Law Commons^™

Death By Virus: Why The Prison Litigation Reform Act Should Be Suspended, Divya Sriharan

Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics

In order to save the lives of inmates, as well as redress some of the harms the prison system and the pandemic have caused them, Congress must pass a bill to temporarily suspend the Prison Litigation Reform Act. As of August 13, 2020, 95,398 inmates have contracted COVID-19. Prisons refuse to adapt or implement measures to save lives. Because of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, it is near impossible for inmates to take their cases to court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirements include: exhausting all internal administrative remedies before filing in court, not allowing suits based on mental or …

Federalization’S Folly, Stephen F. Smith

San Diego Law Review

Overcriminalization and overpunishment are the two key features of federal criminal law today, yet the “federalization” of criminal law has accomplished precious little in terms of public safety. The failed drug war proves as much: federal prosecutors have filled the nation’s prisons with low-level drug dealers and drug users serving long sentences, but drugs remain widely available at greater purity and lower prices throughout the land—and drug overdoses are at record highs. Instead of focusing on areas of federal comparative advantage, such as terrorism, international drug trafficking, and organized crime, federal prosecutors waste scarce resources “playing district attorney”—that is to …

Reconciling Brady And Pitchess: Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs V. Superior Court, And The Future Of Brady Lists, Ryan T. Cannon

San Diego Law Review

In 2014, the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department (LASD) joined a growing number of law enforcement agencies utilizing “Brady lists”; a system by which prosecutorial agencies are notified of potential Brady/Giglio material in a police officer’s personnel file. These lists enable prosecutors to comply with their constitutional Brady disclosure obligations—to turn over all evidence material to guilt or punishment, including impeachment material. However, in 1978 California made the contents of police officer personnel files confidential with the passage of the Pitchess statutes. Since that time, California courts have wrestled with the extent of allowable disclosure under the Pitchess statutes, including …

Extending Miranda: Prohibition On Police Lies Regarding The Incriminating Evidence, Rinat Kitai-Sangero

San Diego Law Review

This Article addresses the question of whether lying to suspects during interrogations regarding the incriminating evidence against them is a legitimate deceit. The search for truth goes hand-in-hand with the human yearning for knowledge. Generally, lying is perceived as reprehensible. Certain types of lies, such as those concerning medical treatment or the sale of a house, may even result in civil or criminal liability. Despite the condemnation of lying, lying to suspects during interrogations is a common phenomenon, and has even been dubbed an “art.” Part II of the article presents how police use deceit and lies during interrogations in …

Like Snow To The Eskimos And Trump To The Republican Party: The Ali's Many Words For, And Shifting Pronouncements About, "Affirmative Consent", Kevin Cole

Faculty Scholarship

This short piece examines changes from prior drafts in the most recent draft (Preliminary Draft No. 6) of the American Law Institute's project on sexual assault law.

The Punishment Should Fit The Crime—Not The Prior Convictions Of The Person That Committed The Crime: An Argument For Less Impact Being Accorded To Previous Convictions, Mirko Bagaric

San Diego Law Review

The seriousness of the offense is the main consideration that should determine the severity of criminal punishment. This cardinal sentencing principle is undermined by the reality that often the criminal history of the offender is the most decisive sentencing consideration. Recidivists are frequently sent to imprisonment for long periods for crimes, which, when committed by first-time offenders, are dealt with by a bond, probation, or a fine. This makes sentencing more about an individual’s profile than the harm caused by the offender and has contributed to a large increase in prison numbers. Intuitively, it feels right to punish repeat offenders …

Electronic Data Discovery Sanctions: The Unmapped, Unwinding, Meandering Road, And The Courts’ Role In Steadying The Playing Field, Ahunanya Anga

San Diego Law Review

This Article highlights a growing problem for litigants who are involved in electronic data discovery (EDD). The world of litigation today encompasses massive amounts of electronically produced documents. It is estimated that ninety-nine percent of new information is created and stored electronically. The litigation practice generally, as it relates to electronic discovery (e-discovery) particularly, has mushroomed into a chaotic process. The technological age has radically impacted the federal discovery process. The purpose of the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) was, among other things, to address problems associated with electronically stored information (ESI) that arise during …

