …
Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray
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
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 …
Preliminary-Hearing Waivers And The Contract To Negotiate, Michael D. Cicchini
Preliminary-Hearing Waivers And The Contract To Negotiate, Michael D. Cicchini
Pepperdine Law Review
Plea bargaining often begins very early in a criminal case—sometimes before the preliminary hearing, or “prelim,” is held. Be-cause of the time, effort, and risk involved in holding a prelim, the prosecutor may make the defendant a prelim waiver offer. That is, if the defendant agrees to waive the prelim, the prosecutor will hold a particular plea offer open for the defendant’s future consideration. Such prelim waiver offers may be skeletal, at best, but will often include the promise of “future negotiations” to fill in the details. When the prosecutor obtains the defendant’s prelim waiver for the promise of future …
Proceeding Pro Se: Misguided Limitations On The Prison Mailbox Rule In Cretacci V. Call, Eleanor Ritter
Proceeding Pro Se: Misguided Limitations On The Prison Mailbox Rule In Cretacci V. Call, Eleanor Ritter
Pepperdine Law Review
Under the “prison mailbox rule,” an inmate’s notice of appeal in either a criminal or civil case is considered filed at the moment the notice is given to prison authorities to be mailed. But the prison mailbox rule originated as a common law rule––having developed in Fallen v. United States and Houston v. Lack––and was not codified in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure until 1993. In light of its complex origins, circuit courts have split over to whom and to which types of filings the rule should apply. More specifically, courts have disagreed over whether the prison mailbox rule …
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris
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
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 …
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
The "Unfairness" Proof: Exposing The Fatal Flaw Hidden In The Rule Governing The Use Of Criminal Convictions To Impeach Character For Truthfulness, Robert Steinbuch
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (adopted by various states as well) allows for the introduction of certain convictions at trial to impeach the credibility— i.e., character for truthfulness—of any witness. The rule bifurcates its requirements between those that apply to criminal defendants—who, in theory, are afforded greater protection throughout the law than are all other participants in trials—and all remaining witnesses. The most important distinction between the standards that apply to these two classes of witnesses is that for prior crimes of criminal defendants to be introduced to impeach their credibility, those wrongdoings must survive a special balancing test spelled …
When Is Due Process Due?: The Impact Of Title Ix Sexual Assault Adjudication On The Rights Of University Students, Rachael A. Goldman
When Is Due Process Due?: The Impact Of Title Ix Sexual Assault Adjudication On The Rights Of University Students, Rachael A. Goldman
Pepperdine Law Review
As a part of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Title IX was created to address sex discrimination in sports programs receiving federal funding. However, its scope has ballooned tremendously over the years to include a variety of conduct occurring on college campuses. Currently, Title IX is the primary legislation governing sexual assault and harassment allegations stemming from universities. This Note explores the use of Title IX in universities and addresses the concerns that arise when a civil rights law becomes the primary mechanism for adjudicating allegations of criminal conduct. Specifically, this Note addresses the due process concerns that arise when …
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
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 Unintended Consequences Of California Proposition 47: Reducing Law Enforcement’S Ability To Solve Serious, Violent Crimes, Shelby Kail
Pepperdine Law Review
For many years, DNA databases have helped solve countless serious, violent crimes by connecting low-level offenders to unsolved crimes. Because the passage of Proposition 47 reduced several low-level crimes to misdemeanors, which do not qualify for DNA sample collection, Proposition 47 has severely limited law enforcement’s ability to solve serious, violent crimes through California’s DNA database and reliable DNA evidence. This powerful law enforcement tool must be preserved to prevent additional crimes from being committed, to exonerate the innocent, and to provide victims with closure through conviction of their assailants or offenders. Proposition 47’s unintended consequences have led to devastating …
Bias In Blue: Instructing Jurors To Consider The Testimony Of Police Officer Witnesses With Caution, Vida B. Johnson
Bias In Blue: Instructing Jurors To Consider The Testimony Of Police Officer Witnesses With Caution, Vida B. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Jurors in criminal trials are instructed by the judge that they are to treat the testimony of a police officer just like the testimony of any other witness. Fact-finders are told that they should not give police officer testimony greater or lesser weight than any other witness they will hear from at trial. Jurors are to accept that police are no more believable or less believable than anyone else. Jury instructions regarding police officer testimony stand in contrast to the instructions given to jurors when a witness with a legally recognized interest in the outcome of the case has testified. …
Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse, Lindsay Gochnour
Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse, Lindsay Gochnour
Pepperdine Law Review
This Comment seeks to explore the effect that the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence would have on child maltreatment cases and the benefits that would be afforded to child abuse victims if they were provided the same legal protections as victims of other crimes. This Comment argues that expanding the California Evidence Code to allow the admission of prior acts of psychological and emotional child maltreatment would make great progress for the protection of child abuse victims and the prosecution of their (often losing) cases.
