Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Kenna v. United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CYRA"), a crime victim's right to be "reasonably heard" during sentencing was not limited to written impact statements, but included the right to allocute at any public proceeding. This was an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. "No court of appeals had addressed the scope of this particular CVRA right." Two district courts had considered this issue and had reached contrary decisions. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the United States District Court for the District of Utah that a plausible …
Violence In The Courts: The Ninth Circuit's Attempt To Grapple With And Pin Down What Is A "Crime Of Violence" In United States V. Serna, Daniel S. Cho
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limitations of the strict categorical approach; the method by which sentencing courts and courts of review determine whether an offense is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes. Part I of this Note examines the "crime of violence" sentence enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Part II examines the Ninth Circuit's analysis of what constitutes a crime of violence in United States v. Serna. Part III proposes that the types of sources available to sentencing courts when analyzing whether an offense is a violent crime should be expanded based on Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion …
Unconstitutional Exploitation Of Delegated Authority: How To Deter Prosecutors From Using "Substantial Assistance" To Defeat The Intent Of Federal Sentencing Laws, Adriano Hrvatin
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment addresses whether the intent of the federal sentencing system is defeated when prosecutors reward high-level drug offenders with lenient sentences in exchange for testimony against less culpable co-conspirators. This Comment argues that prosecutors violate separation-of-powers principles when they move for downward departures on behalf of kingpins who provide substantial assistance in a case against less culpable co-defendants because Congress did not authorize such an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. In such instances where the intent of Congress is defeated, the prosecutor is essentially making law and thereby encroaching upon the law-making function of Congress. To cure this constitutional abuse …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Buckland, the defendant appealed his drug conviction, arguing that the penalty provisions of the federal drug statute under which he was convicted and sentenced was facially unconstitutional. In light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the primary issue was whether Calvin Wayne Buckland's sentence could be enhanced without the enhancement factor, in this case the quantity of the drugs he was responsible for, being determined by a jury. After rehearing the case en banc, the court concluded that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face. However, the court concluded …
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States u. Ruiz, the Ninth Circuit ruled that such waivers are unconstitutional, violating the principle that defendants in criminal cases must knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty for the plea to be constitutionally valid. The purpose of this article is to discuss the law leading up to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ruiz, to examine the court's ruling itself, and to analyze the impact this decision could have on plea bargaining, an integral part of the criminal justice system. In Part II, this Note discusses Ruiz's facts and procedural history. Part III, section A outlines the prosecution's duty to …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Nordby court held that a finding of drug quantity under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) by the district court at sentencing pursuant to a preponderance of the evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury-trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment when drug quantity was used to increase the prescribed statutory maximum penalty. In requiring that drug quantity be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Ninth Circuit overruled nearly fifteen years of its own precedent.
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Macfarlane v. Walter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Washington state and county early-release credit systems for prisoners violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The early-release credit systems unconstitutionally provide fewer early-release credits to pre-trial detainees who cannot afford to post bail than to similarly-situated prisoners who post bail and serve their entire sentences after trial in state prison. The court held that awarding fewer good behavior credits for time served in county jail than for time served in state prison denies equal protection of the law to pre-trial …
The Dilemma Of Difference: Race As A Sentencing Factor, Palcido G. Gomez
The Dilemma Of Difference: Race As A Sentencing Factor, Palcido G. Gomez
Golden Gate University Law Review
This paper addresses the dilemma of difference, specifically that associated with the race of an offender, as it affects criminal sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines mandated by the Sentencing Reform Act. I argue that federal judges should continue to consider an offender's race as a mitigating factor when imposing criminal sentences, despite language to the contrary in the guidelines and the enabling statute.
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Roe: Child Abuse Warrants Departure From Sentencing Guidelines In Extraordinary Circumstances, Sara Vukson Winter
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Roe: Child Abuse Warrants Departure From Sentencing Guidelines In Extraordinary Circumstances, Sara Vukson Winter
Golden Gate University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Restrepo: Uncharged Conduct Now Considered In The Ninth Circuit Under Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Matthew A. Goodin
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Restrepo: Uncharged Conduct Now Considered In The Ninth Circuit Under Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Matthew A. Goodin
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Restrepo, the Ninth Circuit, on a petition for rehearing, held that conduct of which the defendant was neither charged nor convicted could be taken into consideration at the defendant's sentencing hearing. The court reasoned that this interpretation is consistent with the clear intent of the United States Sentencing Commission and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit also held that when considering uncharged conduct at defendant's post-conviction sentencing hearing, a preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for due process concerns. When used to enhance a sentence, however, a more demanding interpretation of the standard is …
Panel: Sentencing
Golden Gate University Law Review
Of all the decisions facing trial judges, those surrounding sentencing are the most difficult. Public opinion focuses on the sentencing of criminal defendants - particularly those defendants whose trials have received media attention - and public outrage results from what is perceived as a "light" sentence. Judges are called upon to be "tougher" on criminals, and women judges in particular are perceived as being too lenient. The NAWJ, in recognition of the difficulty faced by all judges in the area of sentencing, presented the panel on Sentencing to share and discuss viewpoints on this issue.
The Crime Of Criminal Sentencing Based On Rehabilitation, Louis R. Lopez
The Crime Of Criminal Sentencing Based On Rehabilitation, Louis R. Lopez
Golden Gate University Law Review
A lively debate began in the late 1970's on the topic of criminal sentencing. A major attack was launched on the indeterminate sentence and its companion concepts of probation and parole. Changes in state law on indeterminate sentencing were made but some writers rose to defend the indeterminate sentence and its justification - the rehabilitative theory of punishment. It is not clear how long and intense the struggle will be before the rehabilitative (a.k.a. reform, treatment) theory is put to rest or at least put in proper perspective; it should exist not as a basis for a sentencing plan but …