Law Commons^™

Criminal Certification: Restoring Comity In The Categorical Approach, Joshua Rothenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Federal sentencing enhancements force federal courts to delve into the world of substantive state criminal law. Does a state assault statute require violent force or just offensive touching? Does a state burglary statute that criminalizes breaking into a car or a house require prosecutors to charge the location entered as an element? Whether a person with prior convictions convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) faces a minimum sentence of fifteen years and a maximum of life imprisonment rather than a maximum sentence of ten years turns upon the answers to these questions. Yet, state law often does not resolve …

Excuses In Exile, Anders Kaye

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Suppose that I have intentionally killed another person and that I have done so without any justification. At first glance, it appears that I am guilty of murder, a very serious crime. Since I am guilty of this very serious crime, the state may inflict a very serious punishment on me—at least many years in prison, if not my whole life or the death penalty. But suppose that one of the following is also true in my case: (A) At the time that I killed my victim, I suffered from a mental disease and, as a result, lacked the substantial …

Sentence Creep: Increasing Penalties In Michigan And The Need For Sentencing Reform, Anne Yantus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The governor and several legislators have requested review of Michigan’s sentencing practices with an eye toward sentence reform. Michigan leads the country in the average length of prison stay, and by internal comparisons the average minimum sentence has nearly doubled in the last decade. This Article explores cumulative increases to criminal penalties over the last several decades as reflected in amendments to the sentencing guidelines, increased maximum sentences, harsh mandatory minimum terms, increased authority for consecutive sentencing, wide sentencing discretion for habitual and repeat drug offenders, and tough parole practices and policies. The reality for legislators is that it is …

Retroactivity And Crack Sentencing Reform, Harold J. Krent

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues that the strong presumption against retroactive application of reduced punishments articulated in the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Dorsey v. United States, is neither historically grounded nor constitutionally compelled. Although not dispositive in Dorsey, the presumption may mislead legislatures in future contexts, whether addressing marijuana decriminalization or lessened punishment for file sharing, and in no way should signal to Congress that future changes should apply prospectively only. Although the Court reached the right result in applying the reduction in punishment for crack offenses to offenders whose sentences had not been finalized, the Court relied excessively on the general …

The Impact Of Civilian Aggravating Factors On The Military Death Penalty (1984-2005): Another Chapter In The Resistance Of The Armed Forces To The Civilianization Of Military Justice, Catherine M. Grosso, David C. Baldus, George Woodworth

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984, the U.S. Armed Forces amended its capital punishment system for death eligible murder to bring it into compliance with Furman v. Georgia. Those amendments were modeled after death penalty legislation prevailing in over thirty states. After a brief period between 1986 and 1990, the charging decisions of commanders and the conviction and sentencing decisions of court martial members (jurors) transformed the military death penalty system into a dual system that treats two classes of death eligible murder quite differently. Since 1990, a member of the armed forces accused of a killing a commissioned officer or murder with a …

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Misplaced Trust In Mechanical Justice, Evangeline A. Zimmerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984 the Sentencing Reform Act was passed, ending fully discretionary sentencing by judges and allowing for the creation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("FSG" or "Guidelines"). This Note proposes that the Guidelines failed not only because they ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court in 2005, but also because they lacked a clear underlying purpose, had a misplaced trust in uniformity, and were born of political compromise. Moreover, the effect of the FSG was to blindly shunt discretionary decisions from judges, who are supposed to be neutral parties, to prosecutors, who are necessarily partisan. …

Juvenile Justice: The Nathaniel Abraham Murder Case, Eugene Arthur Moore

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Once in a while, a case will come along that has such an enormous impact on the law that it is certain to draw attention. One such case was the Nathaniel Abraham murder case----a case involving the sentencing of a young eleven-year-old child in a system designed for older juvenile offenders, which demonstrated some of the novel and important issues facing the juvenile courts today. With the onset of such issues, the Juvenile Justice System has developed into a complex field of vital importance. Investing in the Juvenile Justice System allows us to invest in our future. Although frequently viewed …

Furman'S Mythical Mandate, Scott W. Howe

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues for the rescue and reform of Supreme Court doctrine regulating capital sentencing trials under the Eighth Amendment. Many legal commentators, both liberal and conservative, including several members of the Supreme Court, have concluded that the Court's regulation of capital sentencing trials is a disaster. The repeated criticisms rest on a commonly accepted view about a principal goal of capital sentencing regulation. The prevailing account, fueled by the rhetoric of the Justices, stems from the notion that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 208 (1972), revealed a mandate of consistency in the use of the death penalty that …

Function Over Form: Reviving The Criminal Jury's Historical Role As A Sentencing Body, Chris Kemmitt

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues that the Supreme Court, as evinced by its recent spate of criminal jury decisions, has abandoned the criminal jury known to the Founders and, in so doing, has severely eroded the protections intended to inhere in the Sixth Amendment jury trial right. It then proposes one potential solution to this problem.

