Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- American Politics (1)
- Anthropology (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Courts (1)
-
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Criminology and Criminal Justice (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Legal Theory (1)
- Political Science (1)
- Race and Ethnicity (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Social and Cultural Anthropology (1)
- Sociology (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Tom Delay: Popular Constitutionalist?, Neal Devins
Tom Delay: Popular Constitutionalist?, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Harmless Constitutional Error: How A Minor Doctrine Meant To Improve Judicial Efficiency Is Eroding America's Founding Ideals, Ross C. Reggio
Harmless Constitutional Error: How A Minor Doctrine Meant To Improve Judicial Efficiency Is Eroding America's Founding Ideals, Ross C. Reggio
CMC Senior Theses
The United States Constitution had been in existence for almost two hundred years before the Supreme Court decided that some violations of constitutional rights may be too insignificant to warrant remedial action. Known as "harmless error," this statutory doctrine allows a court to affirm a conviction when a mere technicality or minor defect did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The doctrine aims to promote judicial efficiency and judgment finality. The Court first applied harmless error to constitutional violations by shifting the statutory test away from the error's effect on substantial rights to its impact on the jury's verdict. Over …
Uncovering Juror Racial Bias, Christian Sundquist
Uncovering Juror Racial Bias, Christian Sundquist
Articles
The presence of bias in the courtroom has the potential to undermine public faith in the adversarial process, distort trial outcomes, and obfuscate the search for justice. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required post-verdict judicial inquiry in criminal cases where racial bias clearly served as a “significant motivating factor” in juror decision-making. Courts will nonetheless likely struggle in interpreting what constitutes a "clear statement of racial bias" and whether such bias constituted a "significant motivating factor" in a juror's verdict. This Article will examine how …