Law Commons^™

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

Luke Milligan

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 …

Proportionality, Discretion, And The Roles Of Judges And Prosecutors At Sentencing, Palma Paciocco

Palma Paciocco

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that prosecutors are not constitutionally obligated to consider the principle of proportionality when exercising their discretion in a manner that narrows the range of available sentences: since only judges are responsible for sentencing, they alone are constitutionally required to ensure proportionality. When mandatory minimum sentences apply, however, judges have limited sentencing discretion and may be unable to achieve proportionality. If the Court takes the principle of proportionality seriously, and if it insists that only judges are constitutionally bound to enforce that principle, it must therefore create new tools whereby judges can avoid imposing …

The Not So Great Writ: Constitution Lite For State Prisoners, Ursula Bentele

Ursula Bentele

Examination of the universe of cases in which the Supreme Court has recently reversed grants of federal habeas relief by circuit courts by issuing summary, per curiam opinions reveals some disturbing patterns. Substantively, the opinions continue the Court’s narrow interpretation of what law has been so clearly established that state courts must abide by its constitutional principles. Moreover, any rejection of a constitutional claim must be upheld unless there is no possibility that fairminded jurists could disagree with that determination. In terms of process, the summary reversals are issued in response to petitions for review by wardens, when the petitioners …

“Far From The Turbulent Space”: Considering The Adequacy Of Counsel In The Representation Of Individuals Accused Of Being Sexually Violent Predators, Michael L. Perlin, Heather Ellis Cucolo

Michael L Perlin

Abstract:

For the past thirty years, the US Supreme Court's standard of Strickland v. Washington has governed the question of adequacy of counsel in criminal trials. There, in a Sixth Amendment analysis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that simply having a lawyer assigned to a defendant was not constitutionally adequate, but that that lawyer must provide "effective assistance of counsel," effectiveness being defined, pallidly, as requiring simply that counsel's efforts be “reasonable” under the circumstances. The benchmark for judging an ineffectiveness claim is simply “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper function of the adversarial process that the trial court cannot …

Reconciling The Booker Conflict: A Substantive Sixth Amendment In A Real Offense Sentencing System, Bertrall L. Ross

Bertrall L Ross

No abstract provided.