Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Criminal Justice (3)
- Federal (2)
- Sentence reduction (2)
- Snitches (2)
- Substantial Asssitance (2)
-
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Chevron-Ecuador; Anti-injunction; international money judgment; Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Federalism (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal Statutes (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- First Principles (1)
- Founders (1)
- Hearsay Exception (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Jury (1)
- Narcotics (1)
- Nonhearsay (1)
- Proof (1)
- Sentencing Guidelines (1)
- State v. Federal Government (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Testimonial Hearsay (1)
- Unintended Assertions (1)
- War on Drugs (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
The Recognition Act, Anti-Suit Injunctions, The Dja, And Much More Fun: The Story Of The Chevron-Ecuador Litigation And The Resulting Problems Of Aggressive Multinational Enforcement Proceedings, Emily Seiderman
Fordham Urban Law Journal
No abstract provided.
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, Carrie A. Tendler
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, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
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 …
Fifteen Years After The Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective And Just Narcotics Sentencing Perspectives On The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And Mandatory Sentencing, Ian Weinstein
Faculty Scholarship
Federal criminal sentencing has changed dramatically since 1988. Fifteen years ago, judges determined if and for how long a defendant would go to jail. Since that time, changes in substantive federal criminal statutes, particularly the passage of an array of mandatory minimum penalties and the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines, have limited significantly judicial sentencing power and have remade federal sentencing and federal criminal practice. The results of these changes are significantly longer federal prison sentences, as was the intent of these reforms, and the emergence of federal prosecutors as the key players in sentencing. Yet, at the same …
Regulating The Market For Snitches , Ian Weinstein
Regulating The Market For Snitches , Ian Weinstein
Faculty Scholarship
These are boom times for the sellers and buyers of cooperation in the federal criminal justice system. While prosecutors have always welcomed the assistance of snitches, tougher federal sentencing laws have led to a significant increase in cooperation as more defendants try to provide "substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person," to have some chance of receiving a significant sentence reduction. In 1996 one of every five defendants sentenced in the federal courts won mitigation by providing substantial assistance. Many more defendants tried but failed to close the deal. The overheated cooperation market is creating serious problems …
Substantial Assistance And Sentence Severity: Is There A Correlation Substantial Assistance, Ian Weinstein
Substantial Assistance And Sentence Severity: Is There A Correlation Substantial Assistance, Ian Weinstein
Faculty Scholarship
How much more severe are sentences imposed in districts with low substantial assistance rates than those in which the rate is very high? In the aggregate, not at all. At first blush this may puzzle readers because substantial assistance (SA) departures are very unevenly distributed across districts and SA accounts for nearly two-thirds of all downward departures, almost 7,900 of the 12,000 in fiscal 1996. Although this pattern could result in gross disparities among districts, my analysis of inter-district sentencing patterns reveals no statistically significant correlation between the rate of SA departures and the average length of sentences imposed in …
Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski
Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski
Faculty Scholarship
A plurality on the Supreme Court seeks to establish a state-sovereignty based theory of federalism that imposes sharp limitations on Congress's legislative powers. Using history as authority, they admonish a return to the constitutional "first principles" of the Founders. These "first principles," in their view, attribute all governmental authority to "the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole." Because the people of each state are the source of all governmental power, they maintain, "where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, …