Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Capital Punishment (2)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Due Process of Law (1)
-
- Equal Protection (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238 (1972)) (1)
- Habeas Corpus (1)
- Innocence (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury Selection (1)
- Lockett v. Ohio (438 U.S. 586 (1978)) (1)
- Peremptory Challenges (1)
- Prison Sentences (1)
- Prisons (1)
- Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial (1)
- Sentencing Guidelines (1)
- Trials (1)
- United States Constitution 6th Amendment (1)
- W&M Faculty (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sentencing Roulette: How Virginia’S Criminal Sentencing System Is Imposing An Unconstitutional Trial Penalty That Suppresses The Rights Of Criminal Defendants To A Jury Trial, Caleb R. Stone
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Procedurally Criminal: How Peremptory Challenges Create Unfair And Unrepresentative Single-Gender Juries, Chelsea V. King
Procedurally Criminal: How Peremptory Challenges Create Unfair And Unrepresentative Single-Gender Juries, Chelsea V. King
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Is Guilt Dispositive? Federal Habeas After Martinez, Justin F. Marceau
Is Guilt Dispositive? Federal Habeas After Martinez, Justin F. Marceau
William & Mary Law Review
Federal habeas review of criminal convictions is not supposed to be a second opportunity to adjudge guilt. Oliver Wendell Holmes, among others, has said that the sole question on federal habeas is whether the prisoner’s constitutional rights were violated. By the early 1970s, however, scholars criticized this rights-based view of habeas and sounded the alarm that postconviction review had become too far removed from questions of innocence. Most famously, in 1970 Judge Friendly criticized the breadth of habeas corpus by posing a single question: Is innocence irrelevant? In his view habeas review that focused exclusively on questions of rights in …
Windsor Beyond Marriage: Due Process, Equality & Undocumented Immigration, Anthony O'Rourke
Windsor Beyond Marriage: Due Process, Equality & Undocumented Immigration, Anthony O'Rourke
William & Mary Law Review
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, invalidating part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, presents a significant interpretive challenge. Early commentators have criticized the majority opinion’s lack of analytical rigor, and expressed doubt that Windsor can serve as a meaningful precedent with respect to constitutional questions outside the area of same-sex marriage. This Article offers a more rehabilitative reading of Windsor and shows how the decision can be used to analyze a significant constitutional question concerning the use of state criminal procedure to regulate immigration.
From Windsor’s holding, the Article distills two concrete doctrinal propositions …
Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Sentencing Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer
Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Sentencing Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Death By Irrelevance: The Unconstitutionality Of Virginia’S Continued Exclusion Of Prison Conditions Evidence To Assess The Future Dangerousness Of Capital Defendants, Andrew Lindsey
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Note argues that Virginia statutory and case law requiring the exclusion of prison conditions evidence in capital trials where the jury must determine defendants’ future dangerousness is unconstitutional. In Part I, I present certain portions of a hypothetical capital trial in Virginia to introduce readers to the concepts of prison conditions evidence and future dangerousness, and why they are important to capital defendants. In Part II, I trace the development of the constitutional right that is violated by the exclusion of this evidence, as well as how Virginia has come to justify its exclusionary stance based on a flawed …