Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professionalism And Advocacy At Trial – Real Jurors Speak In Detail About The Performance Of Their Advocates, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Bad Juror" Lists And The Prosecutor's Duty To Disclose, Ira Robbins

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Prosecutors sometimes use what are known as "bad juror" lists to exclude particular citizens from jury service. Not only does this practice interfere with an open and fair jury-selection process, thus implicating a defendant's right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but it also violates potential jurors' rights to serve in this important capacity. But who is on these lists? And is a prosecutor required to disclose the lists to defense counsel? These questions have largely gone unnoticed by legal analysts. This Article addresses the prosecutor's duty to disclose bad-juror lists. It reviews the federal …

Bargained Justice: Plea Bargaining's Innocence Problem And The Brady Safety-Valve, Lucian Dervan

Lucian E Dervan

If any number of attorneys were asked in 2004 whether Lea Fastow’s plea bargain in the Enron case was constitutional, the majority would respond with a simple word – Brady. Yet while the 1970 Supreme Court decision Brady v. United States authorized plea bargaining as a form of American justice, the case also contained a vital caveat that has been largely overlooked by scholars, practitioners, and courts for almost forty years. Brady contains a safety-valve that caps the amount of pressure that may be asserted against defendants by prohibiting prosecutors from offering incentives in return for guilty pleas that are …

Robinson V. California: From Revolutionary Constitutional Doctrine To Model Ban On Status Crimes, Erik Luna

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

The Prosecutor In Transnational Perspective, Erik Luna, Marianne Wade

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

Massachusetts Firearms Prosecutions In The Wake Of Melendez-Diaz, Kevin P. Chapman

Kevin P. Chapman

The Supreme Court ruling in Melendez-Diaz fundamentally changed the way that firearms offenses are prosecuted in Massachusetts. This paper presents the history of firearms prosecutions and the current state of the law, and it raises several unanswered questions that could further change the nature of future firearms prosecutions.

The Relational Contingency Of Rights, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Alex Stein

In this Article, we demonstrate, contrary to conventional wisdom, that all rights are relationally contingent. Our main thesis is that rights afford their holders meaningful protection only against challengers who face higher litigation costs than the rightholder. Contrariwise, challengers who can litigate more cheaply than a rightholder can force the rightholder to forfeit the right and thereby render the right ineffective. Consequently, in the real world, rights avail only against certain challengers but not others. This result is robust and pervasive. Furthermore, it obtains irrespectively of how rights and other legal entitlements are defined by the legislator or construed by …

"Bad Juror" Lists And The Prosecutor's Duty To Disclose, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

A Theory Of The Perverse Verdict, Bethel G.A Erastus-Obilo

Bethel G.A Erastus-Obilo

The concept of a perverse verdict is one that pervades the Criminal justice system of nearly all common law jurisdictions. The English Criminal Justice system is no exception and the concept has become institutionalised as if it were a true occurrence. This paper challenges the idea and argues that it is, technically, a legal non-event given the system of trial by jury. The theory is that besides the jury, no one else is invested with the power and authority to declare a verdict and this position is supported both by legal custom and the mechanism of the criminal justice system. …

Keeping 'Reasonable Grounds' Meaningful, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Two recent Court of Appeal cases (R. v. Jir and R. v. Bush, both reported ante, pp. 53 and 29) are examples of tendencies in some recent decisions to weaken the "reasonable grounds" standard for arrest. That the reasonable grounds standard for arrest is important is beyond question. As the Supreme Court of Canada has said, Without such an important standard, even the most democratic society could all too easily fall prey to the abuses and excesses of a police state. In subtle and sometimes unintentional ways, however, the reasonable ground standard is being undermined. This short article will examine …

Unfettered Discretion: Criminal Orders Of Protection And Their Impact On Parent Defendants, David Jaros

All Faculty Scholarship

The last two decades have witnessed an astonishing increase in the use of the criminal justice system to police neglectful parents. Recasting traditional allegations of neglect as criminal charges of endangering the welfare of a child, prosecutors and the police have involved criminal courts in the regulation of aspects of the parent child relationship that were once the sole province of family courts. This Article explores the legal implications of vesting judges in these cases with the unfettered discretion to issue protective orders that criminalize contact between a parent and her child. I argue that procedures for issuing protective orders …

Establishing Guidelines For Attorney Representation Of Criminal Defendants At The Sentencing Phase Of Capital Trials, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Using Protection Of Privacy Legislation To Erode Privacy: R. V. Chehil, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal here in R. v. Chehil overturns the trial judge's conclusion that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the police obtained from the computer manifest. With respect, their application of the totality of the circumstances test is subject to question at several important points. For example, in assessing the objective reasonableness of an expectation of privacy, the Court of Appeal relies on the fact that the Westjet website informs customers that "information will be disclosed to the authorities without your knowledge and consent as required by law." The court then …

Racializing Disability, Disabling Race: Policing Race And Mental Status, Camille Nelson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Judges Judging Judicial Candidates: Should Currently Serving Judges Participate In Commissions To Screen And Recommend Article Iii Candidates Below The Supreme Court Level?, Mary Clark

