Law Commons^™

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has begun to regulate non-capital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Though both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate lines of doctrine respond to structural imbalances in non-capital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on …

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

Michigan Law Review

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has regulated noncapital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Although both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate doctrines respond to structural imbalances in noncapital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on individualized input and that …

Effective Assistance Of Counsel: In Quest Of A Uniform Standard Of Review, Theresa L. Springmann, John Eric Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

No abstract provided.

A Criminal Quartet: The Supreme Court's Resolution Of Four Critical Issues In The Criminal Justice System, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …

The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Cumulative Approach To Ineffective Assistance: New York’S Requirement That Counsel’S Cumulative Efforts Amount To Meaningful Representation - People V. Bodden, Jan Lucas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Are We Searching For? Conditions, Elements, And Requirements For A Valid “Searching Inquiry” In The State Of New York - People V. Crampe, Dean M. Villani

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flying Solo Without A License: The Right Of Pro Se Defendants To Crash And Burn - People V. Smith, Tiffany Frigenti

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Confrontation Clause: Addressing The Unanswered Question Of Whether Autopsy Reports Are Testimonial Evidence - People V. Hall, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Someone Call 911, Crawford Is Dying - People V. Duhs, Caroline Knoepffler

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Henry: The Further Expansion Of The Criminal Defendant's Right To Counsel During Interrogations, Kevin T. Kerr

Pepperdine Law Review

Despite the Burger Court's history of judicial conservatism, the Supreme Court in United States v. Henry exceeds the liberality of the Warren Court in the area of criminal defendant rights. The decision in Henry clearly provides further limitations upon the government's ability to conduct interrogations. The author examines the Court's factual and legal analysis of the case, emphasizes how the test established in Henry surpasses the rule promulgated in Massiah, and discusses the decision's impact as well as the curious turnabout of Chief Justice Burger.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2007 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Padilla Postconviction Claims In Florida: Squaring Chaidez, Hernandez And Castaño, Rebecca Sharpless, Andrew Stanton

Rebecca Sharpless

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to counsel their noncitizen clients about the immigration consequences of a plea. Padilla had pled guilty in state court to a drug crime and, after his conviction became final, filed a state postconviction motion alleging that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise him that his plea would trigger deportation. In holding that Padilla was entitled to competent advice regarding the consequences of his plea, the Court recognized what professional norms have required for at least the last two decades. …

Child Witnesses In Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, And Proposals For Reform, Dominic J. Fote

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Understanding Immigration: Satisfying Padilla's New Definition Of Competence In Legal Representation, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Panel Discussion on Padilla v. Kentucky.

Fear Of Adversariness: Using Gideon To Restrict Defendants' Invocation Of Adversary Procedures, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Fifty years ago Gideon promised that an attorney would vindicate the constitutional rights of any accused too poor to afford an attorney. But Gideon also promised more. Writ small, Gideon promised to protect individual defendants; writ large, Gideon promised to protect our system of constitutional criminal procedure. Much has been written about Gideon’s broken promise to our poor; this Essay is about Gideon’s broken promise to our system.

With its army of zealous public defenders, Gideon should have produced litigation that vigorously protected the core structures of our adversary trial system. Instead, courts have converted Gideon representation into a Gideon …

The Right To Plea Bargain With Competent Counsel After Cooper And Frye: Is The Supreme Court Making The Ordinary Criminal Process Too Long, Too Expensive, And Unpredictable In Pursuit Of Perfect Justice, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of criminal defendants who were deprived of a favorable plea offer because of their lawyers’ professional lapses. In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that “[t]he ordinary criminal process has become too long, too expensive, and unpredictable,” because of the Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence; that plea bargaining is “the alternative in which...defendants have sought relief,” and that the two new decisions on the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in plea bargaining would add to the burden on the criminal process. This essay examines several aspects of …

Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer

Sarah Mourer

The legislature has forgotten the lessons taught by Furman v. Georgia and today, the “untrammeled discretion” once held by juries is now held by the judiciary. Many death penalty sentencing procedures are unconstitutional, in violation of both the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, because the judge alone is authorized to sentence the defendant to life or death despite being uninformed of the jury’s factual findings. Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment as articulated in Ring v. Arizona, the factual findings upon which a death sentence rests must be found by the jury, and only the jury. Nevertheless, many jurisdictions permit the judge …