Law Commons^™

Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants, Keagan Potts

Michigan Law Review

The writ of habeas corpus presents the last chance for innocent defendants to obtain relief from invalid convictions and sentences. The writ constitutes a limited exception to the finality of judgments. Given the role finality plays in conserving judicial resources and deterring criminal conduct, exceptions created by habeas must be principally circumscribed. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States, the federal courts of appeals have attempted to develop a test that protects the writ from abuse by Johnson claimants.

This Note first contributes a new understanding of the …

Jurisdiction And Resentencing: How Prosecutorial Waiver Can Offer Remedies Congress Has Denied, Leah Litman, Luke C. Beasley

Articles

This Essay is about what prosecutors can do to ensure that prisoners with meritorious legal claims have a remedy. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes draconian conditions on when prisoners may file successive petitions for post-conviction review (that is, more than one petition for post-conviction review). AEDPA’s restrictions on post-conviction review are so severe that they routinely prevent prisoners with meritorious claims from vindicating those claims.

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 …

Embracing Tribal Sovereignty To Eliminate Criminal Jurisdiction Chaos, Lindsey Trainor Golden

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that the current federal laws regarding tribal criminal jurisdiction are contrary to existing policies that recognize inherent tribal sovereignty, and that to fully restore tribal sovereignty and reduce reservation crime rates, Congress should revise the MCA and the TLOA to comprehensively address the legal barriers that adversely affect tribes' ability to prosecute crimes committed within their geographic borders. Part I outlines the historical progression of laws addressing criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country and identifies the problems with the law's disregard and displacement of tribal sovereignty. Part II examines the current state of criminal jurisdiction on reservations-focusing on …

Environmental Crime Comes Of Age: The Evolution Of Criminal Enforcement In The Environmental Regulatory Scheme, David M. Uhlmann

Articles

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 often is considered the first environmental criminal statute because it contains strict liability provisions that make it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse into navigable waters of the United States without a permit. When Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act, however, it was far more concerned with preventing interference with interstate commerce than environmental protection. For practical purposes, the environmental crimes program in the United States dates to the development of the modem environmental regulatory system during the 1970s, and amendments to the environmental laws during the 1980s, which upgraded criminal violations of …

Cracking The Code: "De-Coding" Colorblind Slurs During The Congressional Crack Cocaine Debates, Richard Dvorak

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This article proposes "de-coding" as a method for unveiling the racist purpose behind the enactment of race-neutral legislation. Through the use of "code words," defined as “phrases and symbols which refer indirectly to racial themes, but do not directly challenge popular democratic or egalitarian ideals,” legislators can appeal to racist sentiments without appearing racist. More importantly, they can do so without leaving evidence that can be traced back as an intent to discriminate. This article proposes to use "de-coding" as a method to unmask the racist purpose behind the enactment of the 100:1 crack versus powder cocaine ratio for mandatory …

The "Solely Criminal Purpose" Defense To The Enforcement Of Irs Summonses, Darius J. Mehraban

Michigan Law Review

Recent years have witnessed a gradual erosion of the practical distinctions between the civil and criminal investigations performed by federal administrative agencies. This trend arose naturally from a growing number of federal statutes and regulations that carry both civil and criminal penalties for their violation. Administrative agencies today wield investigative summons power almost as expansive as the grand jury subpoena power and can use that power to investigate without first deciding whether criminal or civil liability ultimately will be sought. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has participated to some extent in this intermingling of civil and criminal inquiry - with …

Congress And Genocide: They're Not Going To Get Away With It, Jordan J. Paust

Michigan Journal of International Law

Today at least, it is generally recognized that genocide is a crimen contra omnes, a crime under customary international law over which there is universal enforcement jurisdiction and responsibility. Indeed, it is commonly expected that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of customary international law, a jus cogens allowing no form of derogation under domestic or treaty-based law. It is also commonly understood that the definition of genocide contained in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines that which is prohibited by customary jus cogens.