Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, 2017 College of William & Mary Law School
Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Physical Match: Unique Fracture Patterns In Wooden Popsicle Sticks, 2017 San Jose State University
Physical Match: Unique Fracture Patterns In Wooden Popsicle Sticks, Yiu Ming Sunny Lau
Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science
Physical match (or physical fit) evidence was considered reliable in court for years, until the Daubert case, which required standardized scientific methodology on all forensic evidence. Physical matching faces the same criticism as other forms of physical evidence (specifically, that it lacks a scientific foundation). Physical matching is based on the idea that when an object is fractured, the shape of each fragment is unique and it is not possible to recreate a fragment that is identical to any other. In this study, fifty wooden popsicle sticks were broken in half, the pieces were mixed, and then reconstructed using physical ...
Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, 2017 Georgia State University College of Law
Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
Faculty Publications By Year
Commentary on Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (2016).
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, 2017 Liberty University
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr
Senior Honors Theses
Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem ...
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), 2017 Nevada Law Journal
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.
 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Circumstances Requiring Safeguards: Limitations On The Application Of The Categorical Approach In Hernandez-Zavala V. Lynch, 2017 Boston College Law School
Circumstances Requiring Safeguards: Limitations On The Application Of The Categorical Approach In Hernandez-Zavala V. Lynch, Kelly Morgan
Boston College Law Review
On November 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Hernandez-Zavala v. Lynch held that adjudicators deciding whether a noncitizen has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) must apply the circumstance-specific approach to the statute’s domestic relationship requirement. In so doing, the Fourth Circuit carved out an exception to the more protective categorical and modified categorical approaches, which limit the evidence that may be admitted to determine whether a conviction triggers immigration consequences. This Comment argues that the Fourth Circuit ...
Keeping Gideon'S Promise: Using Equal Protection To Address The Denial Of Counsel In Misdemeanor Cases, 2017 American Civil Liberties Union
Keeping Gideon'S Promise: Using Equal Protection To Address The Denial Of Counsel In Misdemeanor Cases, Brandon Buskey, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
Lauren Sudeall Lucas
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that right is applicable to all defendants in felony cases, even those unable to afford a lawyer. Yet, for defendants facing misdemeanor charges, only those defendants whose convictions result in incarceration are entitled to the assistance of counsel.
The number of misdemeanor prosecutions has increased dramatically in recent years, as have the volume and severity of collateral consequences attached to such convictions; yet, the Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence in this area has remained stagnant ...
Jail Isolation After Kingsley: Abolishing Solitary Confinement At The Intersection Of Pretrial Incarceration And Emerging Adulthood, 2017 Fordham University School of Law
Jail Isolation After Kingsley: Abolishing Solitary Confinement At The Intersection Of Pretrial Incarceration And Emerging Adulthood, Deema Nagib
Fordham Law Review
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that allegations of excessive use of force in pretrial detention are subject to an objective standard. However, it is unclear whether the objective standard extends to claims arising out of different factual circumstances. The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Darnell v. Pineiro to extend Kingsley v. Hendrickson to conditions-of- confinement cases provides hope. This Note argues that Kingsley should extend to solitary confinement litigation—particularly the isolation of emerging adults in pretrial detention. Solitary confinement is a widespread practice in the criminal justice system, but the implications of its use in ...
"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, 2017 University of Maryland - Baltimore
"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, Marc A. Desimone Jr.
University of Baltimore Law Review
This article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues ...
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, 2017 University of Michigan Law School
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is ...
Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, 2017 Boston University School of Law
Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, David Rossman
The regime created by Miranda v. Arizona is at this point in its history bankrupt both intellectually and in terms of practical effect. Justices who have joined the Court after Miranda have cut back its scope by stingy interpretations of the doctrine’s reach and effect. In practice, few suspects actually benefit from the way Miranda is now implemented in police stations and courtrooms. Given the failure of Miranda’s promise, can we envision an alternative? Here is one that may be politically palatable and doctrinally feasible, largely adopted from English practice:
1. Police would give the same Miranda warnings ...
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, 2017 University of Michigan Law School
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use baseball ...
Duties Of Capital Trial Counsel Under The California “Death Penalty Reform And Savings Act Of 2016”, 2017 Santa Barbara College of Law
Duties Of Capital Trial Counsel Under The California “Death Penalty Reform And Savings Act Of 2016”, Robert M. Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists, Frank Sullivan
Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs
No abstract provided.
