Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 18 USC Section 3553 (1)
- Abuse (1)
- Acquitted Conduct (1)
- Booker (1)
- Confrontation (1)
-
- Deterrence (1)
- Disparity (1)
- Fact Finding (1)
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing (1)
- Gall (1)
- Incapaciation (1)
- Judicial Discretion (1)
- Jury (1)
- Jury Role (1)
- Jury Trial (1)
- Kimbrough (1)
- Protecting Public (1)
- Purposes of Sentencing (1)
- Respect for the Law (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing Guidelines (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Watts (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judicial Nullification Of Juries: Use Of Acquitted Conduct At Sentencing, Eang L. Ngov
Judicial Nullification Of Juries: Use Of Acquitted Conduct At Sentencing, Eang L. Ngov
Faculty Scholarship
At trial, defendants are afforded a panoply of rights right to counsel, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to confront witnesses, and to exclude inadmissible evidence. However, these rights, except for the right to counsel, disappear at sentencing. In deciding a defendant’s sentence, a court may consider conduct that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and even conduct of which the jury has acquitted the defendant. Consideration of acquitted conduct has resulted in dramatic increases in the length of defendants’ sentences sometimes resulting in life imprisonment based merely on a judge’s finding that a defendant more likely than …
Parents Involved In Community School V. Seattle School District No. I.: An Endorsement Of De Facto Segregation?, Edward C. Combs, Jr.
Parents Involved In Community School V. Seattle School District No. I.: An Endorsement Of De Facto Segregation?, Edward C. Combs, Jr.
Barry Law Review
No abstract provided.
Goodbye Forfeiture, Hello Waiver: The Effect Of Giles V. California, Monica J. Smith
Goodbye Forfeiture, Hello Waiver: The Effect Of Giles V. California, Monica J. Smith
Barry Law Review
This article begins with a presentation of the Giles case and provides an historical understanding of the confrontation right and forfeiture by wrongdoing under the Constitution, common law, and Federal Rules of Evidence. Through an examination of waiver requirements for other confrontation rights, the article demonstrates that the Court’s addition of an intent element has turned the forfeiture doctrine into a waiver of the confrontation right by misconduct.