Law Commons^™

Avoiding The Appearance Of Judicial Bias: Allowing A Federal Criminal Defendant To Appeal The Denial Of A Recusal Motion Even After Entering An Unconditional Guilty Plea, Nancy B. Pridgen

Vanderbilt Law Review

One of the most fundamental social interests is that law shall be uniform and impartial. There must be nothing in its action that savors of prejudice or favor or even arbitrary whim or fitfulness. A suspect is charged with a federal crime, obtains legal counsel, and finds out who his judge will be. Because of a prominent rumor circulating in the community that the defendant once had an affair with the judge's wife, the defendant questions the judge's ability to be fair with him. He and his counsel file a timely motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).' The …

Not Twice For The Same: How The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine Is Used To Circumvent "Non Bis In Idem", Dax E. Lopez

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Today, it is quite possible for a criminal defendant who has violated the laws of several countries with one criminal act to be subject to multiple prosecutions. In situations where two countries share concurrent criminal jurisdiction, it is unclear whether the defendant would be able to rely on some level of double jeopardy protection. International law currently does not obligate a sovereign state to recognize another state's penal judgments, thus allowing states to prosecute a defendant regardless of any legal action that may have been previously taken against the defendant. Several countries, however, have chosen to provide defendants with at …

The Reach Of Icc Jurisdiction Over Non-Signatory Nationals, Jordan J. Paust

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

A new International Criminal Court (ICC) was created on July 17, 1998 under the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference on Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. Under the Statute, the ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, certain crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes, leaving the crime of aggression for further definition.

Nonetheless, there are certain preconditions to the exercise of such jurisdictional competence, as noted especially in Articles 12-14 of the Statute. In general, the Court can exercise jurisdiction if a "situation" or case (1) is referred to the Prosecutor …

An End To Insanity: Recasting The Role Of Mental Disability In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article argues that mental illness should no longer be the basis for a special defense of insanity. Instead, mental disorder should be considered in criminal cases only if relevant to other excuse doctrines, such as lack of mens rea, self-defense and duress, as those defenses have been defined under modern subjectively-oriented codes. With the advent of these subjectively defined doctrines (a development which, ironically, took place during the same period that insanity formulations expanded), the insanity defense has outlived its usefulness, normatively and practically. Modern official formulations of the defense are overbroad because, fairly construed, they exculpate the vast …

The Criminal Defense Lawyer's Fiduciary Duty To Clients With Mental Disability, Christopher Slobogin, Amy Mashburn

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article has argued that the defense attorney has a multifaceted fiduciary duty toward the client with mental disability. That duty requires, first and foremost, respect for the autonomy of the client. The lawyer shows that respect not only by heeding the wishes of the competent client but by refusing to heed the wishes of the incompetent client. A coherent approach to the competency construct is therefore important. Following the lead of Professor Bonnie, this Article has broken competency into two components: assistance competency and decisional competency. It has defined the former concept in traditional terms, as an understanding of …

Foreword: Is Justice Just Us?, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This is a review of JUSTICE, LIABILITY AND BLAME, by Paul Robinson and John Darley. The book is a summary of 18 studies which surveyed lay subjects about their attitudes toward various aspects of criminal law doctrine, including the act requirement for attempt, omission liability, accomplice liability, the felony-murder role, and the intoxication and insanity defenses. In virtually every study, the authors found that the subjects disagreed with the Model Penal Code's position, the common law's position, or both. The authors contend that results of surveys such as theirs should play a significant role in designing criminal doctrine, both because …