Digital Commons Network^™

United States V. Patane: The Supreme Court's Continued Assault On Miranda, David Bosworth

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Patane, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the issue of whether a police officer's failure to give a suspect the complete Miranda warnings required the court to suppress a gun found as a result of the suspect's voluntary statements. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that failure to give such warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence gained from unwarned voluntary statements. The dissenting justices were concerned about the negative effects this ruling would have on police procedures, judicial inquiries, and suspect's rights. This decision creates another exception to the Miranda rule …

The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz

Indiana Law Journal

In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay's requestfor appointed counsel. ' Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …

The Role Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The Wake Of United States V. Booker And United States V. Fanfan, Rosemary T. Cakmis

Mercer Law Review

The year 2004 began much like previous years, at least when it came to decisions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals interpreting the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "federal sentencing guidelines" or "guidelines"). In less than one year, however, the federal sentencing guidelines and related Eleventh Circuit decisions took on a fascinating new dimension in light of 2004-2005 United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. This jurisprudence culminated with the January 12, 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which was consolidated with United States v. Fanfan ("Booker/Fanfan"). Therein, the Supreme Court rejected the Eleventh …

Plea Bargaining At The Hague, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

Plea bargaining has come to The Hague. For most of its existence, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) shunned plea bargains. However, under pressure from United Nations member states and the impending deadline for the resolution of its caseload, the ICTY has increasingly relied on plea bargains in recent months. This Article exposes the deficiencies in guilty plea procedures at The Hague, particularly those designed to assess whether a plea is fully informed and voluntary. In a series of case studies, the Article argues that judicial questioning techniques have exploited the vulnerable state of defendants appearing before …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.

Time Travel, Hovercrafts, And The Framers: James Madison Sees The Future And Rewrites The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

ExpressO

The Framers could not have contemplated the interpretational problems that cloud the Fourth Amendment because police, in the modern sense, were unknown to the Framers. Also unknown to the Framers, of course, were wiretaps, drug interdiction searches, thermal imagining, helicopters, and blood tests. We can infer from the history surrounding the Fourth Amendment what the Framers hoped it would accomplish in their time. What if the Framers could have seen the future and known the kind of police techniques that are being used today? What kind of Fourth Amendment would they have written with that knowledge? This article seeks to …

Discretion And Criminal Law: The Good, The Bad, And The Mundane, George C. Thomas Iii

ExpressO

Most academic papers condemn discretion in the enforcement and prosecution of crime. This essay argues that discretion should be understood to come in three varieties: good discretion, which is beneficial; bad discretion, which is typified by acts motivated by race, sex, or class considerations; and mundane discretion, which is value-neutral. The decision to pursue a drunken driver rather than a speeder, for example, is a good use of discretion while the decision to pursue one speeder rather than another based on race is bad discretion. Most motives that prompt acts of discretion, however, are value-neutral or what I call “mundane” …

Pursuing Justice For The Mentally Disabled, Grant H. Morris

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

This article considers whether lawyers act as zealous advocates when they represent mentally disordered, involuntarily committed patients who wish to assert their right to refuse treatment with psychotropic medication. After discussing a study that clearly demonstrates that lawyers do not do so, the article explores the reasons for this inappropriate behavior. Michael Perlin characterizes the problem as “sanism,” which he describes as an irrational prejudice against mentally disabled persons of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnic bigotry. The article critiques Perlin’s characterization …

Overcriminalization, Discretion, Waiver: A Survey Of Possible Exit Strategies, Donald A. Dripps

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

In both the constitutional law of American criminal justice and the scholarly literature that law has generated, substance and procedure receive radically different treatment. The Supreme Court, even in this conservative political period, continues to require costly procedural safeguards that go beyond what elected legislatures have provided by statute. The Court, however, has shown great deference to the choices these same legislatures have made about what conduct may be made criminal and how severely it may be punished.

The distinction between substance and procedure pervades academic thinking all the way down to its foundations. Substantive criminal law still holds its …

Missing Miranda's Story, A Review Of Gary L. Stuart's, Miranda: The Story Of America's Right To Remain Silent, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Miranda v. Arizona is the best known criminal procedure decision in the history of the Supreme Court. It has spawned dozens of books and hundreds of articles. The world does not need another Miranda book unless it has something new and interesting to tell readers. Unfortunately, to borrow an old cliche, the parts of Gary Stuart’s book that are new are, for the most part, not interesting and the parts that are interesting are, for the most part, not new. Stuart adds material to the Miranda storehouse about the involvement of local Arizona lawyers and judges in the original case, …

Police And Democracy, David Alan Sklansky

Michigan Law Review

Part I of the Article describes the emergence in postwar America of a particular understanding of a democracy, an understanding generally referred to as "democratic pluralism," "analytic pluralism," "pluralist theory," or simply "pluralism." We will spend a fair bit of time unpacking pluralism, because its fine points will prove important when we turn to the task of tracing its reflections in criminal procedure. That task is taken up in Part II, which examines the ways in which the central tenets of democratic pluralism found echoes in criminal procedure - construed broadly to include not only jurisprudence and legal scholarship but …

The Crawford Issue- The Supreme Court Sharpens The Teeth Of The Confrontation Clause, Nathan Reed Haines

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Beyond Blakely And Booker: Pondering Modern Sentencing Process, Douglas A. Berman

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Blakely v. Washington and its federal follow-up United States v. Booker are formally about the meaning and reach of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial. But these decisions implicate and reflect, both expressly and implicitly, a much broader array of constitutional provisions and principles, in particular, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the notice provision of the Sixth Amendment. And the future structure and operation of modern sentencing systems may greatly depend on how courts and others approach the due process provisions and principles which lurk in …

Apprendi's Limits, R. Craig Green

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unwarranted Intrusion: The Constitutional Infirmities Of Washington's Dna Collection Law, Erin Curtis

Washington Law Review

Washington State law requires all convicted felons to submit a biological sample for purposes of DNA testing. Washington State courts have upheld this law as a permissible search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, however, provides broader protections against governmental intrusion than does its federal counterpart. Under the state constitutional provision, law enforcement officials may disturb a citizen's private affairs only if authority of law supports the disturbance. A statute alone cannot provide the requisite authority; rather, the search prescribed must either be pursuant to a warrant or …

Equality, Objectivity, And Neutrality, Alafair S. Burke

Michigan Law Review

When is homicide reasonable? That familiar, yet unanswered question continues to intrigue both courts and criminal law scholars, in large part because any response must first address the question, "reasonable to whom?" The standard story about why that threshold question is both difficult and interesting usually involves a juxtaposition of "objective" and "subjective" standards for judging claims of reasonableness. On the one hand, the story goes, is a "subjective" standard of reasonableness under which jurors evaluate the reasonableness of a criminal defendant's beliefs and actions by comparing them to those of a hypothetical reasonable person sharing all of the individual …

Is There A Future For Leniency In The U.S. Criminal Justice System?, Nora V. Demleitner

Michigan Law Review

The spring 2004 release of the gruesome pictures of sexual humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad revealed how some U.S. troops, intelligence officers, and private contractors treated Iraqi prisoners taken during and after the war. High-ranking government officials may have condoned, if not encouraged, the abuses. Only reluctantly have they agreed to extend protections customarily accorded civilians and military fighters during a war to individuals detained in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Congressional investigations appear to have stalled, military inquiries have been manifold but resultless. Only a handful of low ranking soldiers have been court-martialed, and a …

United States V. Booker: The Demise Of Mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines And The Return Of Indeterminate Sentencing, Jonathan Chiu

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Revenge Of Mullaney V. Wilbur: U.S. V. Booker And The Reassertion Of Judicial Limits On Legislative Power To Define Crimes, Ian Weinstein

ExpressO

This article offers a historically grounded account of the twists and turns in the Supreme Court's sentencing jurisprudence from the end of World War II to the Court's stunning rejection of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The doctrinal shifts that have roiled this area of the law can best be understood as the Court's effort to respond to the changing political and social landscape of crime in America. In the mid 1970’s, legislative activity in the criminal law was largely focused on Model Penal Code influenced recodification. In that era, the Supreme Court took power from an ascendant judiciary and gave …

The Failure Of The Federal Sentencing System: A Structural Analysis, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

For most of the last decade, I numbered myself among the supporters of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and wrote extensively in their defense, while chronicling their defects. In the past year, I have reluctantly concluded that the federal sentencing guidelines system has failed. This Article explains the Guidelines' failure. The Sentencing Reform Act was intended to distribute the power to make sentencing policy and rules and to control individual sentencing outcomes among a range of national and local actors - the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, the federal appellate courts, and the Department of Justice at the national level, and district …

Murder, Meth, Mammon & Moral Values: The Political Landscape Of American Sentencing Reform (In Symposium On White Collar Crime), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the ongoing American experiment in mass incarceration and considers the prospects for meaningful sentencing reform.

A Blow To Domestic Violence Victims: Applying The "Testimonial Statements" Test In Crawford V. Washington, Melissa Moody

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.