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, the American Bar Association (ABA), among others, called upon the next president to reform the federal judicial selection process by using bipartisan commissions to screen and recommend Article III candidates for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation below the Supreme Court level. This proposal may well find support in the Obama administration, given the new president’s emphasis on bipartisan consensus-building and transparency of government operations. This Article addresses one question that the ABA and others have not: Should currently serving judges participate in bi-partisan commissions to screen and recommend Article III candidates below …

Great Strides In Section 9 Jurisprudence, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Could the approach to section 9 laid out in Grant have been constructed differently? Yes. But are we, because of that decision, magnitudes of order clearer on how to approach section 9? Also yes. The Supreme Court's decision in Grant, seemingly the product of careful negotiation given the time it has taken for the judgment to be handed down in a fashion having a clear majority, has created what has for over 25 years been lacking with regard to arbitrary detention. Where before we had very few decisions, those decisions not easily …

Hydraulic Pressures And Slight Deviations, Erik Luna

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

In Support Of Restorative Justice And Reply, Erik Luna

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

Brennan Lecture Evidence-Based Judicial Discretion: Promoting Public Safety Through State Sentencing Reform, Michael A. Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

In this speech delivered for the annual Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, the Honorable Michael Wolff offers a new way of thinking about sentencing. Instead of attempting to limit judicial discretion and increase incarceration, states should aim to reduce recidivism in order to make our communities safer. Judge Wolff uses the example of Missouri's sentencing reforms to argue that states should adopt evidence-based sentencing, in which the effectiveness of different sentences and treatment programs are regularly evaluated. In pre-sentencing investigative reports, probation officers should attempt to quantify - based on historical data - …

Improving Privacy Protection, But By How Much?, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The discussion of reasonable expectation of privacy in R. v. M. (A.) is extremely useful. In the wake of Tessling, many courts had effectively reduced the protection offered by s. 8 based on two arguments: that what was detected was an emanation in the public domain similar to heat coming from a house, and that what was discovered merely related to informational privacy and was not part of the biographical core of such data. Justice Binnie's decision puts paid the notion that either of these arguments is a trump card. He suggests that generalizing about "emanations" is not a useful …

Reforming Homicide Law To Separate Guilt From Sentence: An International Gloss, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This article argues that Canadian homicide law is handicapped by trying to combine two contradictory approaches. In general, Canadian criminal law adopts the approach of setting out relatively rigid rules for determining guilt or innocence. That is, the Criminal Code sets out particular offences, and if the elements of an offence can be proven, then failing the presence of any defence (also relatively rigidly defined), any accused will be found guilty. The question of guilt or innocence is not individualized to the circumstances of the offender. On the other hand, sentencing decisions adopt exactly the opposite approach, and are made …

Arbitrary Detention: Whither - Or Wither? - Section 9, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

It is a remarkable fact that more than 25 years after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect, we still have no section 9 jurisprudence. It is not that there have been no decisions at all concerning the right not to be arbitrarily detained, of course, but taken in total they do not come anywhere near setting out an analytical framework. This stands in contrast to most other legal rights in the Charter. Section 7 jurisprudence has established the two-step approach to take in assessing claims under that section, including a three-step test for determining whether a …

The End Of Constitutional Exemptions, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In R. v. Ferguson (reported ante p. 197) the Supreme Court decided that constitutional exemptions are not available as a remedy when a mandatory minimum sentence is said to violate section 12 of the Charter. This is a well reasoned and sensible decision. As mandatory minimum sentences are the context in which the possibility of the constitutional exemption as a Charter remedy has most frequently arisen, as a practical matter Ferguson largely disposes of the issue. Nonetheless, a further clarification at some point that constitutional exemptions are not available in any context, for other violations of section 12 or of …

Drugs And Justice, Erik Luna, Margaret Battin

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

The Principled Exception And The Forgotten Criterion, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The principled exception to the hearsay rule is routinely described as being settled by the "twin criteria" of necessity and reliability. In fact a third criterion is also — or at least ought to be — at play: that admitting the evidence through hearsay would not undermine any other rule of evidence. The Court has made reference to this third criterion in the past, but it has largely been ignored in both Supreme Court and lower court decisions. The recent judgement in Couture depends in a limited way on that question, and so it marks an opportunity to articulate the …

The Jurisdictional Heritage Of The Grand Jury Clause, Roger A. Fairfax

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

One Small Step: The Past, Present, And Future Of The Federal Sentencing System , Matthew Jill

ExpressO

The federal sentencing guidelines, which focus on offense based statistical consistency, had a ripple effect that molded the entire federal sentencing system in it’s wake; this article is an individual case study demonstrating the flaws of a consistency based sentencing system, the injustice such a system can create, and why United States v. Booker is only the first step in creating a fair and effective sentencing system.

The Silent Criminal Defendant And The Presumption Of Innocence: In The Hands Of Real Jurors, Is Either Of Them Safe, Mitchell J. Frank, Dawn Broschard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Misnamed, Misapplied, And Misguided: Clarifying The State Of Sentencing Entrapment And Proposing A New Conception Of The Doctrine, Jess D. Mekeel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.