Law Commons^™

Finality And Rehabilitation, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

New science and evolving societal views have led commentators to question the doctrine of finality. This parallels commentators’ embrace of rehabilitation during the middle of the last century. Today, casting off the strictures of finality and embracing rehabilitation are considered complementary positions, but finality has historically been understood as promoting rehabilitation. This shift stems from our changing understandings of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation focuses on offender change — on whether an offender is a final product or, rather, whether he is capable of transformation. Offender change, though, could be either change in character or change in behavior, or a combination of these …

Strange Bedfellows: How Expanding The Public Safety Exception To Miranda Benefits Counterterrorism Suspects, Geoffrey S. Corn, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When should a suspected terrorist receive Miranda warnings, and should confessions obtained without obtaining a waiver of the Miranda right to silence and assistance of counsel be admissible at trial? The answer to this question turns on the scope of what is known as the Public Safety Exception (PSE) to the Miranda warning and waiver requirement. Established by the Supreme Court in 1984 in New York v. Quarles, the exception allows the use of confessions obtained from suspects questioned after being placed in custody (the situation that triggers the Miranda warning and waiver requirement) when the questions respond to an …

Effective Remedies For Ineffective Assistance, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In two recent cases, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Supreme Court affirmed that criminal defendants have a right to competent counsel during plea bargaining. The Court also established that the injury caused by ineffective assistance is not mooted by the subsequent conviction of the defendant at trial. The cases were broadly celebrated for clarifying that the Sixth Amendment applies fully to plea bargaining — the standard process by which our justice system resolves criminal cases today.

The most significant and surprising part of Lafler, however, was the Court’s holding concerning remedies. The Court held that trial courts …

Introductory Note To Prosecutor V. Perišić, International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia (Icty), Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This note introduces a controversial ICTY decision which attempted to clarify the requisite elements required to convict the former head of the Army of Yugoslavia with aiding and abetting war crimes committed by other organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. The Perišić judgment serves as a reminder of the still unsettled nature of international criminal law on even threshold issues like the elements for a mode of liability. Given that the Special Court for Sierra Leone has already affirmatively rejected the Perišić fomulation the case may, sadly, signal the fragmentation of international criminal law.

Law As Shield, Law As Sword: The Icc's Lubanga Decision, Child Soldiers And The Perverse Mutualism Of Direct Participation In Hostilities, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The International Criminal Court’s Lubanga decision has been hailed as a landmark ruling heralding an end to impunity for those who recruit and employ children in armed conflict and a pivotal victory for the protection of children. Overlooked amidst this self-congratulation is that the ICC incorrectly applied the law governing civilian participation in hostilities which perversely places child soldiers at greater risk of being attacked. The Court created a false distinction between active and direct participation in hostilities. Expanding the kinds and types of behaviors that constitute children actively participating in hostilities expanded Lubanga's liability. But under the law of …

Confrontation Control, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004), face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser is the constitutionally normative mode of presentation for testimonial evidence. Yet, eight years into the Crawford revolution, courts routinely hold that counsel can waive a defendant's confrontation rights without even discussing the matter with the defendant. Why? Because counsel, not client, has the authority to decide whether to confront and cross-examine government witnesses.

This Essay, written as part of the Texas Tech Sixth Amendment Symposium, explores this peculiar and perplexing rule. If confrontation is essential to a constitutionally valid criminal trial, how can defense …

Prosecutors And Bargaining In Weak Cases: A Comparative View, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

One of the most controversial uses of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining concerns cases involving weak evidence of guilt. When a prosecutor bargains about the charges or even the facts in a case with weak evidence, at least three problems may arise. First, if the charge bargain is generous, it may coerce an innocent defendant to plead guilty. Second, such a bargain may let a guilty defendant off too easily, thus disserving the public and victim’s interests. Third, if the parties bargain about the facts, the result may distort the truth of the case.

