Law Commons^™

Psychosis, Heat Of Passion, And Diminished Responsibility, E. Lea Johnston, Vincent T. Leahy

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article calls for the creation of a generic partial excuse for diminished rationality from mental disability. Currently, most jurisdictions recognize only one partial excuse: the common law heat-of-passion defense. Empirical research demonstrates that populations with delusions experience similar impairments to decision-making capacities as people confronted with sudden, objectively adequate provocation. Yet, current law affords significant mitigation only to the latter group, which only applies in murder cases. Adoption of the Model Penal Code’s “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” (EMED) defense could extend mitigation to other forms of diminished responsibility. However, examination of jurisdictions’ adoption and utilization of the EMED …

Delusions, Moral Incapacity, And The Case For Moral Wrongfulness, E. Lea Johnston

UF Law Faculty Publications

Responsibility is a legal—not medical—construct. However, science can be useful in exposing faulty assumptions underlying current doctrine or practice, illuminating changes in practice or evidentiary standards to better effectuate the law’s animating purpose, and even suggesting updates to legal standards to account for modern understandings of functionalities of concern. This Article uses the science of delusions to assess the law regarding, and practice of establishing, criminal irresponsibility for defendants with psychosis. Over the last two decades, researchers from the cognitive sciences have compiled strong evidence that a host of cognitive and emotional impairments contribute to the origin and maintenance of …

The Status And Legitimacy Of M’Naghten’S Insane Delusion Rule, E. Lea Johnston, Vincent T. Leahy

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article investigates jurisdictions’ compliance with M’Naghten’s directive for how to treat delusions in insanity cases and assesses the validity and reasonableness of courts’ application of the law. Most U.S. jurisdictions employ an insanity test roughly modeled on the rule articulated in the 1843 M’Naghten’s Case. This test focuses on a defendant’s inability to know, because of a mental disease, the nature of her act or its wrongfulness. But the M’Naghten judges also issued a second rule — particular to delusions — that has received much less attention. This rule holds that, when the defendant labors under a “partial delusion …

Addressing Due Process Concerns: Evaluating Proposals For Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform, Kelly Milliron

Florida Law Review

Civil asset forfeiture compromises criminal due process protections for the sake of allowing the government to take property from citizens and pocket the profits. Within the last decade, several news outlets have reported instances where law enforcement agencies took property from citizens–without arresting or convicting them–and spent the proceeds from seized cash, homes, or vehicles on their own agencies. Because the government is often only required to prove that the property was associated with criminal activity by a preponderance of the evidence, many citizens are left without the resources or ability to defend their property, even when they are innocent. …

A Threat Assessment Framework For Lone-Actor Terrorists, Melissa Hamilton

Florida Law Review

Lone-actor terrorist attacks are on the rise in the Western world in terms of numbers and severity. Public officials are eager for an evidence-based tool to assess the risk that individuals pose for terroristic involvement. Yet actuarial models of risk validated for ordinary criminal violence are unsuitable to terrorism. Lone-actor terrorists vary dramatically in their socio-psychological profiles and the base rate of terrorism is too low for actuarial modeling to achieve statistical significance. This Article proposes a new conceptual model for the terroristic threat assessment of individuals. Unlike risk assessment that is founded upon numerical probabilities, this threat assessment considers …

The Right To Counsel But Not The Presence Of Counsel: A Survey Of State Criminal Procedures For Pre-Trial Release, John P. Gross

Florida Law Review

There is a widely-held belief that the state provides counsel to indigent criminal defendants at their initial appearance in state court. However, the majority of states do not provide counsel to indigent defendants at their initial appearance when a judicial officer determines conditions of pretrial release. State criminal procedure codes fail to provide the same procedural protections that defendants have in federal court. Indeed, states systems are characterized by predictive determinations regarding guilt, an overemphasis on the potential dangerousness of defendants, a lack of adequate pretrial services, and continued reliance on financial securities.

