Digital Commons Network^™

Is Brown The New Black?: American Muslims, Inherent Propensity For Violence, And America’S Racial History, Amara S. Chaudhry-Kravitz

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Justified Obligation: Counsel’S Duty To File A Requested Appeal In A Post-Waiver Situation, Lauren Gregorcyk

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Why Turner V. Rogers Was And Wasn’T Correctly Decided: How The Fourteenth Amendment Should Be Read For Child Support Contemnors, Gina Rose Lauterio

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Role Of The Federal Judge In The Constitutional Structure: An Originalist Perspective, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

San Diego Law Review

Join me now in examining some of the structural features of our Constitution. And let’s do so by focusing upon cases that have come before my court—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the second highest federal court in the land, inferior only to the Supreme Court of the United States. My goal is to present, in modest outline, an originalist perspective on the federal judge’s role, particularly my role as a circuit judge, in the constitutional order.

The Normative & Historical Cases For Proportional Deportation, Angela M. Banks

Faculty Publications

Is citizenship status a legitimate basis for allocating rights in the United States?

In immigration law the right to remain in the United States is significantly tied to citizenship status. Citizens have an absolutely secure right to remain in the United States regardless of their actions. Noncitizens’ right to remain is less secure because they can be deported if convicted of specific criminal offenses. This Article contends that citizenship is not a legitimate basis for allocating the right to remain. This Article offers normative and historical arguments for a right to remain for noncitizens. This right should be granted to …

Failing To Protect Participants' Fundamental Rights In Drug Treatment Court, Michel Panaretos Fullerton

Montana Law Review

This comment begins with the story of Karlyle Plouffe, a young adult participant in the Mineral County DUI/Drug Treatment Court. Next, the paper details the Sixth Amendment fundamental rights afforded to all criminal offenders and the manner in which those rights apply to defendants upon entry into drug treatment court. The paper then details the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and presents the sole exception to the rule—namely, that one must affirmatively waive that privilege. The paper outlines the history of drug treatment courts, as well as the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s best practices for drug treatment courts. Next, those …

Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland V. Washington, And The Parameters Of The Right To Counsel, Joshua E. Kastenberg

Faculty Scholarship

In Strickland v. Washington, the Court issued a standard for determining when defense counsel's ineffective performance, through no direct fault of the prosecution, law enforcement, public, or judiciary, undermined the fairness of a trial such that a conviction or sentence had to be rendered as a violation of due process. The article's conclusion presents a model for applying the legal history underlying Strickland to ineffective assistance cases.

Gideon’S Law-Protective Function, Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Gideon v. Wainwright dramatically affects the rights of indigent defendants by entitling them to representation. But Gideon has another systemic consequence as well. In addition to protecting the rights of individual defendants in particular trials, Gideon also protects the integrity of the development of the law by ensuring that the legal principles courts articulate are the product of a legitimate adversarial process. While law protection was not a central rationale for the outcome in Gideon, the decision’s reasoning and the surrounding historical context resonate with the concern for the integrity of judicial lawmaking. And an examination of subsequent cases reveals …

Constitutional Privileging, Michael Coenen

Journal Articles

“Constitutional privileging” occurs when courts treat the constitutional status of a legal claim as a reason to afford it specialized procedural or remedial treatment — in effect providing to that claim a greater degree of judicial care and attention than its nonconstitutional counterparts receive. Though seldom scrutinized by courts and commentators, this practice occurs within a variety of doctrinal settings. For example, a stricter standard of harmless error review governs constitutional claims; district court findings of facts (and mixed findings) are subject to a stricter form of appellate review in constitutional cases; collateral relief from federal court judgments is more …

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein

Michigan Law Review

A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held …

The Plea-Bargain Crisis For Noncitizens In Misdemeanor Court, Jason A. Cade

Cardozo Law Review

This Article considers three factors contributing to a plea-bargain crisis for noncitizens charged with misdemeanors: 1) the expansion of deportation laws to include very minor offenses with little opportunity for discretionary relief from removal; 2) the integration of federal immigration enforcement programs with the criminal justice system; and 3) the institutional norms in non-federal lower criminal courts, where little attention is paid to evidence or individual equities and where bail and other process costs generally outweigh perceived incentives to fight charges. The Article contends that these factors increase the likelihood that a noncitizen's low-level conviction will not reliably indicate guilt …

Maryland V. King: The Fourth Amendment Spirals Down The Double Helix, Sitara V. Witanachchi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Maryland v. King, in which the Court may decide whether requiring an arrestee to submit to a buccal swab for identification purposes violates the arrestee's privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.

