Judges Commons^™

Batson Ethics For Prosecutors And Trial Court Judges, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Sheri Johnson, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie

Sheri Lynn Johnson

Race matters in the criminal justice system. Black defendants appear to fare worse than similarly situated white defendants. Why? Implicit bias is one possibility. Researchers, using a well-known measure called the implicit association test, have found that most white Americans harbor implicit bias toward Black Americans. Do judges, who are professionally committed to egalitarian norms, hold these same implicit biases? And if so, do these biases account for racially disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system? We explored these two research questions in a multi-part study involving a large sample of trial judges drawn from around the country. Our results …

The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Refusal To Extradite: An Examination Of Canada's Indictment Of The American Legal System, Jami Leeson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The "Blank Stare Phenomenon": Proving Customary International Law In U.S. Courts, Paul L. Hoffman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Proportionality, Discretion, And The Roles Of Judges And Prosecutors At Sentencing, Palma Paciocco

Articles & Book Chapters

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that prosecutors are not constitutionally obligated to consider the principle of proportionality when exercising their discretion in a manner that narrows the range of available sentences: since only judges are responsible for sentencing, they alone are constitutionally required to ensure proportionality. When mandatory minimum sentences apply, however, judges have limited sentencing discretion and may be unable to achieve proportionality. If the Court takes the principle of proportionality seriously, and if it insists that only judges are constitutionally bound to enforce that principle, it must therefore create new tools whereby judges can avoid imposing …

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

Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series, The Hon. Justice John Paul Stevens

Georgia State University Law Review

Remarks by the Honorable John Paul Stevens, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the 53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series.

Appellate Division, Second Department, Smith V. Marrus, Elaine Yang

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does Religion Have A Role In Criminal Sentencing?, Jack B. Weinstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Influence And The United States Federal District Courts: A Case Study, Justin R. Hickerson

Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects

No abstract provided.

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

Book Review: American Jericho: A Book Review Of The Hanging Judge By Michael A. Ponsor, Giovanna Shay

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Growth Of Incarceration In The United States: Exploring Causes And Consequences, Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, F. Stevens Redburn

Publications and Research

After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s, the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled in the past four decades. The Committee on the Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States was established under the auspices of the National Research Council, supported by the National Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to review evidence on the causes and consequences of these high incarceration rates and the implications of this evidence for public policy.

Our work encompassed research on, and analyses of, the …

Conditional Release Under The Bail Reform Act: The Solution To Pretrial Detention For ‘Economic Harm’, Edward C. Nazzaro Mr.

Edward C Nazzaro Mr.

This comment examines whether the language of the Federal Bail Statute and the threat of ‘economic harm’ is sufficient to take away the freedom of an accused person awaiting trial. The introduction discusses Bernard ‘Bernie’ Madoff and the conditions of pretrial release used by United States Magistrate Judges to allow Madoff to remain free until conviction. After introducing this concept with a high-profile defendant, the comment provides an overview of the Bail Reform Act and how it was changed in 1984 to include ‘danger’ as a relevant factor in pretrial detention matters, adding to the preexisting power to detain defendants …

The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Commentary: Reflections On Remorse, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

This commentary on Zhong et al. begins by addressing the definition of remorse. It then primarily focuses on the relation between remorse and various justifications for punishment commonly accepted in Anglo-American jurisprudence and suggests that remorse cannot be used in a principled way in sentencing. It examines whether forensic psychiatrists have special expertise in evaluating remorse and concludes that they do not. The final section is a pessimistic meditation on sentencing disparities, which is a striking finding of Zhong et al.

Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.

Objective Mens Rea And Attenuated Subjectivism: Guidance From Justice Charron In R. V. Beatty, Palma Paciocco

Articles & Book Chapters

Justin Ronald Beatty was driving on the Trans-Canada Highway on July 23, 2003 when, for no apparent reason, his truck suddenly crossed the solid centre line and collided with an oncoming car, killing three people. Beatty was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. He was acquitted at trial on the grounds that his momentary lapse of attention was not enough to establish fault. The Crown appealed, and the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after concluding that the trial judge had misapplied the fault standard. Beatty appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which undertook …

Border Searches In The Age Of Terrorism, Robert M. Bloom

Robert Bloom

This article will first explore the history of border searches. It will look to the reorganization of the border enforcement apparatus resulting from 9/11 as well as the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and border searches generally. Then, it will analyze the Supreme Court's last statement on border searches in the Flores-Montano27 decision, including what impact this decision has had on the lower courts. Finally, the article will focus on Fourth Amendment cases involving terrorism concerns after 9/11, as a means of drawing some conclusions about the effect the emerging emphasis on terrorism and national security concerns will likely have …

Beyond Finality: How Making Criminal Judgments Less Final Can Further The Interests Of Finality, Andrew Chongseh Kim

Andrew Chongseh Kim

Courts and scholars commonly assume that granting convicted defendants more liberal rights to challenge their judgments would harm society’s interests in “finality.” According to conventional wisdom, finality in criminal judgments is necessary to conserve resources, encourage efficient behavior by defense counsel, and deter crime. Thus, under the common analysis, the extent to which convicted defendants should be allowed to challenge their judgments depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice to validate defendants’ rights. This Article argues that expanding defendants’ rights on post-conviction review does not always harm these interests. Rather, more liberal review can often conserve state resources, …

Psychopathy And Sentencing: An Investigative Look Into When The Pcl-R Is Admitted Into Canadian Courtrooms And How A Pcl-R Score Affects Sentencing Outcome, Katie Davey

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Little is known about how and when the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) is being introduced into Canadian Courts or how it affects sentencing outcomes. Using the Lexis-Nexis Quicklaw Academic Database to retrieve judge’s sentencing decisions, all 274 cases with PCL-R information for Canadian courts were included in this study. It was hypothesized correctly that PCL-R information would most often be introduced in Long Term Offender (LTO) and Dangerous Offender (DO) applications as well as sentencing cases for murderers and sex offenders. The 274 cases were then reduced to 37 cases in order to focus on sentencing without Dangerous Offender or …

Holmes And The Common Law: A Jury's Duty, Matthew P. Cline

Matthew P Cline

The notion of a small group of peers whose responsibility it is to play a part in determining the outcome of a trial is central to the common conception of the American legal system. Memorialized in the Constitution of the United States as a fundamental right, and in the national consciousness as the proud, if begrudged, duty of all citizens, juries are often discussed, but perhaps not always understood. Whatever misunderstandings have come to be, certainly many of them sprang from the juxtaposition of jury and judge. Why do we have both? How are their responsibilities divided? Who truly decides …

Punishment And Rights, Benjamin L. Apt

Benjamin L. Apt

Prevalent theories of criminal punishment lack a rationale for the precise duration and nature of state-ordered criminal punishment. In practice, too, criminal penalization suffers from inadequate evidence of punitive efficacy. These deficiencies, in theory and in fact, would not be so grave were the state to enjoy unfettered power over the disposition of criminal penalties. However, in societies that recognize legal rights, criminal punishments must be consistent with rights. Efficacy, even where demonstrable, does not suffice as a legal justification for punishment. This article analyzes the source of rights and how they function as primary rules in a legal system. …

The Asymmetry Of Ronald Dworkin's Rights Thesis In Criminal Cases: A Troublesome Exception, H. Scott Fairley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plain Talk About Plea Bargaining, Harry A. Ackley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Evolution Of Justice Kennedy’S Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence On Categorical Bars In Capital Cases, Linda E. Carter

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.