The U.S. Supreme Court has done little …

Mental Health Courts And Sentencing Disparities, E. Lea Johnston, Conor P. Flynn

UF Law Faculty Publications

Despite the proliferation of mental health courts across the United States, virtually no attention has been paid to the criminal justice effects these courts carry for participants. This article provides the first empirical analysis of differential sentencing practices in mental health and traditional criminal courts. Using a case study approach, the article compares how Pennsylvania’s Erie County Mental Health Court and county criminal courts sentenced individuals who committed the same offenses and held the same average criminal history score. Information on the mental health court—including eligibility criteria, plea bargaining and sentencing procedure, sentencing policies, program length, graduation rates, likelihood of …

The Dramas Of Criminal Law: Thurman Arnold’S Post-Realist Critique Of Law Enforcement, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

The high legal realist period of the 1930s was not known for its criminal law scholarship, while until fairly recently, criminal law theory was not as well-developed as those fields that had faced a realist and post-realist critique. This Essay attempts to address these issues by describing in detail the criminal law scholarship of Thurman Arnold, a prominent realist whose best known academic writings were his mid-1930s monographs on the New Deal and resistance to it. Arnold’s criminal law scholarship serves as a forgotten link between the classical doctrinal work that dominated midcentury legal academic work on criminal law and …

Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial in criminal cases. While the Court articulated a number of interests relevant to representational competence, it left to states the difficult task of formulating an actual competence standard. This Article offers the first examination and assessment of the constitutionality of state standards post-Edwards. It reveals that seven states have endorsed a representational competence standard with a communication component. Additionally, twenty states have embraced vague, capacious standards that could consider communication skills. States have applied these standards to …

Thirty-Two Years On The Federal Bench: Some Things I Have Learned, Judge Emmett Ripley Cox

Florida Law Review

In this Essay, prepared as the basis for the 2014 Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, Judge Cox discusses a few things he learned from his experience as a trial judge and later as an appellate judge. Specifically, he addresses how the proliferation of federal law—both criminal and civil—imposes a real burden on the federal courts. This proliferation has negatively affected pleading and pretrial procedures in the federal court system. Additionally, he discusses what lawyers can do about these pleading and pretrial problems.

Over the course of his career Judge Cox have …

Death, Desuetude, And Original Meaning, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

One of the most common objections to originalism is that it cannot cope with cultural change. One of the most commonly invoked examples of this claimed weakness is the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, whose original meaning would (it is argued) authorize barbaric punishment practices like flogging and branding, and disproportionate punishments like the death penalty for relatively minor offenses. This Article shows that this objection to originalism is inapt, at least with respect to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. As I have shown in prior articles, the original meaning of “cruel and unusual” is “cruel and contrary to …

Ryan V. Gonzalez And The Potential Elimination Of The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Post Conviction Failsafe, Kathleen Carlson

Florida Law Review

Recently, the United States Supreme Court addressed in Ryan v. Gonzales “whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension of the prisoner’s federal habeas corpus proceedings.” In a unanimous decision, the Court held that “the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits both erred in holding that district courts must stay federal habeas proceedings when petitioners are adjudged incompetent.” The decision leaves unanswered questions with regard to a petitioner’s ability to protect himself from ineffective or incompetent counsel both before and during the habeas proceeding.

Brown V. Plata: Renewing The Call To End Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Steven Nauman

Florida Law Review

After more than twenty years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court finally determined whether California’s overcrowded prison system created a constitutional violation in Brown v. Plata. With prisons and jails across the country operating at well over 100% capacity, the Court concluded what advocates had been screaming for over a decade: prison overcrowding cannot be tolerated, and the only remedy is to reduce prison populations. What the Court failed to resolve, however, was what the primary cause of prison overcrowding is and how states and the federal government are supposed to comply with capacity expectations amid concerns for …

Vicarious Aggravators, Sam Kamin, Justin Marceau

Florida Law Review

In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was constitutional so long as it provided a non-arbitrary statutory mechanism for determining who are the worst of the worst, and therefore, deserving of the death penalty. As a general matter, this process of narrowing the class of death eligible offenders is done through the codification of aggravating factors. If the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more aggravating factors exists, then a defendant convicted of murder is eligible for the ultimate sentence. There is, however, a critical, unanswered, and under-theorized issue raised by …

The Illusory Eighth Amendment, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

Although there is no obvious doctrinal connection between the Supreme Court’s Miranda jurisprudence and its Eighth Amendment excessive punishments jurisprudence, the two are deeply connected at the level of methodology. In both areas, the Supreme Court has been criticized for creating “prophylactic” rules that invalidate government actions because they create a mere risk of constitutional violation. In reality, however, both sets of rules deny constitutional protection to a far greater number of individuals with plausible claims of unconstitutional treatment than they protect.