The Potential And Limitations Of Universal Background Checking For Gun Purchasers, 2017 NYU School of Law
The Potential And Limitations Of Universal Background Checking For Gun Purchasers, James B. Jacobs, Zoe Fuhr
New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers
Current federal law defies logic in requiring that only purchasers who buy from federally licensed sellers be subject to background checking. Thus, universal background checking is frequently proposed as the best and most important form of “sensible gun control”. Upon closer inspection, however, universal background checking would be harder to implement and enforce than proponents recognize. Moreover, the likely payoff in reduction of gun homicides, crimes and suicides would be less than what is often assumed. This Article closely examines universal background checking in theory and practice, including the Manchin-Toomey Amendment which Congress rejected in 2013 but which continues to ...
What Investigative Resources Does The International Criminal Court Need To Succeed?: A Gravity-Based Approach, 16 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 1 (2017), Stuart Ford
There is an ongoing debate about what resources the International Criminal Court (ICC) needs to be successful. On one side of this debate are many of the Court’s largest funders, including France, Germany, Britain, Italy, and Japan. They have repeatedly opposed efforts to increase the Court’s resources even as its workload has increased dramatically in recent years. On the other side of the debate is the Court itself and many of the Court’s supporters within civil society. They have taken the position that it is underfunded and does not have sufficient resources to succeed. This debate has ...
No Chance At Immunity: Examining The Possibility Of Immunity Provisions For Drug Crimes In The Criminal Code, Benjamin D. Schnell
Western Journal of Legal Studies
Many members of the public fear crimes committed by strangers despite statistics showing greater danger from friends, acquaintances, and relatives. Since this fear is rooted in the fear of the unknown, some people prefer to fall victim to white-collar crimes as opposed to street crimes. Since most white-collar crimes require gaining the victim’s trust, many are committed by people that know the victim. Moreover, the traditional view of white-collar criminals as people of high respectability and social class drastically influences our perception of crime and can lead to significant societal implications.
In Canada, this traditional view of white-collar criminals ...
Retributive Medication: A Discussion Of A Maine Law Allowing Involuntary, Forcible Medication Of A Pretrial Defendant For The Purpose Of Rendering The Defendant Competent To Stand Trial, 2017 University of Maine School of Law
Retributive Medication: A Discussion Of A Maine Law Allowing Involuntary, Forcible Medication Of A Pretrial Defendant For The Purpose Of Rendering The Defendant Competent To Stand Trial, Ashley T. Perry
Maine Law Review
Innocent until proven guilty—it’s a phrase we have all heard, know, and accept. But there are circumstances where this simple concept is strained in its application, such as when a legally incompetent defendant is facing trial. After all, how can a defendant be proven guilty if he cannot stand trial? The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that forcibly medicating an incompetent defendant solely to render the defendant competent to stand trial is permissible under the Federal Constitution. However, the Federal Constitution provides only the floor-level of civil rights; states are free to set their own ...
Kids Will Be Kids: Time For A "Reasonable Child" Standard For The Proof Of Objective Mens Rea Elements, 2017 University of Maine School of Law
Kids Will Be Kids: Time For A "Reasonable Child" Standard For The Proof Of Objective Mens Rea Elements, Christopher M. Northrop, Kristina R. Rozan
Maine Law Review
In a line of recent cases that have rocked the world of juvenile law, the Supreme Court relied on the latest brain science research with the timeless knowledge of parents to state forcefully and repeatedly that children are more impetuous, more vulnerable to outside pressures, less depraved, and less culpable for their actions than adults are. Yet criminal statutes refer to the “reasonable person” standard, which does not take into account the age of the accused as the benchmark for guilt or innocence. In doing so, we hold children to an irrelevant and arguably unfairly demanding behavioral ideal, and criminalize ...
Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, 2017 University of Miami Law School
Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos M. Vázquez
University of Miami Law Review
The scope of habeas relief for state prisoners, especially during the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Allen, is a famously disputed question—one of recognized significance for contemporary debates about the proper scope of habeas review. This Article provides a new answer. It argues that, until the enactment of Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), it was broadly accepted that state prisoners were entitled to plenary federal review of the legal and mixed law/fact questions decided against them by state courts. Until 1916, such review was provided by the Supreme ...