Law Commons^™

Localism And Capital Punishment, Stephen F. Smith

Stephen F. Smith

Professor Adam Gershowitz presents an interesting proposal to transfer from localities to states the power to enforce the death penalty. In his view, state-level enforcement would result in a more rationally applied death penalty because states would be much more likely to make capital charging decisions based on desert, without the distorting influence of the severe resource constraints applicable to all but the wealthiest of localities. As well conceived as Professor Gershowitz’s proposal is, however, I remain skeptical that statewide enforcement of the death penalty would be preferable to continued local enforcement. First, Professor Gershowitz underestimates the benefits of localism …

Correcting A Fatal Lottery: A Proposal To Apply The Civil Discrimination Standards To The Death Penalty, Joseph Thomas

Joseph Thomas

Claims of discrimination are treated differently in the death penalty context. Discrimination in employment, housing, civil rights and jury venire all use a burden-shifting framework with the preponderance of the evidence as the standard. Discrimination that occurs in death penalty proceedings is the exception to the rule -- the framework offers less protections; there is only one phase of argumentation, with a heightened evidentiary standard of “exceptionally clear proof.” With disparate levels of protections against discrimination, the standard and framework for adjudicating claims of discrimination in the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Death is different as a punishment. But does discrimination …

Pre-Crime Restraints: The Explosion Of Targeted, Non-Custodial Prevention, Jennifer Daskal

Jennifer Daskal

This Article exposes the ways in which non-custodial, pre-crime restraints have proliferated over the past decade, focusing in particular on three notable examples – terrorism-related financial sanctions, the No Fly List, and the array of residential, employment, and related restrictions imposed on sex offenders. Because such restraints do not involve physical incapacitation, they are rarely deemed to infringe core liberty interests. Because they are preventive, not punitive, none of the criminal law procedural protections apply. They have exploded largely unchecked – subject to little more than bare rationality review and negligible procedural protections – and without any coherent theory as …

State Recoupment Of The Costs Of Defense Of Indigent Criminal Defendants , Mark M. Horgan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Superior Court - The Future Of The Grand Jury Indictment In California , Suzanne Haigh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Murguia V. Municipal Court - The Defense Of Discriminatory Prosecution, Jeffrey L. Garland

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reclaiming Equality To Reframe Indigent Defense Reform, Lauren Sudeall

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Equal access to resources is fundamental to meaningful legal representation, yet for decades, equality arguments have been ignored in litigating indigent defense reform. At a time when underfunded indigent defense systems across the country are failing to provide indigent defendants with adequate representation, the question of resources is even more critical. Traditionally, advocates seeking indigent defense reform have relied on Sixth Amendment arguments to protect the rights of indigents in this context; however, the Sixth Amendment approach suffers from a number of shortcomings that have made it a poor tool for systemic reform, including its exclusive focus on attorney performance …

Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla

Pepperdine Law Review

At the end of the 1982 term, in Jones v. United States, the United States Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia statute requiring the automatic and indefinite commitment of persons acquitted by reason of insanity. While under the D.C. statute the acquittee is periodically given the opportunity to gain release, the practice of involuntarily confining someone who has been acquitted raises serious due process and equal protection issues. This note examines the Court's analysis of these issues, focusing on a comparison of the elements necessary for an insanity defense with the showing required by the due process clause for …

Amicus Brief: State V. Glover (Maine Supreme Judicial Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

When law enforcement seeks to obtain a warrantless, pre-arrest DNA sample from an individual, that individual has the right to say “No.” If silence is to become a “badge of guilt,” then the right to silence—under the United States and Maine Constitutions—might become a thing of the past. Allowing jurors to infer consciousness of guilt from a pre-arrest DNA sample violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States and Maine Constitutions.

Debate: The Constitutionality Of Stop-And-Frisk In New York City, David Rudovsky, Lawrence Rosenthal

All Faculty Scholarship

Stop-and-frisk, a crime prevention tactic that allows a police officer to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, has been a contentious police practice since first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968. In Floyd v. City of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices violate both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Professors David Rudovsky and Lawrence Rosenthal debate the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk in New York City in light of …