This dysfunctional combination of over- and underprotection arises from the Supreme Court’s use of implementation rules as a …

Imagining The Open Road, Brooks Holland

Florida Law Review

I first read a draft of Nancy Leong’s Article, The Open Road and the Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of the American Dream (“Open Road”), while my law school was preparing to host a conference on race and criminal justice. To our great fortune, Professor Leong accepted our invitation to present this thoughtful paper. I now have re-read the Open Road to write this response paper while additionally considering Articles by David Segal, Stanley Fish, and others debating aspects of legal education—in particular, the role of faculty scholarship. My repeated engagements with the Open Road confirm that it contributes beautifully …

Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier

Florida Law Review

"I wouldn’t wish what I am going through on anyone," Senator Ted Stevens commented after losing his seat in the United States Senate on November 18, 2008. Senator Stevens lost the race largely because a criminal conviction damaged his reputation. After Senator Stevens endured months of contentious litigation, the jury convicted the longest serving Republican senator in United States history on seven felony counts of ethics violations. Six months later, the presiding judge, the Honorable Emmet Sullivan, vacated the conviction at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder because of blatant failures to disclose exculpatory evidence. Senator Stevens brings a …

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ Abuse Of Trust Enhancement: An Argument For The Professional Discretion Approach, Adam Denver Griffin

Florida Law Review

This Article introduces a new concept-“longitudinal guilt”-which invites readers to reconsider basic presuppositions about the way our criminal justice system determines guilt in criminal cases. In short, the idea is that a variety of features of criminal procedure, most importantly, plea bargaining, conspire to change the primary “truthfinding mission” of criminal law from one of adjudicating individual historical cases to one of identifying dangerous “offenders.” This change of mission is visible in the lower proof standards we apply to repeat criminal offenders. The first section of this Article explains how plea bargaining and graduated sentencing systems based on criminal history …

Longitudinal Guilt: Repeat Offenders, Plea Bargaining, And The Variable Standard Of Proof, Russell D. Covey

Florida Law Review

This Article introduces a new concept-“longitudinal guilt”-which invites readers to reconsider basic presuppositions about the way our criminal justice system determines guilt in criminal cases. In short, the idea is that a variety of features of criminal procedure, most importantly, plea bargaining, conspire to change the primary “truthfinding mission” of criminal law from one of adjudicating individual historical cases to one of identifying dangerous “offenders.” This change of mission is visible in the lower proof standards we apply to repeat criminal offenders. The first section of this Article explains how plea bargaining and graduated sentencing systems based on criminal history …

Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, And The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Ben Trachtenberg

Florida Law Review

Using the example of a recent major terrorism prosecution, this Article addresses “coventurer hearsay” in the context of the ongoing Confrontation Clause debate concerning the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington. Courts have recently begun admitting hearsay evidence pursuant to a revisionist interpretation of the coconspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule. Under the new “lawful joint venture” theory, a hearsay statement may be admitted as a coconspirator statement if made in furtherance of a “joint undertaking”—defined as pretty much any cooperative activity—even if the “conspiracy” is not illegal. Because this new interpretation of an old hearsay …

Possession Of Child Pornography: Should You Be Convicted When The Computer Cache Does The Saving For You?, Giannina Marin

Florida Law Review

“For years, defense lawyers have argued the ‘young and stupid’ semidefense for their youthful clients. Now, we can have the ‘I didn’t know it was on the hard drive’ objection for the unsophisticated computer user in child pornography cases—or at least they can in the 9th Circuit.” This quote, appearing on the website of an East Texas criminal defense law firm, refers to the outcome of United States v. Kuchinski. In Kuchinski, the defendant’s computer contained, in various forms, more than 15,000 images of child pornography. There was no question that Kuchinski’s volitional viewing of the images on the Internet …

