Law Commons^™

No Arkansas appellate court has examined the constitutionality of the recently enacted House Bill 1473 – better known as “Juli’s Law” – which allows officers to take DNA samples from suspects arrested for capital murder, murder in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, and sexual assault in the second degree. This Essay contends that Juli’s Law violates the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution. Part I highlights certain features of the statute and explores the rationale underlying its enactment. Part II discusses the only published decision upholding the practice of taking of DNA samples from certain …

No Arkansas appellate court has examined the constitutionality of the recently enacted House Bill 1473 – better known as “Juli’s Law” – which allows officers to take DNA samples from suspects arrested for capital murder, murder in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, and sexual assault in the second degree. This brief essay contends that Juli’s Law violates the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.

This Essay first argues that Arkansas has yet to conclusively articulate when a prosecutorial suppression of evidence in response to defense counsel's discovery request violates either the federal or state due process clauses, or the state rules of criminal procedure. More importantly, however, this Essay contends that the Arkansas Supreme Court should require prosecutors to turn over all statements in response to a specific discovery request even if those statements are only arguably “material” and “favorable to the accused.” Doing so would provide to defendants more protection pursuant to the Arkansas Constitution than they now enjoy under the Federal Constitution. …

How exactly should we teach the first-year criminal law course? How many credits should the course receive? What should go in the syllabus? How much of what is in the syllabus must be covered? In this essay, I humbly offer some thoughts – from the “newbie’s” standpoint – for your consideration in response to each of these questions. I conclude with some limited comments (reminders?) directed gently to my senior colleagues about teaching this generation of first-year law students.

No court has addressed the constitutional significance of sentencing juvenile murder accomplices who play a minimal role in the underlying killing to life in prison without parole. Indeed, no precedent makes clear whether it is cruel and unusual to impose that sentence on juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to either the felony-murder doctrine or an accomplice theory of liability, notwithstanding their minimal involvement in the victim’s death. To investigate this unanswered question, Part I of this Article explores the imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile non-killers convicted of murder via either the felony-murder doctrine or accomplice …

The Article first provides an overview of the history and prevailing motivations behind the promulgation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Then, using the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as an illustrative example, the Article contends that, notwithstanding the supposed “far-reaching” implications of both Blakely and Booker, the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory” Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. For a contrasting response to Booker, the Article thereafter examines the State of Maine's sentencing scheme and its response to the Supreme Court's Booker/Blakely decisions. By arguing that Maine's sentencing procedure …