Digital Commons Network^™

Has A New Day Dawned For Indigent Defense In Virginia?, Robert E. Shepherd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"You Fall Into Scylla In Seeking To Avoid Charybdis": The Second Circuit's Pragmatic Approach To Supervised Release For Sex Offenders, Frank E. Correll Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Decency, Dignity, And Desert: Restoring Ideals Of Humane Punishment To Constitutional Discourse, Eva Nilsen

Faculty Scholarship

American punishment today is degrading, indecent, and harsher than deserved despite a Constitution designed to protect people from cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court’s response to the increasing inhumanity of contemporary punishment has been to reduce its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to tidy categories, legal fictions, and hollow phrases. Absent from the discourse is any acknowledgement of the actual day-to-day experience facing the convicted person, or any suggestion that, although punishments can be degrading, they need not be. The case for treating a convicted person with respect for his human dignity, and for constitutional scrutiny of punishment as …

It's Just Not Cricket: Is The Principle Of Reciprocity Being Honored In The U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty?, Richard Goldberger

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Dui Law In Virginia, Monte Kuligowski

University of Richmond Law Review

As the demand for safer roadways needs little supporting argument, I turn to the constitutional problem of strict criminal liability law, followed with a brief analysis of criminal intent and strict liability law within the criminal system, some examples of how other states have responded to the inherent tensions, and a few specific thoughts for the legislature to consider.

Raise The Proof: A Default Rule For Indigent Defense, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Almost everyone agrees that indigent defense in America is underfunded, but workable solutions have been hard to come by. For the most part, courts have been unwilling to inject themselves into legislative budget decisions. And, when courts have become involved and issued favorable decisions, the benefits have been only temporary because once the pressure of litigation disappears so does a legislature's desire to appropriate more funding. This Article proposes that if an indigent defense system is under-funded, the state supreme court should impose a default rule raising the standard of proof to "beyond all doubt" to convict indigent defendants. The …

The Practicability Of Amnesty As A Non-Prosecutory Alternative In Post-Conflict Uganda, Kathleen Ellen Macmillan

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that amnesty can be a necessary and effective tool for achieving peace in conflict-ridden regions, even when the International Criminal Court (ICC) is involved. It focuses on Uganda's situation, where the government's amnesty offer to the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) was crucial for a ceasefire. The analysis suggests that the ICC should consider deferring to national processes, such as Uganda's Amnesty Act of 2000, to support transitional justice and reconciliation, rather than prioritizing prosecution. The note concludes that amnesty, integrated with traditional justice mechanisms, can be both legally permissible and morally justifiable in certain contexts.

More Stories Of Jurisdiction-Stripping And Executive Power: Interpreting The Prison Litigation Reform Act (Plra), Giovanna Shay, Johanna Kalb

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law's "Mediating Rules": Balancing, Harmonization, Or Accident?, Michael T. Cahill

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mediating Rules In Criminal Law, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein

Articles

This Article challenges the conventional divide between substantive criminal law theory, on the one hand, and evidence law, on the other, by exposing an important and unrecognized function of evidence rules in criminal law. Throughout the criminal law, special rules of evidence work to mediate conflicts between criminal law's deterrence and retributivist goals. They do this by skewing errors in the actual application of the substantive criminal law to favor whichever theory has been disfavored by the substantive rule itself The mediating potential of evidentiary rules is particularly strong in criminal law because the substantive law's dominant animating theories-deterrence and …

Truth, Justice, And The American Dilemma, Robert Batey

San Diego Law Review

McCleskey v. Kemp is without doubt a memorable case. Professor David C. Baldus and his colleagues, Charles A. Pulaski and George Woodworth, had produced a detailed statistical study of the operation of the death penalty in Georgia showing, in the words of the Supreme Court, that "black defendants, such as McCleskey, who kill white victims have the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty." McCleskey used this study to challenge his capital sentence under both the Equal Protection and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses. Like any statistical proof, the Baldus study had been challenged on methodological grounds. The Supreme Court …

Introduction To The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum, Russell L. Weaver

San Diego Law Review

The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum was held at the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law on December 14, 2006. As with prior fora, the goal of this forum was to bring together a small group of prominent criminal procedure scholars to discuss matters of common interest. This year's forum focused on two topics: "confessions jurisprudence" and "the most underrated criminal procedure decision(s)."