Fair Funds And The Sec's Compensation Of Injured Investors, Verity Winship

Florida Law Review

The Fair Fund provision of Sarbanes-Oxley allows the SEC to distribute money penalties to injured investors, heralding a new compensatory role for the agency. The SEC has announced that it will direct money to injured investors whenever possible, but has not articulated clear priorities. This Article fills the gap by introducing terms of debate and proposing a framework for the SEC’s exercise of its discretion. The Article introduces the concept of “public class counsel,” a public actor that has the dual function of deterrence and victim compensation. The concept describes—and suggests limits to—the SEC’s role in a system in which …

Qualified Immunitity: When Is A Loss Ultimately A Win?, Michael J. Hooi

Florida Law Review

No abstract provided.

Resolving A "Substantial Question": Just Who Is Entitled To Bail Pending Appeal Under The Bail Reform Act Of 1984?, Doug Keller

Florida Law Review

Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, federal criminal defendants who wish to remain free on bail after conviction must prove that their appeal will have enough merit to raise at least one “substantial question.” Federal appellate courts, however, have been deeply divided over how much merit is required to show that an appeal will raise a “substantial question.” Ten circuits define the phrase as a “close question,” based on an implausible reading of the 1984 Bail Act’s legislative history. But the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirement to mean that a defendant must prove that his appeal will raise …

The Murder Rule That Just Won't Die: The Abolished Year-And-A-Day Rule Continues To Haunt The Florida Courts, Emily S. Wilbanks

Florida Law Review

On October 21, 1986, a two-month-old baby girl was admitted to a hospital in Pasco County, Florida. Baby Christina Ann Wells was unresponsive, was suffering from seizures, and needed assistance to breathe. Doctors observed large bruises on Christina’s head, including thumbprints on her tiny face. She had broken ribs, and the soft spot on her skull was noticeably bulging. Doctors likened some of Christina’s injuries to those commonly seen in drowning victims. However, Christina had not drowned; doctors determined that Christina’s bruises and the swelling on her brain were caused either by being shaken or by having her oxygen supply …

Substantive Due Process: Sex Toys After Lawrence Williams V. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007), Michael J. Hooi

Florida Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Honor Of Walter O. Weyrauch: The Case For Overturning Williams V. Florida And The Six-Person Jury: History, Law, And Empirical Evidence, Alisa Smith, Michael J. Saks

Florida Law Review

After 700 years of common-law history and nearly 200 years of constitutional history, the Supreme Court concluded that the constitutionally permissible minimum jury size could not be inferred from the language or the history of the Constitution. The answer, said the Court in Williams v. Florida, could be found only through a “functional analysis” of the performance of smaller juries (that is, empirical examination of the behavior of different-sized juries). The Court implicitly abandoned that analysis in Ballew v. Georgia, when it held that juries with fewer than six members were unconstitutional-a decision based on nothing more than the ipse …

Theorizing Mental Health Courts, E. Lea Johnston

UF Law Faculty Publications

To date, no scholarly article has analyzed the theoretical basis of mental health courts, which currently exist in forty-three states. This Article examines the two utilitarian justifications proposed by mental health court advocates—therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic rehabilitation—and finds both insufficient. Therapeutic jurisprudence is inadequate to justify mental health courts because of its inability, by definition, to resolve significant normative conflict. In essence, mental health courts express values fundamentally at odds with those underlying the traditional criminal justice system. Furthermore, the sufficiency of rehabilitation, as this concept appears to be defined by mental health court advocates, depends on the validity of …

Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to specify the contents of a permissible representational competence standard, but cited with support the construct of adjudicative competence developed by Professor Richard Bonnie. While Bonnie's proposal may provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the competence of represented defendants' decisions, it is at most a starting point for defining the capacities needed for self-representation at trial. This Article begins by exposing three reasons why Bonnie's approach is …

Phases And Faces Of The Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation, James E. Coleman Jr., Angela Davis, Michael Gerhardt, K. C. Johnson, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Howard M. Wasserman

UF Law Faculty Publications

This panel took place at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) in July 2008 in West Palm Beach, Florida. The transcript has been edited for grammar, punctuation and writing style, as well as for limited content changes.