Digital Commons Network^™

The Futile Quest For Racial Neutrality In Capital Selection And The Eight Amendment Argument For Abolition Based On Unconscious Racial Discrimination, Scott W. Howe

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Counsel In Criminal Cases: The Law And The Reality In Rhode Island District Court, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Murky Depths Of The Entry Fiction Doctrine: The Plight Of Inadmissible Aliens Post-Zadvydas, Allison Wexler

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Aretaic Turn In Constitutional Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

ExpressO

“The Aretaic Turn in Constitutional Theory” argues that an institutional approach to theories of constitutional interpretation ought to be supplemented by explicit focus on the virtues and vices of constitutional adjudicators.

Part I, “The Most Dysfunctional Branch,” advances the speculative hypothesis that politicization of the judiciary has led the political branches to exclude consideration of virtue from the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices and to select Justices on the basis of the strength of their commitment to particular positions on particular issues and the fervor of their ideological passions.

Part II, “Institutionalism and Constitutional Interpretation,” engages Cass Sunstein …

The Aretaic Turn In Constitutional Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

The Aretaic Turn in Constitutional Theory argues that an institutional approach to theories of constitutional interpretation ought to be supplemented by explicit focus on the virtues and vices of constitutional adjudicators.

Part I, The Most Dysfunctional Branch, advances the speculative hypothesis that politicization of the judiciary has led the political branches to exclude consideration of virtue from the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices and to select Justices on the basis of the strength of their commitment to particular positions on particular issues and the fervor of their ideological passions.

Part II, Institutionalism and Constitutional Interpretation, engages Cass Sunstein …

Constitutional Interpretation And Coercive Interrogation After Chavez V. Martinez, John T. Parry

ExpressO

Using the Supreme Court's decision last Term in Chavez v. Martinez as a launching pad, this article reveals and addresses fundamental tensions in constitutional interpretation, the law of interrogation, and civil rights litigation. First, this article highlights the importance of remedies to the definition of constitutional rights, which compels us to jettison the idea of prophylactic rules and accept Congress's role in constitutional interpretation. Armed with these insights, the article next considers the law of coercive interrogation. I explain why the privilege against self-incrimination is more than a trial right, and I redefine the central holding of Miranda to take …

Entrapment And The Problem Of Deterring Police Misconduct, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

Many the states currently use a version of the entrapment defense known as the “objective test,” which focuses solely on the extent of police overreaching in the case, and seeks to deter police misconduct by acquitting the defendant. Acquitting defendants as a means of deterring undercover police misconduct, however, is a public policy fraught with problems, and these problems have not been adequately addressed in the literature to date. This article applies the insights of modern deterrence theory to wrongful activity by police in undercover operations. In doing so, three general problems emerge. First, the objective test relies on an …

"Democratic Despotism" And Constitutional Constraint: An Empirical Analysis Of Ex Post Factor Claims In State Courts, Wayne A. Logan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article explores the history of the Ex Post Facto Clause, including the Supreme Court's seminal 1798 decision in Calder v. Bull, and analyzes the results of a survey of ex post facto claims decided in state courts from 1992-2002, the first study to catalog the types of claims generated among the states, and the institutional response of state courts to them. The author provides an overview of the claims resolved in state courts, examining the nature of the laws challenged, how the challenges fared, and the rationales used by courts in their dispositions. Discussion focuses on two abiding sources …

Gun Rights And The Constitutional Significance Of Violent Crime, Jonathan Simon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Democratic Despotism" And Constitutional Constraint: An Empirical Analysis Of Ex Post Facto Claims In State Courts, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

This Article explores the history of the Ex Post Facto Clause, including the Supreme Court's seminal 1798 decision in Calder v. Bull, and analyzes the results of a survey of ex post facto claims decided in state courts from 1992-2002, the first study to catalog the types of claims generated among the states, and the institutional response of state courts to them. The author provides an overview of the claims resolved in state courts, examining the nature of the laws challenged, how the challenges fared, and the rationales used by courts in their dispositions. Discussion focuses on two abiding …

Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, Ann Woolhandler, Caleb Nelson

Michigan Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that federal courts can adjudicate, but also the parties who can bring those matters before them. In particular, the Court has held that private citizens who have suffered no concrete private injury lack standing to ask federal courts to redress diffuse harms to the public at large. When such harms are justiciable at all, the proper party plaintiff is the public itself, represented by an authorized officer of the government. Although the Court claims historical support for these ideas, academic critics insist that the law …

The Constitutionality Of School Corporal Punishment Of Children As A Betrayal Of Brown V. Board Of Education, Susan H. Bitensky

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Racial Profiling Of African-American Males: Stopped, Searched, And Stripped Of Constitutional Protection, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 439 (2004), Floyd D. Weatherspoon

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remaining Silent: A Right With Consequences, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 649 (2004), Jeffrey D. Waltuck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is There A Place For Race As A Legal Concept, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

What does "race" mean? The word "race" is omnipresent in American social, political, and legal discourse. The concept of "race" is central to contemporary debate about affirmative action, racial profiling, hate crimes, health inequities, and many other issues. Nevertheless, the best research in genetics, medicine, and the social sciences reveals that the concept of "race" is elusive and has no reliable definition.