Interrogating Terrorists: From Miranda Warnings To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Ronald J. Rychlak

San Diego Law Review

An American citizen arrested within the United States would certainly have the right not to incriminate himself. A foreign national arrested outside of the U.S. would presumably not be protected. Other scenarios present more difficult issues. American courts, therefore, have to determine whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies to non-American citizens, and whether an American police or military agent conducting an investigation abroad must provide some type of warnings before conducting an interrogation. The initial question would seem to be whether terrorist suspects are even entitled to the right protected by Miranda - the right not to incriminate …

Toward A More Robust Right To Counsel Of Choice, Janet C. Hoeffel

San Diego Law Review

This Article takes its lead from the core principles of the right to counsel of choice expressed in Gonzalez-Lopez. These principles indicate that the right should include an indigent defendant's right to continue an attorney-client relationship established at some point in the past, and that, for both nonindigent and indigent defendants, the right to continue a trial with counsel of choice must be honored by trial courts unless it would be unethical or manifestly unjust to do so. This means that trial courts must almost always grant a continuance to accommodate that choice and could rarely deny such a request …

Smith V. Hooey: Underrated But Unfulfilled, Leslie W. Abramson

San Diego Law Review

The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial applies to prosecutions in the federal courts and to state prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. This constitutional right is probably the least favorite of the Bill of Rights, because it would satisfy most defendants if the government never - promptly or otherwise - disposed of their pending charges. One group of persons, though, who may regard the right to a speedy trial as important are convicted defendants currently serving sentences, but who have pending charges brought against them by other states or the federal government. For them, denying the …

International Criminal Jurisdiction In The Twenty First Century: Rediscovering United States V. Bowman, Ellen S. Podgor, Daniel M. Filler

San Diego Law Review

In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - far broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing …

Striking A Balance In Unlawfully Obtained Confession Cases: United Kingdom Pragmatism Against Principle, Jenny Mcewan

San Diego Law Review

In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing so, …

The Prisoners’ (Plea Bargain) Dilemma, Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar

Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009

How can a prosecutor, who has only limited resources, credibly threaten so many defendants with costly and risky trials and extract plea bargains involving harsh sentences? Had defendants refused to settle, many of them would not have been charged or would have escaped with lenient sanctions. But such collective stonewalling requires coordination among defendants, which is difficult if not impossible to attain. Moreover, the prosecutor, by strategically timing and targeting her plea offers, can create conflicts of interest among defendants, frustrating any attempt at coordination. The substantial bargaining power of the resource-constrained prosecutor is therefore the product of the collective …

Addressing Sexual Violence Against Youth In Custody, Brenda V. Smith

Presentations

No abstract provided.

Kansas V. Marsh: A Thumb On The Scale Of Death?, Elizabeth Brandenburg

Mercer Law Review

In Kansas v. Marsh, the United States Supreme Court held that it is not unconstitutional for a state's death penalty statute to require a death sentence when a sentencing jury finds aggravating and mitigating factors to be in equipoise. Extending its previous decision in Walton v. Arizona, the Court explicitly determined that this type of sentencing met the requirements of Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, holding that no other constraint is imposed by the Constitution. While the repercussions of this decision may not be widely felt, they do indicate the direction the Court is heading …

The Challenge Of Implementing Atkins V. Virginia: How Legislatures And Courts Can Promote Accurate Assessments And Adjudications Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, Richard J. Bonnie, Katherine Gustafson

University of Richmond Law Review

Our goal in this paper is to assist state courts and legislatures as they try to carry out the task that Atkins requires of them promoting fairness and accuracy in the assessment and adjudication of mental retardation. After addressing the definition ofmental retardation in Part I, we focus on its assessment in Parts II and III, highlighting several key requirements of a scientifi-cally and clinically adequate assessment.

Part II addresses the assessment of deficits in intellectual functioning, particularly on the measurement of intelligence as represented by an intelligence quotient. Appropriate IQ tests must be used, and the scores must be …

The Meaning Of Life (Or Limb): An Originalist Proposal For Double Jeopardy Reform, Justin W. Curtin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unconstitutional Conditional Release: A Pyrrhic Victory For Arrestees' Privacy Rights Under United States V. Scott, Andrew J. Smith

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gonzales-Lopez And Its Bright-Line Rule: Result Of Broad Judicial Philosophy Or Context-Specific Principles?, Jacob D. Briggs

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Miranda Is Not Enough: A New Justification For Demanding "Strong Corroboration" To A Confession, Boaz Sangero

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein

San Diego International Law Journal

More than 240 years ago, Sir William Blackstone, perhaps the most important commentator on the English common law, wrote that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any indictment, or other prosecution, before any court having competent jurisdiction of the offence, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same crime. This plea of autrefois acquit (a former acquittal), Blackstone explained, is based upon the principle that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offence, which he called a universal maxim of …

Introduction, Kyron Huigens

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Nature And Rationale Of Punishment, Albin Eser

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Conundrum Of Mental States: Substantive Rules And Evidence Combined, Keren Shapira-Ettinger

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Improving Accuracy In Criminal Cases, Erik Lillquist

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.