Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons^™

It’S All Your Fault!: Examining The Defendant’S Use Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel As A Means Of Getting A “Second Bite At The Apple.”, Prentice L. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States Constitution provides individuals convicted of a crime with “a second bite at the apple.” The Sixth Amendment provides an avenue to appeal one’s conviction based on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” What were the Framers’ true intentions in using the phrase “effective assistance of counsel”? How does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 affect habeas corpus appeals? This article answers these questions through the eyes of Thomas—a fictional character who is appealing his murder conviction.

This article first looks at the history surrounding effective assistance of counsel and discusses the difficulties …

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Gradually Exploded: Confrontation Vs. The Former Testimony Rule., Tim Donaldson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Observing live court testimony allows a jury to determine witness credibility. This is called demeanor evidence. Allowing the introduction of transcripts of prior testimony by a witness offends a defendant's right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Loss of demeanor evidence can heighten sensitivity surrounding the constitutional demands of unavailability and an opportunity for cross-examination. But the loss of this evidence is discounted when dealing with the admissibility of prior testimony as long as a defendant was formerly afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Demeanor evidence, however, is still treated as a non-essential component of …

A Primer On Batson, Including Discussion Of Johnson V. California, Miller-El V. Dretke, Rice V. Collins, & Synder V. Louisiana., Mikal C. Watts, Emily C. Jeffcott

St. Mary's Law Journal

Fundamental to the existence of the rights guaranteed to every citizen is the assurance that the right to equal protection under the law will be defended at all costs. Key to the United States’ system of adjudication is the right to a trial by jury, which is embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution. These rights are also incorporated into all state constitutions through the Fourteenth Amendment. During jury selection, the judicial system permits the elimination of a certain number of jurors without cause. This form of elimination is known as a peremptory challenge. Over time, however, …

Issues Concerning Charges For Driving While Intoxicated In Texas Federal Courts., Brian L. Owsley

St. Mary's Law Journal

Each year numerous defendants appear in courts located in Texas, both state and federal, charged with offenses related to driving while intoxicated (DWI). Defendants appearing before state courts are prosecuted pursuant to Texas statutes, regulations, and binding case law. In certain circumstances, defendants appearing in federal courts face the same statutory elements of a crime and the same potential penalties as in a Texas state court. In many of the cases, however, statutory elements and potential penalties differ. Furthermore, certain rights and regulations afforded to Texas state defendants are unavailable to those charged in federal courts located in the state. …

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 …

Utter Excitement About Nothing: Why Domestic Violence Evidence-Based Prosecution Will Survive Crawford V. Washington., Donna D. Bloom

St. Mary's Law Journal

In response to domestic violence involving victims who do not wish to cooperate in the prosecution of their abuser, prosecutors endeavor to frame cases around other evidence establishing a defendant’s guilt regardless of the victim’s testimony. Domestic violence cases set for trial are being thrown out of Texas courts because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reasserts a defendant’s right to confront his accuser in court. Prosecutors believe that strong legal arguments exist to continue successfully prosecuting abusers without the cooperation of the victim at trial. This is through the continued admission of certain hearsay statements, despite Crawford …

The Effect Of 8 U. S. C. 1324(D) In Transporting Prosecutions: Does The Confrontation Clause Still Apply To Alien Defendants., Donna F. Coltharp

St. Mary's Law Journal

Cases prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. §1324 present special challenges for the Government and for defendants. Under §1324, it is a crime to transport or smuggle aliens into the United States. Prosecuting transporters or smugglers may present a challenge if a witness is unavailable. Even though transporting or smuggling always has witnesses—the alien(s) who hired the smuggler or transporter—not all witnesses have prolonged detentions, and some are returned to their native country. The transporter or smuggler may then assert their Sixth Amendment right. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause requires that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to …

The Decision In United States V. Brown: The Fifth Circuit Interprets Justice Is Blind Literally., Robert M. Anselmo

