Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons^™

How Do Prosecutors "Send A Message"?, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

The recent indictments of former President Trump are stirring national debate about their effects on American society. Commentators speculate on the cases’ impact outside of the courtroom — on the 2024 election, on political polarization, and on the future of American democracy. Such cases originated in the prosecutor’s office, begging the question of if, when, and how prosecutors should consider the societal effects of the cases they bring.

Indeed, prosecutors often publicly claim that they “send a message” when they indict a defendant. What, exactly, does this mean? Often, their assumption is that such messaging goes in one direction: indictment …

Book Review Essay: Jewish And American Law: A Comparative Study. (Vols. 1 And 2) By Samuel J. Levine, Marie A. Failinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Believe It Or Not: Mitigating The Negative Effects Personal Belief And Bias Have On The Criminal Justice System, Sarah Mourer

Sarah Mourer

This article examines the prosecutor’s and defense attorney’s personal pre-trial beliefs regarding the accused’s guilt or innocence. This analysis suggests that when an attorney does hold pretrial beliefs, such beliefs lead to avoidable bias and errors. These biases may alter the findings throughout all stages of the case. The procedure asking that the prosecution seek justice while having nothing more than probable cause results in the prosecutor’s need to have a belief in guilt before proceeding to trial. While this belief is intended to foster integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system, to the contrary, it actually contributes to …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

A Witness To Justice, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

In the 1988 film The Accused, a young woman named Sarah Tobias is gang raped on a pinball machine by three men while a crowded bar watches. The rapists cut a deal with the prosecutor. Sarah's outrage at the deal convinces the assistant district attorney to prosecute members of the crowd that cheered on and encouraged the rape. This film shows how Sarah Tobias, a woman with little means and less experience, intuits that according to the law rape victims are incredible witnesses to their own victimization. The film goes on to critique what the right kind of witness would …

It's About Time: The Need For A Uniform Approach To Using A Prior Conviction To Impact A Witness., Robert F. Holland

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, no uniform approach exists in determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction as a technique to impeach a witness. This lack of uniformity leads to significant consequences for the parties and poses a potential prejudicial effect on the truthful character of a witness. Furthermore, there is currently no bright-line judicial standard when evaluating the admissibility of certain prior convictions. Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Theus v. State provided a non-exhaustive set of factors for trial judges to consider, the court has yet to clarify particular aspects of how to properly apply Texas Rule …

The Castle Doctrine: An Expanding Right To Stand Your Ground Comment., Denise M. Drake

St. Mary's Law Journal

Recently, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 effectively terminating a person’s “duty to retreat” when confronted with a criminal attack of either great bodily injury or death. Complicated issues of innocence and guilt arise when one employs deadly force as a means of self-defense. Furthermore, tragic mistakes occur when people preemptively resort to deadly force before the realization of such a threat. Societal questions still exist concerning the possibility that self-defense will turn into self-justice. Critics argue the law encourages a vigilante society, substituting law enforcement help with self-justice. Conversely, supporters believe the bill serves as a deterrent from …

A Meaningless Relationship: The Fifth Circuit's Use Of Dismissed And Uncharged Conduct Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Recent Development., Erin A. Higginbotham

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Fifth Circuit’s failure to require the uncharged conduct to have a meaningful relationship with the conduct of conviction is flawed. An amendment of section 5K2.21 specifically approved the consideration of uncharged or dismissed offenses to serve as a basis for an upward departure to reflect the actual seriousness of the offense. Confusion amongst federal circuit courts of appeal arose as to whether such conduct included uncharged or dismissed criminal offenses. Interpreting the amendment’s language has caused a circuit split. The Fifth Circuit erroneously interpreted section 5K2.21 as to require nothing more than a “remote connection” between the uncharged crime …

Aboilishing The Texas Jury Shuffle., Michael M. Gallgher

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article argues that the Texas Legislature should abolish the jury shuffle and join the other forty-nine states who have already done so. The jury shuffle, when requested, is a procedure which results in a random shuffling of the names of the jury pool members. Texas attorneys currently possess an entirely cost and risk free procedure through which they can discriminate against potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or anything else that suits their fancy. An attorney can request a jury shuffle without stating a reason and a judge cannot ask why a shuffle was requested or …

Stranded In The Wastelands Of Unregulated Roadway Police Powers: Can Reasonable Officers Ever Rescue Us., Keith S. Hampton

