Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (23)
- Criminal Law (20)
- Civil Procedure (19)
- Constitutional Law (11)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (9)
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (8)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (7)
- Judges (6)
- Common Law (4)
- Evidence (4)
- Jurisprudence (4)
- Law and Race (4)
- State and Local Government Law (4)
- European Law (3)
- International Law (3)
- Internet Law (3)
- Law and Philosophy (3)
- Legislation (3)
- Litigation (3)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (2)
- Law and Psychology (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Applied Ethics (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Ethics and Political Philosophy (1)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (21)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (13)
- West Virginia University (9)
- William & Mary Law School (6)
- University of Richmond (3)
-
- University of San Diego (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- Pace University (2)
- University of New Hampshire (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (13)
- Michigan Law Review (10)
- West Virginia Law Review (9)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (7)
- San Diego International Law Journal (3)
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (3)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (3)
- William & Mary Law Review (3)
- Pace Law Review (2)
- The University of New Hampshire Law Review (2)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (2)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (2)
- Arkansas Law Review (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Kentucky Law Journal (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (1)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- University of Miami Law Review (1)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat (1)
- Washington Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice (1)
Articles 31 - 60 of 70
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Response To "Snyder V. Louisiana: Continuing The Historical Trend Towards Increased Scrutiny Of Peremptory Challenges", Bidish J. Sarma
Response To "Snyder V. Louisiana: Continuing The Historical Trend Towards Increased Scrutiny Of Peremptory Challenges", Bidish J. Sarma
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
John P. Bringewatt's recent note makes several important observations about the Supreme Court's opinion in Snyder v. Louisiana. Although he provides reasonable support for the claim that Snyder represents a sea change in Batson jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court's fresh opinion in Thaler v. Haynes (rendered on February 22, 2010) reads the Snyder majority opinion narrowly and suggests the possibility that Snyder is not as potent as it should be. The Haynes per curiam's guarded reading of Snyder signals the need for courts to continue to conduct the bird's-eye cumulative analysis that the Court performed in Miller-El v. Dretke[hereinafter Miller-El …
Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously, Arnold H. Lowey
Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously, Arnold H. Lowey
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In recent years, we have discovered a spate of factually innocent people who have been convicted. In this article, Professor Loewy contends that the failure of juries to take reasonable doubt seriously contributes to this phenomenon. Professor Loewy via an illustrative fictitious case explains that juries might be reluctant to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt because of their concern about putting dangerous criminals back on the street. He then asks whether we really want juries to take reasonable doubt seriously. Concluding that we do, he examines how we can do that. Loewy concludes that the best …
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Intentional wrongful convictions in cases involving child offenders may occur when judges have insufficient evidence proving any crime by the child but feel a strong need for the courts to intervene in the child's life and behavior. They believe that the negative factors attached to such a status are worth suffering if the child gains entry into a desired state program. This is wrongfully convicting the child "for the child's own good." Juvenile court judges too often receive knowledge of the child's background and previous record prior to any trial or hearing in order to devise the best result for …
Performing Discretion Or Performing Discrimination: Race, Ritual, And Peremptory Challenges In Capital Jury Selection, Melynda J. Price
Performing Discretion Or Performing Discrimination: Race, Ritual, And Peremptory Challenges In Capital Jury Selection, Melynda J. Price
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Research shows the mere presence of Blacks on capital juries-- on the rare occasions they are seated--can mean the difference between life and death. Peremptory challenges are the primary method to remove these pivotal participants. Batson v. Kentucky developed hearings as an immediate remedy for the unconstitutional removal of jurors through racially motivated peremptory challenges. These proceedings have become rituals that sanction continued bias in the jury selection process and ultimately affect the outcome of capital trials. This Article deconstructs the role of the Batson ritual in legitimating the removal of African American jurors. These perfunctory hearings fail to meaningfully …
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein
Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein
San Diego International Law Journal