The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Equal Rights Amendment And The Courts, Mary C. Dunlap

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifty Years Before Brady, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

In marking the fiftieth anniversary of Brady v. Maryland, a fitting way to appreciate the historic significance of Justice Douglas’ opinion for the Court is to turn back the pages another fifty years. Brady’s profound contribution to our criminal justice system becomes apparent by considering the impoverished state of the Supreme Court’s due process doctrine as it stood a century ago. In the fifty years that led up to Brady, the Court confronted a series of racially and politically charged cases that forced constitutional soul searching about due process in the face of rank injustice. The story of the Court’s …

Counsel's Control Over The Presentation Of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing, James Michael Blakemore

Michigan Law Review

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's assistance. A lawyer's assistance, however, sometimes interferes with a defendant's control over his case. As a result, the Supreme Court, over time, has had to delineate the spheres of authority that pertain to counsel and defendant respectively. The Court has not yet decisively assigned control over mitigating evidence to either counsel or defendant. This Note argues that counsel should control the presentation of mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. First, and most importantly, decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence are best characterized …

Public Access To Physician And Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings, Michael Spake

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

In The Interests Of Justice: Human Rights And The Right To Counsel In Civil Cases, Martha F. Davis

Touro Law Review

This report examines the international human rights treaties binding on the United States as well as other non-binding international human rights documents to ascertain the status of the right to counsel in civil cases, the so-called "Civil Gideon" right. The United Nations treaty monitoring bodies responsible for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have both indicated that legal assistance may be required to ensure fairness in civil cases. The Charter of the Organization of American States, to which the United States is a party, goes farther …

Keynote Address: The Evolution And Importance Of Creating A Civil Right To Counsel, Wade Henderson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Incarceration By Contract In A Post-Minneci World: Legislation To Equalize The Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners, Allison L. Waks

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the 2012 case Minneci v. Pollard, the United States Supreme Court held that federal prisoners assigned to privately-run prisons may not bring actions for violations of their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and may instead bring actions sounding only in state tort law. A consequence of this decision is that the arbitrary assignment of some federal prisoners to privately-run prisons deprives them of an equal opportunity to vindicate this federal constitutional right and pursue a federal remedy. Yet all federal prisoners should be entitled to the same protection under the United States Constitution-regardless of the type …

The Right To Counsel For Indians Accused Of Crime: A Tribal And Congressional Imperative, Barbara L. Creel

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Native American Indians charged in tribal court criminal proceedings are not entitled to court appointed defense counsel. Under well-settled principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes are not bound by Fifth Amendment due process guarantees or Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Instead, they are bound by the procedural protections established by Congress in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Indian defendants have the right to counsel at their own expense. This Article excavates the historical background of the lack of counsel in the tribal court arena and exposes the myriad problems that it …

Drawing The Line At Atkins And Roper: The Case Against Additional Categorical Exemptions From Capital Punishment For Offenders With Conditions Affecting Brain Function, Mark E. Coon

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Sixth Amendment—Braving Confrontation: Arkansas’S Progressive Position Regarding Criminal Defendants’ Confrontation Rights At Sentencing, Cassie R. Howell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice, Local Democracy, And Constitutional Rights, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Universally admired, and viewed with great affection, even love, by all who knew him, Harvard law professor Bill Stuntz died in March 2011 at the age of fifty-two, after a long, courageous battle with debilitating back pain and then insurmountable cancer. In a career that deserved to be much longer, Stuntz produced dozens of major articles on criminal law and procedure. He was a leader in carrying forward the work of scholars who had analyzed criminal justice through the lens of economic analysis, and he added his own distinctive dimension by insisting on the importance of political incentives, with their …

The Problem With Misdemeanor Representation, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

The failure to appoint counsel in misdemeanor cases may represent one of the most widespread violations of federal constitutional rights in criminal cases. A decade ago, in Alabama v. Shelton, the Supreme Court held that indigent defendants sentenced to suspended terms of incarceration in misdemeanor cases have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, even if the defendant is never actually incarcerated. Several factors contribute to this omission. First, some jurisdictions have simply refused to honor the Court's holding. Second, potentially unconstitutional barriers to the appointment of counsel-including prohibitively high fees imposed on defendants, failures to fully inform defendants of their …

The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Are We Searching For? Conditions, Elements, And Requirements For A Valid “Searching Inquiry” In The State Of New York - People V. Crampe, Dean M. Villani

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flying Solo Without A License: The Right Of Pro Se Defendants To Crash And Burn - People V. Smith, Tiffany Frigenti

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.