Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Capital punishment (17)
- Death penalty (17)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (4)
- Eighth Amendment (4)
- Atkins v. Virginia (3)
-
- Batson v. Kentucky (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Jury selection (2)
- Mental illness (2)
- Peremptory challenge (2)
- Racial discriminiation (2)
- Right to counsel (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- South Carolina (2)
- Strickland v. Washington (2)
- Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) (1)
- 14th Amendment (1)
- AEDPA (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Amicus brief (1)
- Antidiscrimination Clause (1)
- Antiterrorism (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (1)
- Appellate procedure (1)
- Brady doctrine (1)
- Brady v. Maryland (1)
- CJP (1)
- Capital Jury Project (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital cases (1)
- File Type
Articles 31 - 34 of 34
Full-Text Articles in Law
Aedpa: The "Hype" And The "Bite", John H. Blume
Aedpa: The "Hype" And The "Bite", John H. Blume
John H. Blume
On April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Thus, the AEDPA era began. While Clinton's presidential signing statement paid lip service to meaningful federal court review of state court convictions, AEDPA's supporters knew better. The fix was in, and happy habeas days were here again. But, as the old saying goes, "What if you gave a revolution and nobody came?" As I will argue, that is in many (but not all) respects what happened. In this Article, I have argued that AEDPA was, in many respects, more "hype" than "bite." For …
Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part Two, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola
Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part Two, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola
John H. Blume
Part One of this article addressed the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements. Part Two discusses the Sixth Amendment, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and impeachment issues.
The Fourth Circuit's "Double-Edged Sword": Eviscerating The Right To Present Mitigating Evidence And Beheading The Right To The Assistance Of Counsel, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
The Fourth Circuit's "Double-Edged Sword": Eviscerating The Right To Present Mitigating Evidence And Beheading The Right To The Assistance Of Counsel, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
John H. Blume
Even before the sea change of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court recognized not only an indigent’s right to the assistance of counsel in capital cases, but also his right to the effective assistance of counsel in capital cases. Since those auspicious beginnings, the Court has dramatically broadened the right to present mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of a capital trial, thereby increasing the need for the guiding hand of counsel in capital sentencing. Thus, it is particularly tragic that the Fourth Circuit’s swiftly evolving approach to the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard precludes capital …
Back To A Future: Reversing Keith Simpson's Death Sentence And Making Peace With The Victim's Family Through Post-Conviction Investigation, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Back To A Future: Reversing Keith Simpson's Death Sentence And Making Peace With The Victim's Family Through Post-Conviction Investigation, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson
John H. Blume
In 1993, Keith Simpson was arrested for the murder of Joe Harrison; in 2006, he was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in 2022. Between those two events, Simpson was sentenced to death, had his death sentence vacated by the post-conviction relief court, reached a plea agreement with the victim's family and the new Solicitor, saw the agreement invalidated when the Attorney General's office overrode the family and the Solicitor by appealing the post-conviction court's decision, lost the lower court's decision to an appellate reversal, and won a cross-appeal for a new trial. You just never know. You …