Parliament enacted a statute in 1996 intended to limit the double jeopardy bar in some situations in which the defendant obtained an acquittal through improper means, thereby permitting the government to retry the person for the same offense of which he previously was tried and acquitted. The statute, part of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, allows a retrial when an individual's acquittal was tainted, which, under the statute, means an acquittal resulting from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror, witness, or potential witness. In allowing a retrial in such circumstances, the statute creates an exception to the …
Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein
Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein
San Diego International Law Journal
More than 240 years ago, Sir William Blackstone, perhaps the most important commentator on the English common law, wrote that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any indictment, or other prosecution, before any court having competent jurisdiction of the offence, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same crime. This plea of autrefois acquit (a former acquittal), Blackstone explained, is based upon the principle that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offence, which he called a universal maxim of …
American Indians, Crime, And The Law, Kevin K. Washburn
American Indians, Crime, And The Law, Kevin K. Washburn
Michigan Law Review
This Article evaluates the federal Indian country criminal justice regime, not against norms of Indian law and policy, but against those of criminal law and policy. Specifically, this Article evaluates the federal constitutional norms that lie at the heart of American criminal justice and that are designed to ensure the legitimacy of federal criminal trials. Toward that end, Part I presents a critical description of key facets of the federal Indian country criminal justice system. Part II begins the critical evaluation by evaluating a key institutional player in the federal system, the federal prosecutor. It highlights the handicaps faced by …
The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall
The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
More than three decades ago, in Furman v. Georgia, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down all existing capital punishment schemes be-cause the results they generated were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasoned. No member of that Court remains on the Court today, and the Court has grown increasingly conservative ever since. Nevertheless, impor-tant questions concerning the administration of capital punishment continue to wrought deep divisions within the Court, for instance in determining whether racial bias influences the system, in determining the sufficiency of new evidence of innocence to justify review of a defaulted claim in habeas corpus proceedings, in determining a …
Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman
Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has sought to harmonize competing constitutional demands under Eighth Amendment rules regulat-ing the two-step eligibility and selection stages of the capital decision-making process. Furman’s demand for rationality and consistency requires that, at the eligibility stage, the sentencer’s discretion be limited and guided by clear and objective fact-based standards that rationally narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. The selection stage requires a determination of whether a specific death-eligible defendant actually deserves that punish-ment, as distinguished from other death-eligible defendants. Here, fundamental fairness and respect for the uniqueness of the individual are the cornerstones of …
Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman
Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Hidden underneath the racy death penalty issues in Kansas v. Marsh lurks a seemingly dull procedural issue addressed only in separate opinions by Justices Stevens and Scalia: whether the Court should have heard the case in the first place. As he did in three cases from the Court’s 2005 term, Justice Stevens argued in Marsh that the Court has no legitimate interest in reviewing state court decisions that overprotect federal constitutional rights. Instead, the Supreme Court should exercise its certiorari power to tip the scales against states and in favor of individuals. Granting certiorari in Marsh, Stevens argued, was not …
The Revolution Enters The Court: The Constitutional Significance Of Wrongful Convictions In Contemporary Constitutional Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Jordan Steiker
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Over the last decade, the most important events in American death pen-alty law have occurred outside the courts. The discovery of numerous wrongfully convicted death-sentenced inmates in Illinois led to the most substantial reflection on the American death penalty system since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a Republi-can, first declared a moratorium on executions in 2000 and eventually commuted all 167 inmates on Illinois’s death row in 2003. The events in Illinois reverberated nationwide. Almost overnight, state legislative agendas shifted from expanding or maintaining the prevailing reach of the death penalty to studying its …
Putting The Guesswork Back Into Capital Sentencing, Sean D. O'Brien
Putting The Guesswork Back Into Capital Sentencing, Sean D. O'Brien
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court deemed it “incon-testable” that a death sentence is cruel and unusual if inflicted “by reason of [the defendant’s] race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.” Arbitrary and discriminatory patterns in capital sentencing moved the Court to strike down death penalty statutes that required judges or juries to cast thumbs-up or thumbs-down verdicts against offenders found guilty of capi-tal crimes. The issue of innocence was barely a footnote in Furman; the Court’s concerns focused on …
Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough
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.
Psychology, Factfinding, And Entrapment, Kevin A. Smith
Psychology, Factfinding, And Entrapment, Kevin A. Smith
Michigan Law Review
Through the entrapment defense, the law acknowledges that criminal behavior is not always the result of a culpable mind, but is sometimes the result of an interaction between the individual and his environment. By limiting the amount of pressure and temptation that undercover agents may bring to bear on a target, the defense recognizes that the ordinary, law-abiding citizen can be persuaded, cajoled, or intimidated into criminal activity that, he would never consider absent law-enforcement interference. Appropriate application of the defense requires, however, that courts be able to accurately separate the truly wicked from the merely weak-willed, and offensively coercive …
Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough
Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …
Rethinking The Jury, Phoebe A. Haddon
Rethinking The Jury, Phoebe A. Haddon
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Juries, Susan E. Morton
Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig
Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note approves of efforts to avoid hung juries by giving lesser included offense instructions but opposes those instructions that restrict juror decisions and coerce minority jurors. Rather, this Note offers a lesser included offense instruction that promotes flexibility and jury compromise without undermining the deliberative process. Part I describes the problem of hung juries and how courts have tried to prevent them with restrictive lesser included offense instructions. Part II analyzes the coercive impact of restrictive lesser included offense instructions and concludes that an instruction conditioning deliberations upon individual juror disagreement better promotes compromises on the merits while reducing …
Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer
Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when lesser included offense instructions are available under state law but were not given. Part I demonstrates that granting such review conforms to the modern jurisdictional scope of federal collateral review because failure to give the instructions undermines the fact-finding function of juries and is therefore unconstitutional. Part II analyzes the proper standard of review and determines that the federal interest in protecting the reliability of the fact-finding process should prevail over any conflicting state interest in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions. Part II …
Jury Instructions, John M. Purcell
Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick
Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick
Michigan Law Review
As presently construed, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. The states and the federal government may punish the commission of certain crimes with death, so long as the extreme penalty is not imposed on a mandatory basis and so long as the procedures used in imposing a death sentence meet constitutional scrutiny.
A demonstration that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenge in the manner described in a single case probably would be insufficient to support a constitutional challenge in the federal courts and in the vast majority of state courts. In these courts a prosecutor's use of the …
Joint Trials Of Defendants In Criminal Cases: An Analysis Of Efficiencies And Prejudices, Robert O. Dawson
Joint Trials Of Defendants In Criminal Cases: An Analysis Of Efficiencies And Prejudices, Robert O. Dawson
Michigan Law Review
Legislatures and courts, in weighing the relative advantages of joint and separate trials, have unreasonably struck a balance in favor of joint trials. The strongest justification traditionally offered for joint trials is efficiency. This Article shows that courts have greatly exaggerated the supposed efficiencies of joint trials while grossly underestimating the impediments joint trials pose to fair and accurate determinations of individual guilt or innocence. The propriety of joint trials is more than a question of efficiencies. Joint trials usually, although not always, help the prosecutor to get convictions, and thereby modify the balance of advantage in criminal trials. Disputes …
Ballew V. Georgia: A Move Toward Neo-Incorporationism?
Ballew V. Georgia: A Move Toward Neo-Incorporationism?
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Jury Of One's Peers, Lewis H. Larue
A Jury Of One's Peers, Lewis H. Larue
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Statistical Studies Of The Costs Of Six-Man Versus Twelve-Man Juries, William R. Pabst Jr.
Statistical Studies Of The Costs Of Six-Man Versus Twelve-Man Juries, William R. Pabst Jr.
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
American Bar Association Project On Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice: Standards Relating To Trial By Jury (Approved Draft), Melvin M. Belli
American Bar Association Project On Minimum Standards For Criminal Justice: Standards Relating To Trial By Jury (Approved Draft), Melvin M. Belli
Michigan Law Review
A Review of American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to Trial by Jury (Approved Draft). Recommended by the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial
Jury Trial Of Crimes, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Jury Trial Of Crimes, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Improper Discharge Of Jury Before Verdict As Double Jeopardy, C. L. C.
Improper Discharge Of Jury Before Verdict As Double Jeopardy, C. L. C.
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Mind Of The Juror, Stephen Ailes