Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, People V. Morin, Lauren Tan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confessions, Criminals, And Community, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People Ex Rel. Furde V. New York City Dep't Of Correction, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Rivette, Michele Kligman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

District Court, Nassau County, People V. Yaghoubi, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor

Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association

This paper uses the dichotomy between Herbert Packer’s (1968) two models of criminal justice advocacy – “crime control” and “due process” – as a rhetorical paradigm for understanding policy debate about the exclusion of relevant evidence at trial. Understanding the opposition between crime control and due process advocates as a rhetorical controversy, in which commonly-used ideographs camouflage dramatically different constructions of the concepts at stake, helps to illuminate the way each side mobilizes public support for their narrative of doing . While both the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally-obtained evidence in criminal cases) and the “fruit of …

Hall V. Florida: The Death Of Georgia's Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Welcome: We’re Glad Georgia is On Your Mind.

Georgia is on many minds as Warren Hill prepares for a state court hearing to once again begin the process of trying to show that he is intellectually disabled. As Warren Hill continues to flirt with death, one must ask, is Georgia really going to execute someone that nine experts and a lower court twice found to be mentally retarded? The answer is yes, and the Georgia courts do not understand why we are scratching our heads. The answer is simple: executing an intellectually disabled man is akin to strapping a ten-year …

Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma E. Marouf

Fatma E Marouf

This Article challenges the constitutionality of indiscriminately restraining civil immigration detainees during removal proceedings. Not only are immigration detainees routinely placed in handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains without any individualized determination of the need for restraints, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prosecuting party, makes the decisions about the use of restraints, rather than the judge. After examining the rationale for the well-established prohibition against the indiscriminate use of restraints during criminal and civil jury trials, and discussing how some courts have extended this rationale to bench trials, this Article contends that ICE’s practice violates substantive and procedural …

Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma Marouf

Fatma Marouf

Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for …

Systemic Barriers To Effective Assistance Of Counsel In Plea Bargaining, Rodney J. Uphoff, Peter A. Joy

Faculty Publications

In a trio of recent cases, Padilla v. Kentucky, Missouri v. Frye, and Lafler v. Cooper, the U.S. Supreme Court has focused its attention on defense counsel's pivotal role during the plea bargaining process . At the same time that the Court has signaled its willingness to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims at the plea stage, prosecutors are increasingly requiring defendants to sign waivers that include waiving all constitutional and procedural errors, even unknown ineffective assistance of counsel claims such as those that proved successful in Padilla and Frye. Had Jose Padilla and Galin Frye been forced to sign …

Brief Of Amici Curiae -- Heien V. State Of North Carolina, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity cannot be predicated on conduct that does not violate the law. Put differently, if reasonableness — or reasonable suspicion — is to mean anything, it means that apparent violations of the law must be based on actual violations of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision sends a message to drivers throughout the country that they cannot be wrong about what the law requires, even where law enforcement is wrong — dead wrong — about what the law proscribes.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

The Prosecutor Prince: Misconduct, Accountability, And A Modest Proposal, H. Mitchell Caldwell

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Targeted Killing: United States Policy, Constitional Law, And Due Process, Mark Febrizio

Senior Honors Theses

The increased incorporation of targeted killing, primarily through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, into United States policy raises salient questions regarding its consistency with the U.S. Constitution. This paper contrasts interpretations of constitutional due process with the current legal framework for conducting targeted killing operations. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the due process owed to U.S. citizens. This paper determines that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was accomplished in a manner inconsistent with constitutional due process and demonstrates an over-extension of executive branch power. This paper examines one scholarly recommendation that seeks to increase …

Prearraignment Lineup Procedures: Are Multiple Lineups Unduly Suggestive Or Sufficiently Reliable?, Jared R. Artura

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is New York Achieving More Reliable And Just Convictions When The Admissibility Of A Suggestive Pretrial Identification Is At Issue?, Matthew Gordon

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circumstances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inherently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense. In some cases, a defendant’s pretrial conditions become so onerous that they become punitive …

Due Process Disaggregation, Jason Parkin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

One-size-fits-all procedural safeguards are becoming increasingly suspect under the Due Process Clause. Although the precise requirements of due process vary from context to context, the Supreme Court has held that, within any particular context, the Due Process Clause merely requires one-size-fits-all procedures that are designed according to the needs of the average or typical person using the procedures. As the Court explained when announcing the modern approach to procedural due process in Mathews v. Eldridge, the due process calculus must be focused on “the generality of cases, not the rare exceptions.” A more granular approach to due process rules, the …

The Marriage Of State Law And Individual Rights And A New Limit On The Federal Death Penalty, Jonathan Ross

Cleveland State Law Review

Since the 1990s, federal prosecutors have, with increasing frequency, sought the death penalty for federal offenses committed in and also punishable under the laws of non-death penalty states. Critics of this practice have pointed out that federal prosecutors can use the federal death penalty to circumvent a state's abolition of capital punishment. Courts, however, have almost unanimously rejected arguments that state law should be a shield from federal punishment for federal offenses. This article proposes a novel way to challenge the federal death penalty's use in a non-death penalty state—the Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Windsor. In Windsor, …

Correcting Criminal Justice Through Collective Experience Rigorously Examined, James S. Liebman, David Mattern

Faculty Scholarship

Federal and state law confers broad discretion on courts to administer the criminal laws, impose powerful penalties, and leave serious criminal behavior unpunished. Each time an appellate court reviews a criminal verdict, it performs an important systemic function of regulating the exercise of that power. Trial courts do the same when, for example, they admit or exclude evidence generated by government investigators. For decades, judicial decisions of this sort have been guided by case law made during the Supreme Court's Criminal Procedure Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the rule-bound, essentially bureaucratic regulatory …