In this book chapter, I examine …

Remedying Wrongful Execution, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The first legal determination of wrongful execution in the United States may very well be in the making in Texas. One of the state’s district courts is in the midst of investigating whether Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004, was actually innocent. The court’s investigation has been interrupted by objections from Texas prosecutors, but if the court proceeds, this may very well become a bona fide case of wrongful execution. Texas, just like other jurisdictions, is ill equipped to provide any relief for such an egregious wrong, however. This Article identifies the difficulties that the heirs, families, and …

Policing International Prosecutors, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A recurring question in international criminal procedure is how to ensure that prosecutors are held accountable for their errors and misconduct. When International Criminal Court (ICC) judges encountered the first serious error by the prosecution in Prosecutor v. Lubanga, they opted for an absolutist approach to remedies: the judges stayed the proceedings and ordered the release of the defendant. Although termination of the case was avoided through the intervention of the Appeals Chamber, the standoff between the judges and the prosecution highlighted the dilemmas that the ICC faces in these circumstances. To protect the integrity of its proceedings, the court …

The Case Of Colonel Abel, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In June 2010, journalists for the Associated Press reported the arrest of ten Russian spies, all suspected of being “deep-cover” illegal agents in the United States. Seeking to convey the magnitude of this event, the journalists wrote in the first paragraphs of their article that this “blockbuster series of arrests” might even be as significant as the FBI’s “famous capture of Soviet Col. Rudolf Abel in 1957 in New York.” Colonel Abel’s story of American justice at a time of acute anxiety about the nation’s security is one that continues to resonate today. The honor, and error, that is contained …

No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, Or, The Voir Dire In Dallas County, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Voir dire is Law French for “to speak the truth.” In the United States and a few other common-law countries that still use juries, the term describes the process of selecting jurors who will hear the evidence presented at trial, render a verdict, and sometimes determine punishment. The translation suggests a search for jurors who can render a fair and impartial verdict. Attorneys try to discover and remove jurors who seem unable or unlikely to speak the truth, such as those who nurture irrational prejudices or harbor private grievances.

In most federal courts, the judge is the primary conduit for …

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

During his two terms as President of Russia, did Vladimir Putin further the net development of a legal culture in Russia? This article is based on public lectures given in late 2007 and early 2008 at Oxford University, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), and the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

This article examines three "windows" into the development of Russia's legal culture under Vladimir Putin: (1) the Second Chechen War; (2) Russian membership in the Council of Europe; and, (3) renewed efforts under Putin at codification of law, as evidenced by the creation …

Russia's Criminal Procedure Code Five Years Out, William Burnham, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After a long delay in drafting, a new Criminal Procedure Code for Russia was passed in 2001 and went into effect in 2002. The new Code contains some striking innovations, most notably changes at the trial stage, which implement the constitutional requirements of adversarial principles. However, it also retains several throwbacks to the past, particularly its preservation of the formal pretrial investigation, during which evidence is parsed and collected in a dossier, which then dominates the trial of the case. The result is that old and new constantly contend with each other. Implementation of the new adversarial procedures is also …

Punishing Family Status, Jennifer M. Collins, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article focuses upon two basic but under-explored questions: when does, and when should, the state use the criminal justice apparatus to burden individuals on account of their familial status? We address the first question in Part I by revealing a variety of laws permeating the criminal justice system that together form a string of family ties burdens, laws that impose punishment upon individuals on account of their familial status. The seven burdens we train our attention upon are omissions liability for failure to rescue, parental responsibility laws, incest, bigamy, adultery, nonpayment of child support, and nonpayment of parental support. …

Criminal Justice And The Challenge Of Family Ties, Dan Markel, Jennifer M. Collins, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article asks two basic questions: When does, and when should, the state use the criminal justice apparatus to accommodate family ties, responsibilities, and interests? We address these questions by first revealing a variety of laws that together form a string of family ties subsidies and benefits pervading the criminal justice system. Notwithstanding our recognition of the important role family plays in securing the conditions for human flourishing, we then explain the basis for erecting a Spartan presumption against these family ties subsidies and benefits within the criminal justice system. We delineate the scope and rationale for the presumption and …

