Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 18 USC 7 (1)
- Adjudicative facts (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Bias crimes (1)
- Bias offenses (1)
-
- Bias-motivated crimes (1)
- Center for Constitutional Rights (1)
- Civil liberties (1)
- Civil rights laws (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Counterterrorism policies (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Federal Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (1)
- Federal vulnerable victim sentence adjustment (1)
- Guantanamo detainees (1)
- Habeas cases (1)
- Harmless error (1)
- Hate crimes (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Impact litigation (1)
- Judge (1)
- Judicial notice (1)
- Jurisdictional element (1)
- Jury (1)
- Law and social change (1)
- Legislative facts (1)
- Penalty enhancement (1)
- Presidential powers (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel
Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel
Articles
When the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) brought the first habeas cases challenging the Executive’s right to detain prisoners in a law free zone at Guantanamo in 2002, almost no legal commentator gave the plaintiffs much chance of succeeding. Yet, two years later in 2004, after losing in both the District Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush handed CCR a resounding victory. Four years later, the Supreme Court again ruled in CCR’s favor in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas and declaring the Congressional …
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.
One such …
Recognizing Opportunistic Bias Crimes, Lu-In Wang
Recognizing Opportunistic Bias Crimes, Lu-In Wang
Articles
The federal approach to punishing bias-motivated crimes is more limited than the state approach. Though the federal and state methods overlap in some respects, two features of the federal approach restrict its range of application. First, federal law prohibits a narrower range of conduct than do most state bias crimes laws. In order to be punishable under federal law, bias-motivated conduct must either constitute a federal crime or interfere with a federally protected right or activity-requirements that exclude racially motivated assault, property damage and many other common violent or destructive bias offenses. In most states, however, hate crimes encompass a …