Law Commons^™

Two Weeks At The Old Bailey: Jury Lessons From England, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

I spent two weeks observing jury trials and interviewing judges and barristers at the Old Bailey in London. There were several jury practices at the Old Bailey that would benefit American jurors, such as providing them with a "jury bundle," and we should introduce such practices in the United States. There are other practices, such as eliminating peremptory challenges, which are worth adopting over time because there would be some initial resistance. There are many practices that the two systems share in common, such as allowing jurors to take notes, to ask questions of witnesses, and to have a written …

Jury Selection And Jury Trial In Spain: Between Theory And Practice, Mar Jimeno-Bulnes

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Even though Spain has traditionally followed a civil law system, it is at present the only European country to have introduced the common law model of jury trials into its criminal proceedings through the Spanish Jury Law of 1995. Despite counterproposals for mixed courts composed of professional judges consulting with lay assessors (escabinado), the Spanish jury system is now fully functional and diligently applies its sometimes extremely complex content. The rules on jury selection mean that the selection process is tong and somewhat tedious in both theory and practice. However, theory and practice can differ in jury trials, as a …

Should Criminal Juries Give Reasons For Their Verdicts?: The Spanish Experience And The Implications Of The European Court Of Human Rights Decision In Taxquet V. Belgium, Stephen C. Thaman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article uses the European Court of Human Rights judgment of Taxquet v. Belgium, decided by the Grand Chamber in 2010, which held that in some cases the trial jury's failure to give reasons for its verdict of guilt could constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as a springboard for discussing whether or not criminal trial juries in Europe and the United States should be more accountable for their verdicts. The article explains the special jury verdicts traditionally used in Europe and the new Spanish requirement …

Jury Trials For Violent Hate Crimes In Russia: Is Russian Justice Only For Ethnic Russians?, Nikolai Kovalev

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The article examines issues of potential anti-victim jury bias in hate crime trials of skinheads in Russia. The study is based on the analysis of court transcripts and interviews with judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and victims' lawyers who participated in four high profile criminal cases. The cases selected for analysis resulted in scandalous acquittals, which raised many questions within the Russian society as to whether lay citizens can and should adjudicate hate crimes committed against members of ethnic and racial minority groups. The results of the study have revealed that the juries in these cases did not demonstrate any bias …

The French Jury At A Crossroads, Valerie P. Hans, Claire M. Germain

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Since its inception, the French jury system has generated controversy and passionate argument. The jury originated at the time of the French Revolution as a potent symbol of democratic self-governance. Alternately praised and attacked by successive governments over two centuries, the jury became entrenched in the French justice system and in the French mind. Yet, in recent years, the French jury's future has become the subject of intense political debate. This article provides an overview of historical changes to the French jury system, describing how it was transformed from an independent body of lay citizens into a mixed decisionmaking body …

Silent Lay Judges—Why Their Influence In The Community Falls Short Of Expectations, Stefan Machura

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Lay judges in Germany serving at mixed courts are ascribed an "education function," and they should communicate their experience. Data from surveys of German lay assessors are used to investigate this claim. The results are likely to apply to other countries which employ mixed courts. While many lay judges talk about their experience with their families—partly to ease their minds—they are more reluctant to tell colleagues and friends. For a start, many lay judges are no longer part of the work force because they are older in age, and therefore, have a limited number of contacts. Lay judges serving at …

Japan's Quasi-Jury And Grand Jury Systems As Deliberative Agents Of Social Change: De-Colonial Strategies And Deliberative Participatory Democracy, Hiroshi Fukurai

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Direct participatory democracy touches Japan anew in its current attempt to reform and reconstruct the criminal justice system through the introduction of two tiered systems of quasi-jury (saiban-in) and grand jury (kensatsu shinsakai) institutions. Not only did the twin systems of lay deliberation help create an effective and investigative mechanism against the corporate predation and governmental abuse of power, they also allowed the prosecution of military crimes committed by U.S. Armed Forces personnel and their families stationed in Japan. My paper then examines the historical evolution of these newly established lay justice institutions, exploring the increasing adoption of lay forms …

Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously, Arnold H. Lowey

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In recent years, we have discovered a spate of factually innocent people who have been convicted. In this article, Professor Loewy contends that the failure of juries to take reasonable doubt seriously contributes to this phenomenon. Professor Loewy via an illustrative fictitious case explains that juries might be reluctant to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt because of their concern about putting dangerous criminals back on the street. He then asks whether we really want juries to take reasonable doubt seriously. Concluding that we do, he examines how we can do that. Loewy concludes that the best …

Deadly Dilemmas Ii: Bail And Crime, Larry Laudan, Ronald J. Allen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is another in a series of papers examining the interaction between the implications of the deadly dilemma of governing that virtually all governmental action involves unavoidable conflict between equally laudatory goals and the conventional way of thinking about social errors. Typically the pursuit of any particular goal has as its consequence precisely the kind of harm that is desired to be avoided. For example, serious felons are sent to prison in part to protect innocent parties from their future predations, but those same felons often prey upon fellow prisoners, including murder. Moreover, felonies committed in prison only begin the …

The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …

Innocence, Evidence, And The Courts, Morgan Cloud

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court's Failed Innocence Project, Janet C. Hoeffel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In this article, Professor Hoeffel discusses the Roberts Court's obvious struggle with its actual innocence jurisprudence. It is a struggle that was only theoretical in the days before DNA exonerations. While the Court had two opportunities to clarify the role of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, it has declined to do so. In House v. Bell, the Court ratcheted up the standard of proof for freestanding constitutional claims of innocence to a level no petitioner could understand, much less meet. Then, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, the Court held that …

White Collar Innocence: Irrelevant In The High Stakes Risk Game, Ellen S. Podgor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

When one thinks of "wrongful convictions and reliability in the criminal justice process" one often thinks of street crime convictions of defendants later proven innocent through DNA or other scientific evidence. But this essay presents a new dimension to this issue—the white collar crime context. Three stories are considered here: Arthur Andersen LLP, Jamie Ois, and Jeffrey Skilling—all of whom proceeded to trial after criminal charges were brought against them. These three are contrasted with KPMG, Gene Foster, and Andrew Fastow, all of whom secured plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreements with reduced sentences and finite results. The concern here …

The Role Of Innocence Commissions: Error Discovery, Systemic Reform Or Both?, Kent Roach

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article examines the role of innocence commissions as emerging criminal justice institutions. It draws a distinction between commissions devoted to the correction of errors in individual cases and commissions which make systemic reform recommendations in an effort to prevent wrongful convictions in future cases. The British and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission are examined as examples of the former type of commission while Canadian public inquiries and commissions in Illinois, California and Virginia are examined as examples of the latter type of commission. Innocence commissions have had difficulties combining error correction and …

Second Thoughts On Damages For Wrongful Convictions, Lawrence Rosenthal

Chicago-Kent Law Review

After the DNA-inspired wave of exonerations of recent years, there has been widespread support for expanding the damages remedies available to those who have been wrongfully accused or convicted. In this article, Professor Rosenthal argues that the case for providing such compensation is deeply problematic, whether advanced in terms of no-fault or fault-based liability. Although a regime of strict liability is sometimes thought justifiable as a means of creating an economic incentive to scale back such liability-producing conduct to optimal levels, this rationale has little application to the criminal justice system. Instead, a regime of strict liability would operate as …

Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Intentional wrongful convictions in cases involving child offenders may occur when judges have insufficient evidence proving any crime by the child but feel a strong need for the courts to intervene in the child's life and behavior. They believe that the negative factors attached to such a status are worth suffering if the child gains entry into a desired state program. This is wrongfully convicting the child "for the child's own good." Juvenile court judges too often receive knowledge of the child's background and previous record prior to any trial or hearing in order to devise the best result for …

Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …

The Irrelevancy Of The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Thomas K. Clancy

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Since John Roberts Jr. became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there has been a measurable decline in the number of cases addressing Fourth Amendment questions. This article examines the reasons for that decline and predicts the substantial elimination of Fourth Amendment litigation in the Roberts Court. The prediction is based on several premises, including the lack of interest of the Justices on the Court concerning search and seizures principles and two significant recent cases, Pearson v. Callahan and United States v. Herring, which presage a significant decline in the number of lower court cases addressing the merits of …

Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.

This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …

Fourth Amendment Federalism And The Silencing Of The American Poor, Andrew E. Taslitz

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In Virginia v. Moore, police officers searched Moore incident to an arrest for a minor traffic infraction for which Virginia statutory law in fact prohibited arrest. The officers found cocaine on Moore's person, arresting him for that crime too. The United States Supreme Court ultimately found that the arrest for the traffic infraction and the subsequent search were valid under the federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Central to the Court's reasoning was its insistence that the state statute was irrelevant. Any contrary conclusion, explained the Court, would wrongly make the Fourth Amendment's meaning vary from place to place. Professor Taslitz …

Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …

Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The institutionalist branch of "Law and Courts" studies how judges incorporate institutional constraints into their decision-making processes. Congressional constraints on judicial review, as the literature currently stands, fall into one of two general classes: overrides and Court-curbing measures. This taxonomy, however, is incomplete. Neither overrides nor curbing measures are needed to explain the not uncommon situation where a policy-oriented Justice deviates from a preferred vote based on the belief that such a vote will prompt Congress to alter an "insulated base rule" in a way that disrupts the Justice's larger policy agenda. An "insulated base rule" is a Congressional policy …

Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …

Admissibility Of Fingerprint Evidence And Constitutional Objections To Fingerprinting Raised In Criminal And Civil Cases, Andre A. Moenssens

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.