State Recoupment Of The Costs Of Defense Of Indigent Criminal Defendants , Mark M. Horgan
State Recoupment Of The Costs Of Defense Of Indigent Criminal Defendants , Mark M. Horgan
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Right Of The Prosecutor To Advance Notice Of The Defendant's Alibi Defense , Thomas J. Hickey
The Right Of The Prosecutor To Advance Notice Of The Defendant's Alibi Defense , Thomas J. Hickey
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Re N, Juvenile Court Must Inform Minor Of His Right To Appeal , John H. Paulsen
In Re N, Juvenile Court Must Inform Minor Of His Right To Appeal , John H. Paulsen
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek
The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
United States Vs. Peltier - The Good Faith Belief Of The Police Officer, Ronald R. Talmo
United States Vs. Peltier - The Good Faith Belief Of The Police Officer, Ronald R. Talmo
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Johnson V. Superior Court - The Future Of The Grand Jury Indictment In California , Suzanne Haigh
Johnson V. Superior Court - The Future Of The Grand Jury Indictment In California , Suzanne Haigh
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Murguia V. Municipal Court - The Defense Of Discriminatory Prosecution, Jeffrey L. Garland
Murguia V. Municipal Court - The Defense Of Discriminatory Prosecution, Jeffrey L. Garland
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott
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
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
The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson
Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm
Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mens Rea, Due Process And The Burden Of Proving Sanity Or Insanity, Daniel K. Spradlin
Mens Rea, Due Process And The Burden Of Proving Sanity Or Insanity, Daniel K. Spradlin
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Beyond Kent And Gault: Consensual Searches And Juveniles, Larry T. Pleiss
Beyond Kent And Gault: Consensual Searches And Juveniles, Larry T. Pleiss
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fare V. Michael C.: Juveniles And In Custodial Interrogations , Gregory S. Chudacoff
Fare V. Michael C.: Juveniles And In Custodial Interrogations , Gregory S. Chudacoff
Pepperdine Law Review
In the principal case, Fare v. Michael C., the United States Supreme Court rejects the position of the Supreme Court of California that a juvenile's request for the presence of his probation officer constitutes an invocation of the juvenile's right to remain silent within the meaning of the Miranda decision. The author examines the rationale applied by each court enroute to this split of opinion, and suggests a middle ground which would accommodate the concerns of both courts with respect to the protection of an accused juvenile at the custodial interrogation stage.
Juvenile Discovery: A Developing Trend And A Word Of Caution, Diane Geraghty
Juvenile Discovery: A Developing Trend And A Word Of Caution, Diane Geraghty
Pepperdine Law Review
The use of discovery is acknowledged as essential to the efficient administration of justice and to the fairness of the adversary system in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, the juvenile court system has been slow to implement various means of discovery, largely as a result of the doctrine of parens patriae and the unique nature of the juvenile process. Although a discernible trend indicates acceptance of pretrial discovery, there has been considerable experimentation at decisional and statutory levels to develop procedurally protective discovery mechanisms. Professor Geraghty traces the use of discovery in juvenile proceedings and devotes particular attention to …