Judges Commons^™

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of G-G-S- that a noncitizen’s mental health status at the time of an offense is irrelevant to determining whether the offense is a “particularly serious crime” for immigration purposes. Since a “particularly serious crime” is a bar to asylum and withholding of removal, it can result in a noncitizen’s deportation to a country where he or she faces a serious risk of persecution. In deciding that immigration judges “are constrained by how mental health issues were addressed as part of the criminal proceedings,” the BIA failed to recognize the …

Queer Lockdown: Coming To Terms With The Ongoing Criminalization Of Lgbtq Communities, Ann Cammett

Scholarly Works

The criminal justice system exacts a toll on some Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) communities. The experience of living in poverty and the concomitant exposure to a variety of governmental systems puts all poor, but especially LGBTQ low-income people of color, at risk of incarceration. What typically goes unexamined are the myriad ways that LGBTQ people are drawn into and experience the carceral system because of sexual identities and expression. This negative effect surfaces at every conceivable level: the marginalization and subsequent criminalization of queer youth; anti-gay bias in the judicial system; the rerouting of domestic violence cases …

The William S. Boyd School Of Law Juvenile Justice Clinic, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

This article reviews the work of the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

Book Review, David S. Tanenhaus

Scholarly Works

In his engaging The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice, political scientist Christopher P. Manfredi argues that Americans in the 1990s are still feeling the powerful and unintended consequences of a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions, Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), and In re Winship (1970). In Gault, the most famous of these cases, Justice Abe Fortas announced that it was time for the “constitutional domestication” of the nation’s juvenile courts and began this process by extending limited due process protection to offenders during adjudicatory hearings. Fortas believed that these protections would shield juveniles from unlimited …

La Preuve Pénale Et Des Tests Génétiques: United States Report, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

A major problem for those analyzing U.S. criminal law and procedure is that it does not fit the Continental or British mold. There is no one single system, but parallel federal and 50 state systems each with its own legislature, laws, courts (including trial, appellate, and supreme courts), police, prosecutors and prisons. The authorities who enact and implement these laws are sovereign within their respective jurisdictions. Each state has police power over its people. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution controls allocation of federal and state authority. It provides that whatever the Constitution has not designated as being within …

Voting Behavior On The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals, 1991-92, Keith A. Rowley, Michael D. Weiss

Scholarly Works

Between early 1991, when Judge Fortunato Benavides was appointed to replace Judge Marvin O. Teague, and July 1, 1992, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided 251 cases where the ultimate question at stake was whether or not an accused individual would receive punishment for his or her alleged wrongdoing. While the sitting judges unanimously decided roughly one-half of these cases, 133 cases resulted in one or more dissenting votes. Furthermore, a margin of two votes or less decided thirty-five cases.

The purpose of this Article is to analyze and, if possible, explain the voting behavior of the members of …

International Law Principles Governing The Extraterritorial Application Of Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on the differences and similarities between Germany and the United States on international principles of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime.

United States Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

The term jurisdiction may be defined as the authority to affect legal interests -- to prescribe rules of law (legislative jurisdiction), to adjudicate legal questions (judicial jurisdiction) and to enforce judgments the judiciary made (enforcement jurisdiction). The definition, nature and scope of jurisdiction vary depending on the context in which it is to be applied. United States domestic law, for example, defines and applies notions of jurisdiction pursuant to the United States constitutional provisions relating to the separation of powers. Within the United States, jurisdiction is defined and applied in a variegated fashion depending on whether a legal problem is …