The Legal Limits Of Universal Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Despite all the attention it receives from both its supporters and critics, universal jurisdiction remains one of the more confused doctrines of international law. Indeed, while commentary has focused largely and unevenly on policy and normative arguments either favoring or undercutting the desirability of its exercise, a straightforward legal analysis breaking down critical aspects of this extraordinary form of jurisdiction remains conspicuously missing. Yet universal jurisdiction's increased practice by states calls out for such a clear descriptive understanding. This Essay engages this under-treated area. It offers to explicate a basic, but overlooked, feature of the law of universal jurisdiction: If …

Judicial Participation In Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Current rules in most U.S. jurisdictions prohibit judges from becoming involved in plea negotiations and limit the judges' role to reviewing a plea bargain once it is presented by the parties. The enclosed article surveys three systems that provide for more significant judicial involvement - Germany, Florida, and Connecticut - and suggests that a judge's early input into plea negotiations can render the final disposition more accurate and procedurally just. Based on interviews with practitioners and a review of the case law, the article outlines a model for greater judicial involvement in plea negotiations.

The New Universal Jurisdiction: In Absentia Signaling Over Clearly Defined Crimes, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Manipulating International Criminal Procedure: The Decision Of The Icty Office Of The Independent Prosecutor Not To Investigate Nato Bombing In The Former Yugoslavia, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Jury Sentencing As Democratic Practice, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After a century of reform and experimentation, sentencing remains a highly contested area of the criminal justice system. Scholars as well as the public at large disagree about the proper purposes and functions of punishment, and dissatisfaction with the sentencing status quo is high. Most recent critiques of the sentencing process have focused on the amount of discretion tolerated by the system. This Article goes further in arguing that the source of sentencing discretion is also very important to the legitimacy and integrity of the sentencing process. In the absence of wide consensus on sentencing goals, it is best to …

Beyond The Bright Line: A Contemporary Right-To-Counsel Doctrine, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The current right-to-counsel doctrine was developed in the 1970's. It created a bright-line rule still in effect today. The right to counsel attaches only at "critical stages" of a criminal prosecution. Under this critical stage doctrine, the right to counsel only attaches after the initiation of formal adversary proceedings and only applies to confrontations between the accused and the prosecution or law enforcement. In the years following the Supreme Court's development of the critical stage doctrine, national trends of mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines revolutionized criminal procedure and dramatically altered the roles of the system's key players.

Now, defense counsel's …

And The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Sharing Grand Jury Information With The Intelligence Community Under The Usa Patriot Act, Jennifer M. Collins

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Law Office Search: An Emerging Problem And Some Suggested Solutions, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A law office search threatens the attorney-client relationship by jeopardizing values protected by the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. After reviewing recent developments that underlie the sudden emergence of the law office search, Professor Bloom examines the nature of this threat and suggests that the values of the attorney-client relationship can be reconciled with the needs of law enforcement by requiring the police to use a subpoena rather than a search warrant when seeking documentary evidence from an attorney. Professor Bloom considers whether this "subpoena preference rule" either is required by the fourth amendment or can be implemented by nonconstitutional …

Voir Dire Of Jurors: Constitutional Limits To The Right Of Inquiry Into Prejudice, Jeffrey M. Gaba

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Although the voir dire of jurors is one of the most significant mechanisms by which an impartial jury is secured, as a practical matter the right to examine prospective jurors is not unlimited. Vested with great discretion, a trial judge may at some point constitutionally preclude inquiry into possible prejudice, but determining that point has not proved to be easy. In 1976, the Supreme Court in Ristaino v. Ross directly considered the constitutional limits to voir dire and provided a test which could serve as a guide to trial court administration of the process. The Court suggested that questioning about …