Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Anselmo V. Bisbee, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Jun. 29, 2017), Marco Luna
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Parole Board can deny parole for any reason authorized by regulation or statute. However, inmates do have a statutory right to have a parole hearing under NRS 213.140(1). Therefore, in limited cases where the Nevada Parole Board clearly misapplied its own internal guidelines in assessing whether to grant parole to an inmate, a new parole hearing is warranted.
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Using Outcomes To Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. …
I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity Of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel In Criminal Prosecutions After Padilla V. Kentucky, Scott R. Grubman
I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity Of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel In Criminal Prosecutions After Padilla V. Kentucky, Scott R. Grubman
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum
Scholarly Works
Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …