Law Commons^™

Incorporation By Any Other Name? Comparing Congress' Federalization Of Tribal Court Criminal Procedure With The Supreme Court's Regulation Of State Courts, Jordan Gross

Faculty Law Review Articles

This Article examines the different experience of states and tribes with uniform national standards of criminal procedure imposed by the federal government. Part I describes the federal government’s displacement of indigenous justice in service of colonialist political goals, a policy that has contributed to the public safety crisis in Indian country today. Part II explains the constitutional criminal procedure jurisprudence the Court developed for states on which Congress has modeled ICRA’s criminal procedure provisions. In TLOA and VAWA 2013, Congress recognized that restoring tribal autonomy over wrongdoing in Indian country must be part of the federal policy response to the …

Devil Take The Hindmost: Reform Considerations For States With A Constitutional Right To Bail, Jordan Gross

Faculty Law Review Articles

This Article submits that any meaningful discussion of bail reform at the state level must be jurisdiction-specific, and it must account for the practical, historical, and philosophical aspects of the state constitutional right to bailability. Part II of this Article is an overview of the origins and history of English and American bail law. Part III describes the role and regulation of commercial bail bonding in the United States. Part IV traces the history and current state of bail reform in the United States. Part V considers legal and practical barriers to reform unique to right-to-bail states, particularly jurisdictions without …

An Ounce Of Pretrial Prevention Is Worth More Than A Pound Of Post-Conviction Cure: Untethering Federal Pretrial Criminal Procedure From Due Process Standards Of Review, Jordan Gross

Faculty Law Review Articles

Some Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure cover purely technical matters. Some Rules, however, cover procedures with constitutional dimensions. When a federal court is interpreting a Rule that has a companion constitutional doctrine, an issue arises as to whether the Rule’s requirements are co-extensive with the constitutional protections defined by federal case law, or whether the Rule provides federal defendants a higher level of pretrial procedural protection than a post-conviction due process standard. Federal courts have been inconsistent in identifying and resolving this question of constitutional equivalency. In interpreting some pretrial Criminal Rules, federal courts make a clear distinction between the …

A Response To The Sounds Of Silence, Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

In his article, The Sound of Silence: Holding Batterers Accountable for Silencing Their Victims, Tom Lininger attempts to "facilitate the effective prosecution of domestic violence cases, particularly domestic homicide, while complying with the new requirements announced [for forfeiture by wrongdoing] by the Supreme Court in Giles [v. California]."' In doing so, Lininger tackles a wide array of topics, including analyzing the "theoretical underpinnings" of forfeiture by wrongdoing; explicating the Giles decision, criticizing Justice Scalia's originalist approach for its "selective historical research . . . conflation of evidentiary and constitutional forfeiture theories, and . . . vacillation between objective and subjective …

An Agument For Original Intent: Restoring Rule 801 (D) (1) (A) To Protect Domestic Violence Victims In A Post-Crawford World., Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

Prosecution of domestic violence is extremely difficult, largely due to the fact that defendants are successfully pressuring victims to refuse to testify or to recant their testimony at trial. With its decision in Crawford, the Supreme Court eliminated the ability of prosecutors to use hearsay exceptions to place the domestic violence victim's statements before the jury for their substantive consideration. The Supreme Court also closed this avenue to combat defendants' efforts to avoid liability through coercive pressure on victims. Therefore, the Court's change in the Confrontation Clause law limits the prosecution's arsenal for combating witness intimidation and, at the same …

The Right To A Jury Decision On Sentencing Facts After Booker: What The Seventh Amendment Can Teach The Sixth, Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

(the) Supreme Court's Sixth and Seventh Amendment jurisprudence has not created a more expansive jury right for criminal defendants. Instead, it has produced a system in which a civil litigant may demand a jury decision on questions that, if presented in a criminal case, would fall within the exclusive province of the judge. This Article explores this anomaly and argues that the Supreme Court in Booker missed a critical opportunity to redress the constriction of the criminal defendant's right to have a jury decide those facts that lead to the deprivation of the defendant's liberty.

My argument (on these points) …

Crawford V. Washington: The End Of Victimless Prosecution?, Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

Domestic violence offenses are difficult to prosecute because the batterer's actions often make the victim unavailable to testify. Since the mid- 1990s, prosecutors have pursued "victimless" prosecutions' to combat the problem.2 Victimless prosecutions seek to introduce reliable evidence without the victim's in-court testimony, often to maintain the victim's safety or to avoid re-victimizing the victim.3 The victimless prosecution is based largely on the admission of hearsay statements that a victim makes to 911 operators, police officers, doctors, nurses, paramedics, and social workers.4 Victimless prosecution has been a highly successful tool in society's efforts to eradicate domestic violence and it is …

The Problem Of The Expert Juror., Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

In this article, I argue that the new focus on the risks of spurious "expertise" compels attention to the problem of juror expertise. 24 Specialized knowledge poses the same risks to the truth-seeking objectives of trial whether it enters the decision-making process through expert testimony or through the back door of juror background knowledge. In fact, the risks to accuracy may be less when expertise is offered by a witness than when it is introduced by a juror, because the witness will be subject to cross-examination and rebuttal. Flawed expertise brought to the case by a juror is not subject …