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article describes the present state of roadway police power and explores the vulnerability of drivers and occupants to police abuse, specifically using pretextual stops. Today, state and federal courts have made many police power accommodations to the constitutional reasonableness requirement. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence justifies almost all conceivable police seizures of people in vehicles. If the police officer can point out any traffic law violation, he can arrest. And if he can arrest under those circumstances, then the already blurred line between detentions and arrest becomes inconsequential, constitutionally speaking. This Article proposes that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals …

Hines 57: The Catchall Case To The Texas Kidnapping Statute., Karen Bartlett

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Recent Development asserts that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to define “substantial interference” in relation to the kidnapping statute, opens the floodgates for every act of confinement or movement committed in the course of a substantive offense constituting kidnapping. The Court maintains it is up to the jury to define the term. If the Texas Legislature does not narrowly define the kidnapping statute, virtually every assault, robbery, sexual assault, and some murders will constitute both the substantive offense plus kidnapping. Furthermore, such logic would in effect bootstrap murder into capital murder, which happened in Herrin v. State. …

Appeals From Pleas Of Guilty And Nolo Contendere: History And Procedural Considerations., Kevin Yeary

St. Mary's Law Journal

The changing history of appeal rights—made through decisional interpretation by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals—highlights the importance of staying current on interpretations of procedural and substantive rules. Lawyers owe their clients a duty to understand the history of the right to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea. Additionally, they owe their clients a duty to understand substantive and procedural requirements for maintaining such appeals, as well as to stay abreast of changes affecting these appeals. Recently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handed down several opinions drastically reshaping the landscape for appeals following pleas of guilty and …

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives And Effective Representation In Capital Cases Essay., Jeffrey J. Pokorak

St. Mary's Law Journal

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses …

Use Of A Pen Register May Be A Search Within The Purview Of Article I, Section 9 Of The Texas Constitution., Angie Patrick

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Richardson v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Richardson’s second petition for discretionary review to determine whether law enforcement’s use of a pen register constitutes a search. The use of a pen register may be a search within the purview of Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Courts use the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, from Katz v. United States, to determine whether a search has occurred under the Fourth Amendment. In Richardson, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the use of a pen register equates to a search despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in …

Trying To Make Ends Meet: Reconciling The Law And Practice Of Human Rights Amnesties Symposium - Human Rights In The Americas - Commentary., Robert O. Weiner

St. Mary's Law Journal

The problem of amnesty for widespread human rights violations in the Americas illustrates the credibility gap in public international law. This Commentary reviews applicable standards and attempts to identify a minimum state response to past human rights violations. It also examines the question of amnesties, offers certain legal interpretations, and presents some criteria for an amnesty framework which might be reconcilable with the state’s international obligations. This Commentary’s aim is not to suggest amnesties are a proper response to the problem of past human rights abuses, however, it does acknowledge amnesties have so far been the most common response. It …

Use Of Excessive Physical Force Against An Inmate May Constitute Cruel And Unusual Punishment Even Though The Prisoner Does Not Suffer Significant Injury., Anthony A. Avey

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Hudson v. McMillian, the Supreme Court held that use of excessive physical force against an inmate may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the prisoner does not suffer any significant injury. The Eighth Amendment has evolved significantly since its adoption in 1791, becoming a complex line of authority which over time expanded the rights of criminals and convicts. Recent cases have attempted to mold the varying Eight Amendment standards into a more cohesive legal doctrine. These efforts were meant to clarify the doctrine of cruel and unusual punishments; however, the divergent interpretations of these decisions rendered Eighth Amendment …

Heitman V. State: The Question Left Unanswered., Matthew W. Paul, Jeffrey L. Van Horn

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Heitman v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appeared to break with the court’s prior holdings to announce it would no longer “automatically adopt and apply” to the search and seizure provisions of the Texas Constitution “the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.” The reaction to Heitman was immediate and striking. Heitman is obviously a significant decision that could impact Texas criminal jurisprudence for decades. Yet, the decision left many questions unanswered, including whether the search and seizure provision should be construed as placing greater restrictions on law enforcement than the Fourth Amendment of the United States …

The Scope Of The Eighth Amendment Does Not Include A Per Se Bar To The Use Of Victim Impact Evidence In The Sentencing Phase Of A Capital Trial., Jimmie O. Clements Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Payne v. Tennessee, the United States Supreme Court held the scope of the Eighth Amendment does not include a per se bar to the use of victim impact evidence in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. As a result of Payne, the realm of information admissible during the sentencing phase of a capital trial now includes victim impact evidence. The use of victim impact evidence improperly diverts the sentencer’s attention away from the defendant’s moral blameworthiness to the victim’s character and reputation. Although advocates of victim’s rights may see this decision as a victory, the reasoning of the …