This article argues that "race" is an unnecessary and potentially pernicious concept. As evidenced by the history of slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, and other human tragedies, the idea of "race" can perpetuate prejudices and misconceptions and serve as …

State Constitutional Law, New Judicial Federalism, And The Rehnquist Court , Shirley S. Abrahamson

Cleveland State Law Review

Today, I believe, we find ourselves at an interesting crossroads. Over the past few decades, under the banner of new judicial federalism, many state courts have asserted a role for state constitutions in the protection of individual liberties and the resolution of legal disputes. This outburst of state constitutional fervor, however, has been met with great criticism from different camps, all believing that the uniformity provided by our federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court should guide state court decisions and especially state constitutional interpretation. At the same time, the very ability of state courts to decide state …

The New Judicial Federalism In Ohio: The First Decade , Robert F. Williams

Cleveland State Law Review

There are a number of tentative conclusions that may be reached based on this selective analysis of the Ohio Supreme Court's first decade of experience with the New Judicial Federalism. First, the court is to be commended for taking the first steps toward recognizing the Ohio Constitution as a document of independent political and legal force. The Arnold decision, together with the others discussed in this article, serve to alert the lower bench, the bar, the media, and students and professors to the potential contained within state constitutions. Next, to the extent that there is inconsistency to be detected in …

Is Yale Kamisar As Good As Joe Namath: A Look Back At Kamisar's Prediction Of Miranda V. Arizona, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Exorcizing Wechsler's Ghost: The Influence Of The Model Penal Code On Death Penalty Sentencing Jurisprudence, Russell Dean Covey

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The constitutional law of capital sentencing currently is torn between its past and its future, its inheritance of a utilitarian, offender-based, sentencing theory and the powerful contemporary resurgence of retributivism as the dominant justification for criminal punishment. The basic procedural and jurisprudential structures all originated as the offspring of an explicitly nonretributive penal theory crafted in large part by Herbert Wechsler and codified in the Model Penal Code. To bring death penalty procedure more in line with contemporary understandings of the death penalty's theoretical and moral justification, the ghost of Herbert Wechsler must be exorcized from the constitutional law of …

Houses Built On Sant: Police Expert Testimony In California Gang Prosecutions; Did Gardeley Go Too Far, Patrick Mark Mahoney

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

In 1998, faced with a gang-violence epidemic, California passed the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act ("STEP"), becoming the first state to enact a law specifically targeting criminal street gangs. Through STEP, California courts began to gradually expand the scope of evidence admissible to prove gang membership and to loosen restrictions on expert testimony regarding gang behavior. This trend culminated in People v. Gardeley, in which the California Supreme Court upheld an extremely broad view of permissible uses of expert testimony. This note argues that not only did Gardeley goes too far, but also that in its Gardeley decision the …

A Look Back On A Half-Century Of Teaching, Writing And Speaking About Criminal Law And Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I look back at my academic career, I realize that, as hard as I tried to plan things, various events often overrode my plans.

Adjusting To Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court radically transformed its doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Craitiord is a very positive development, restoring to its central position one of the basic protections of the common law system of criminal justice. But the decision leaves many open questions, and all lawyers involved in the criminal justice process will have to adjust to the new regime that it creates. This article outlines and summarizes the problems with the law as it stood before Crait/brd. It then explains the theoretical …

Governance And Anarchy In The S.2(B) Jurisprudence: A Comment On Vancouver Sun And Harper V. Canada, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

The article identifies and explains a double standard in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The contrast is between the open court jurisprudence, which is a model of good constitutional governance – or principled decision making – and the Court’s s.2(b) methodology, which is “anarchistic” or capricious and undisciplined, in the sense of this article. Two landmark cases decided in 2004 illustrate the double standard: the first is Re Vancouver Sun, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, which dealt with the open court principle under Parliament’s anti-terrorism provision for investigative hearings, it represents a high water mark for open court and s.2(b) …

California's Three Strikes And We're Out: Was Judicial Activism California's Best Hope?, Michael Vitiello

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Post- Gideon Developments In Law And Lawyering, Timothy Everett

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

The Dilution Effect: Federalization, Fair Cross-Sections, And The Concept Of Community, Laura Gaston Dooley

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Resorting To External Norms And Principles In Constitutional Decision-Making, Alvin L. Goldman

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Given the very significant role of constitutional law in the American political system and the fact that Supreme Court Justices are appointed through a political process, it is understandable that the appropriate judicial approach to resolving constitutional issues often is the subject of political commentary. Unfortunately, discourse by politicians concerning this issue seldom rises to the deserved level of wisdom. One of President George W. Bush's public mantras is illustrative of political commentary respecting federal judicial appointments: "I'm going to put strict constructionists on the bench." On its face, and as understood by politically naive audiences, the statement appears to …

The Useful, Dangerous Fiction Of Grand Jury Independence, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Challenging Dissent: The Ontology And Logic Of Lawrence V. Texas, Jami Weinstein, Tobyn Demarco

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated a Texas antisodomy statute criminalizing homosexual conduct. The Court held that the statute failed rational basis review and rejected the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality as a legitimate state interest. The decision reflects a broader recognition of the fundamental right to make autonomous, private, consensual, adult sexual choices. The analysis critiques Justice Scalia's dissent, arguing that his fears about the end of morals legislation are unfounded and that laws based solely on moral disapproval lack a rational basis.