St. Mary's Law Journal

In United States v. Brown, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts use of anonymous jury orders. The use of anonymous juries, however, is either a necessary protection for jury members or an unfair procedural practice. The Fifth Circuit’s support for anonymous juries included concerns over threats, intimidation, and possible attempts to influence juror members in order to secure a favorable verdict. The promise of a jury of one's peers is a cornerstone of the United States judicial system. Implicit in this guarantee is the assurance of an impartial jury. Nonetheless, a jury that sits in fear may not fulfill …

Toward A More Effective Standard Of Review: The Potential Effect Of Burdine V. Johnson On Legal Malpractice In Texas., Rebecca A. Copeland

St. Mary's Law Journal

If the presence of a sleeping attorney is so egregious as to result in a reversal of a criminal conviction, it is surely enough to warrant the imposition of civil damages upon the same attorney. A recent trend of cases in which criminal defendants alleged ineffective assistance of counsel—due to sleeping attorneys—resulted in courts being unable to create a uniform analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel, and the Supreme Court has devised a two-prong analysis by which claims of ineffective assistance must be reviewed. Burdine v. Johnson …

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 …

The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions Comment., Shelley A. Nieto Dahlberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt infringes upon criminal defendants’ and prisoners’ fundamental rights; therefore, it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under the United States and Texas Constitutions. This Comment attempts to address and answer issues regarding the REACT belt. The belt constitutes cruel and unusual punishment with the potential to deprive prisoners of their due process rights. The belt disrupts attorney-client communication and destroys a criminal defendant’s presumption of innocence. Furthermore, other alternatives provide effective means to prevent unruly prisoners from destroying the integrity of the courts. Part II of this Comment discusses how the belt works, and …

Victims' Rights And The Constitution: Moving From Guaranteeing Participatory Rights To Benefiting The Prosecution Symposium: Thoughts On Death Penalty Issues 25 Years After Furman V. Georgia., Robert P. Mosteller

St. Mary's Law Journal

Supporters of victims’ rights can be broadly grouped into three categories according to their basic goals. One category seeks to guarantee participatory rights in a governmental process (“Participatory Rights”). A second category of support for the victims’ rights amendment comes from those who are animated by a pro-prosecution, anti-defendant perspective on criminal law and procedure (“Prosecutorial Benefit”). The third group supporting victims’ rights is comprised of those who demand greater protection and support for victims by the government (“Victim Protection and Aid”). The first serious attempt to amend the United States Constitution on behalf of crime victims happened in 1982. …

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

A Trial Court's Refusal To Question Prospective Jurors About The Specific Contents Of Pretrial Publicity Which They Had Read Or Heard Did Not Violate A Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury, Or Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process., Karen A. Cusenbary

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Mu'Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask jurors about the potential influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity. A defendant may ask only if the jurors can remain impartial. The Court mandates that overturning a trial court’s jury selection is allowable only if manifest error renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The Court did not find that the case involved sufficient public passion to necessitate a more extensive jury examination by the trial court to include inquiries involving the effect of pretrial publicity. The ruling in Mu'Min leaves too much discretion to the …

Allowing A Child Abuse Victim To Testify Via One-Way Closed-Circuit Television Does Not Violate A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause Right If The Trial Court Specifically Finds Such A Procedure Necessary To Protect The Child's Welfare., Lisa R. Miller

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Maryland v. Craig, the Supreme Court held allowing child abuse victims to testify via one-way closed-circuit television does not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right if the trial court finds the procedure necessary to protect the child’s welfare. Although “confront” has generally been interpreted to mean “face-to-face,” on occasion, it may yield to public policy considerations and the compelling necessities of particular cases. The original purpose of the confrontation right was to prevent the accusers in a criminal proceeding from using ex parte affidavits or depositions against a defendant, in lieu of personal testimony. The Craig …

Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who comply with the elements of the government contractor defense are immune from products liability suits stemming from design defects. Lower courts consider the government contractor defense to be a combination of two separate defenses. The first is the well-settled contract specification defense which eliminates liability for contractors who properly follow client supplied specifications. The second defense is the doctrine of shared sovereign immunity shielding the contractor from liability based on public policy concerns.

In Boyle, the Court held defective design of military equipment will not …