Law Commons^™

Judicial Autonomy V. Executive Authority: Which Prevails In The Case Of A Postcommutation Collateral Attack?, Vincent A. Marrazzo

Notre Dame Law Review

An inmate with a commuted sentence will sometimes collaterally attack his already commuted sentence. This raises the question: Does an act of executive clemency divest the courts of authority to hear the collateral attack? In other words, does clemency moot the issues involved in the collateral attack? While multiple circuit courts have weighed in on this question, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have developed the most robust discussions, disagreeing about whether federal courts may hear these cases. The Fourth Circuit has held that a collateral attack postcommutation is moot as the “President’s commutation order simply closes the judicial door.” In …

The Reprieve Power: May The Uniform Code Of Military Justice Limit Executive Clemency?, Nino C. Monea

West Virginia Law Review

Article 57 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states the President "may commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, as the President sees fit. That part of the sentence providing for death may not be suspended." This seemingly contradicts Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which states that the President "shall have the power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This Article looks at whether the power to "reprieve" offenses includes the power to suspend sentences, including military sentences, and concludes that it does. The …

The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon individuals for offenses against the United States. Courts have interpreted this power broadly, and the American public has historically accepted its use, even in the face of several controversial pardons over the last five decades. However, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio—a former Arizona sheriff who was held in criminal contempt of court for continuing to illegally detain suspected undocumented immigrants—scholars, activists, and political figures questioned whether this pardon was unconstitutional. This Comment discusses the Court’s interpretation of the pardoning power, controversial pardons in modern history, and the details of the …

No Indeterminate Sentencing Without Parole, Katherine Puzauskas, Kevin Morrow

Ohio Northern University Law Review

This article looks critically at the indeterminate sentencing system that survived after the elimination of parole in Arizona in 1993. It begins by exploring the purpose and history of indeterminate sentencing and parole as well as its earliest constitutional challenges and eventual decline. Next it compares two commonly confused forms of “release”: parole and executive clemency. The article then examines the three types of defendants affected by indeterminate sentences without parole: death row defendants denied parole eligibility instructions at trial, defendants sentenced with parole at trial, and defendants whose plea agreement includes parole. Finally, the article argues that without parole, …

Open Source: The Enewsletter Of Rwu Law 09-22-2017, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Post-Trial Plea Bargaining In Capital Cases: Using Conditional Clemency To Remove Weak Cases From Death Row, Adam M. Gershowitz

Washington and Lee Law Review

Plea bargaining accounts for over ninety percent of criminal convictions and it dominates the American criminal justice system. Yet, once a defendant is convicted, bargaining almost completely disappears from the system. Even though years of litigation are on the horizon, there is nearly no bargaining in the appellate and habeas corpus process. There are two reasons for this. First, prosecutors and courts typically lack the power to alter a sentence that has already been imposed. Second, even if prosecutors had the authority to negotiate following a conviction, they would have little incentive to do so. Affirmance rates in ordinary criminal …

The Demise Of Capital Clemency, Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clemency 2.0, Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Paul J Larkin Jr.

A trope heard throughout criminal justice circles today is that the system is a dystopia. Although most of the discussion and proposed remedies have centered on sentencing or release, this article focuses on clemency, which has become a controversial subject. The last few Presidents have rarely exercised their pardon power or have used it for ignoble reasons. The former withers the clemency power; the latter besmirches it. President Obama sought to kick start the clemency process through the Clemency Project 2014, which sought to provide relief to the 30,000 crack cocaine offenders unable to take advantage of the prospective-only nature …

The Supreme Court And The Politics Of Death, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

This article explores the evolving role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the politics of death. By constitutionalizing the death penalty in the 1970s, the Supreme Court unintentionally set into motion political forces that have seriously undermined the Court's vision of a death penalty that is fairly administered and imposed only on the worst offenders. With the death penalty established as a highly salient political issue, politicians - legislators, prosecutors, and governors - have strong institutional incentives to make death sentences easier to achieve and carry out. The result of this vicious cycle is not only more executions, but less …

Clemency, Parole, Good-Time Credits, And Crowded Prisons: Reconsidering Early Release, Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Paul J Larkin Jr.

Traditionally, the criminal justice system used executive clemency, parole statutes, and good-time credit laws to grant prisoners an early relief for various reasons, such as to encourage and reward efforts toward rehabilitation and to ease prison overcrowding. The replacement of rehabilitation with incapacitation as the principal justification for criminal punishment over the last 30 years, however, has resulted in an enormous expansion in the prison population. We need to ask whether we have arrived at a point where an overly punitive approach to corrections is hurting as many innocent parties as helping and whether we are generating more criminals than …

The Supreme Court And The Politics Of Death, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

This article explores the evolving role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the politics of death. By constitutionalizing the death penalty in the 1970s, the Supreme Court unintentionally set into motion political forces that have seriously undermined the Court's vision of a death penalty that is fairly administered and imposed only on the worst offenders. With the death penalty established as a highly salient political issue, politicians - legislators, prosecutors, and governors - have strong institutional incentives to make death sentences easier to achieve and carry out. The result of this vicious cycle is not only more executions, but less …

In Search Of Clemency Procedures We Can Live With: What Process Is Due In Capital Clemency Proceedings After Ohio Adult Parole Authority V. Woodard?, Brian S. Clarke

Brian S. Clarke

The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari for the final time. All state and federal appeals have been exhausted. The execution date has been set. There is only one thing that can save the death row inmate from the ultimate punishment: the proverbial call from the governor and a grant of executive clemency.

This scene, although a veritable Hollywood cliche, is being played out in prisons across America with increasing frequency. As of July 1, 1998, there were 3,474 men and women on death row in America. In 1996, with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty …

Suspending The Rule Of Law - Temporary Immunity As Violative Of Montesquieu's Republican Virtue As Embodied In George Washington, Joseph P. Rodgers

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note offers a somewhat unique perspective on the notion of clemency. This inquiry contemplates the merit of temporary immunity from civil suits for acts which eventuated outside the scope of one's official responsibilities and argues that such an unprecedented expansion of civil immunity is antithetical to Montesquieu's conception of public virtue as evinced in The Spirit of Laws. This Note also reflects on the iconic role of Washington at the Constitutional Convention as emblematic of quintessential republican virtue. Part II briefly traces the evolution of absolute, qualified, and temporary immunity from an historical perspective. Part III acclimates the reader …