According to the Supreme Court, this recent line of cases has been motivated by the need to preserve the "ancient guarantee" articulated in the Sixth Amendment under a new set of legal circumstances. Unfortunately, the Court misinterprets the ancient guarantee that it is ostensibly attempting to …

State Sentencing Policy And New Prison Admissions, Ben Trachtenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As the academy's focus has turned to sentencing in the wake of Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker, most commentators have continued their benign neglect of actual sentencing practices as they occur in state courts, not to mention whether and how such policies are effective in achieving the goals of criminal justice.

This Note examines trends in state sentencing policies and prison populations from the perspective of a would-be state reformer hoping to decrease her state's prison budget. Economic pressures, efficiency arguments, and social justice claims have combined to cause some states to desire lower prison populations, …

Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique Of The Sentencing Guidelines, Jackie Gardina

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines-whether mandatory or discretionary-violate the constitutional separation of powers by impermissibly interfering with a criminal jury's constitutional duty to act as a check against government overreaching. This Article posits that the inclusion of the criminal jury in Article III of the Constitution was intended as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances. This Article also submits a proposal for restoring the constitutional balance through the creation of a "guideline jury system" within the current guideline structure. The implementation of a guideline jury system would fill the constitutional void created …

When Balance And Fairness Collide: An Argument For Execution Impact Evidence In Capital Trials, Wayne A. Logan

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A central precept of death penalty jurisprudence is that only the "death worthy" should be condemned, based on a "reasoned moral response" by the sentencing authority. Over the past decade, however, the Supreme Court has distanced itself from its painstaking efforts in the 1970s to calibrate death decision making in the name of fairness. Compelling proof of this shift is manifest in the Court's decisions to permit victim impact evidence in capital trials, and to allow jurors to be instructed that sympathy for capital defendants is not to influence capital decisions. This Article examines a novel strategy now being employed …

Pain And Suffering Guidelines: A Cure For Damages Measurement "Anomie", Frederick S. Levin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that adapting the criminal sentencing guidelines systems in use in several states to the personal injury context would provide appropriate standards for measuring pain and suffering damages. Part I explores why present methods for measuring pain and suffering are objectionable. A description of the proposed method for developing guidelines is provided in Part II. Part II explores the use of guidelines in criminal sentencing and the analogy between sentencing decisions and assessment of damages for nonpecuniary loss. Part II also describes how to develop and implement guidelines for assessing pain and suffering damages. Part III examines why …

Salvaging Proportionate Prison Sentencing: A Reply To Rummel V. Estelle, Thomas F. Cavalier

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note provides a capsule of the Court's holding in Rummel. Part II argues, contrary to Rummel, that precedential support can be mustered to support eighth amendment review of sentence length. Finally, part 11,1 discusses the continued viability of the proportionality test as a vehicle for assessing challenges to the length of imprisonment, and discounts the concerns voiced in Rummel regarding the difficulty of judicial review of legislative sentencing decisions.

Objectivity And Habeas Corpus: Should Federal District Court Judges Be Permitted To Rule Upon The Validity Of Their Own Criminal Trial Conduct?, Marilyn L. Kelley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It has already been suggested that one of the main purposes of section 2255 was to provide a convenient forum in which the trial judge might testify, if necessary. That purpose is, obviously, contrary to the interpretation rendered in Carvell.

Beyond this inconsistency, Carvell suggests two significant issues: first, that it is highly desirable that the motions be passed upon by the judge who is familiar with the facts; and second, that the criminal trial judge is not likely to be misled by allegations in the 2255 petition as to what had occurred. The first issue raises the question …

Standards For Accepting Guilty Pleas To Misdemeanor Charges, Richard A. Kopek

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The guilty plea-not the trial-is the most common manner of disposing of criminal cases in America. It has been estimated that 90 percent of all convictions and 95 percent of misdemeanor convictions are the result of guilty pleas. Various reasons have been advanced to explain this heavy reliance on the guilty plea. For example, it avoids the drain on judicial resources that would occur if all cases had to be tried. In addition, it eliminates the risks and uncertainties of trials and permits flexibility in sentencing. Because of the prevalence of guilty pleas, there must be procedural safeguards to insure …

Title X - Dangerous Special Offender Sentencing, Richard Levy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Undoubtedly the most controversial new provision in the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 is title X. Title X authorizes a federal prosecuting attorney to notify the defendant and the court before trial that the defendant, if found guilty of the felony on which he is being tried, is in the prosecutor's opinion also subject to the dangerous special offender provisions embodied in the title. Should the defendant be judged guilty of the felony, he then will fall subject to an additional penalty beyond that received for the conviction if the judge finds that he qualifies as one of three …

Plea Bargaining: A Model Court Rule, Kenneth A. Kraus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the justification for the plea bargaining process, for it is clear that this system will of necessity be continued in the foreseeable future. Instead, this analysis is designed first to present the functional role, constitutional status and existing abuses in the plea bargaining process, and then to discuss the goals and the proposed standards relevant to reform of the present plea bargaining procedures. The culmination of this analysis is the proposed Model Court Rule for Plea Agreements in part III.