Sharpening The Tools Of An Adequate Defense: Providing For The Appointment Of Experts For Indigent Defendants In Child Death Cases Under Ake V. Oklahoma, Laurel Gilbert

San Diego Law Review

This Comment proposes that because of ongoing concerns regarding the reliability and validity of forensic science in the United States, the Due Process Clause constitutionally mandates the appointment of forensic experts for indigent defendants in criminal cases arising out of a child’s death if the prosecution relies on forensic evidence. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the current law governing the admissibility of forensic expert testimony in criminal cases and explains why these admissibility standards create a need for the appointment of defense forensic experts to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Part III then discusses Due …

Wrongful Death And Survival Actions For Torts In Violation Of International Law, Alastair J. Agcaoili

San Diego Law Review

This Article aims to make sense of this neglected area of ATS law. I contend that the salient issue in these deceased-victim cases is not whether the nonvictim plaintiffs have standing to sue but rather whether they have a viable cause of action in the first place. Standing and cause of action concepts have an uneasy relationship in law. Although the distinction between constitutional standing and cause of action inquiries is well established, the division is less clear where, as here, standing doctrine is used to define a plaintiff’s eligibility to bring suit. Indeed, reliance on standing terminology in this …

Harmonizing Equitable Exceptions: Why Courts Should Recognize An “Actual Innocence” Exception To The Aedpa’S Statute Of Limitations, Morgan Suder

San Diego Law Review

This Comment argues that to neutralize this potential inequality, the Supreme Court should affirm the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Lee v. Lampert, finding that a credible claim of actual innocence constitutes an equitable exception to the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations period. District courts must be able to call on their equitable powers, including both equitable principles already applied to the AEDPA’s statute of limitations as well as the actual innocence exception, in determining whether a district court may consider the merits of a criminal defendant’s otherwise untimely habeas petition.

Part II discusses the role of federal habeas corpus …

Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Iii: Prosecution Appeals Against Judges' Rulings Of "No Case To Answer", David S. Rudstein

San Diego International Law Journal

The Order in Council permitting the prosecution appeal of "Mo" Courtney's acquittal and allowing him to be retried for the same offense of which he had previously been acquitted stems from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That Act, which applies in England and Wales, grants the government the right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge in criminal prosecutions on an indictment, including a ruling that there is no case to answer, i.e., a directed verdict of acquittal, and if the appeal is successful, allows the reviewing court to order that the acquitted defendant?s trial be resumed or that …

Facing The Unfaceable: Dealing With Prosecutorial Denial In Postconviction Cases Of Actual Innocence, Aviva Orenstein

San Diego Law Review

This Article develops a question that intrigued Fred: prosecutors’ duties postconviction to prisoners who might be innocent. Although Fred wrote about a panoply of questions that arise regarding the prosecutor’s duty to “do justice” after conviction, this Article will address one specific area of concern: how and why prosecutors resist allowing DNA testing and, more startlingly, deny the obvious implications of DNA evidence when that evidence exonerates the convicted.

Part II of this Article briefly summarizes two of Fred’s major articles on the subject of prosecutorial ethics. Part III documents the problem of postconviction DNA exonerations and prosecutors’ varied reactions. …

Victims And Promise Of Remedies: International Law Fairytale Gone Bad, Sanja Djajic

San Diego International Law Journal

The aim of this Article is to examine such developments and the current availability of remedies for human rights violations in general. The Author will also examine the appropriateness of such remedies and opportunities to pursue them. The Article starts by identifying remedies in international law. This is followed by a case study and analysis of attempts by several national judiciaries to grapple with remedies prescribed by international law, against the background of international and national remedies. In the course of examining the reasons for an inadequate remedial structure, the Article will focus on several national cases. They will illustrate …

Retrying The Acquitted In England Part Ii: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For Tainted Acquittals, David S. Rudstein

San Diego International Law Journal

Parliament enacted a statute in 1996 intended to limit the double jeopardy bar in some situations in which the defendant obtained an acquittal through improper means, thereby permitting the government to retry the person for the same offense of which he previously was tried and acquitted. The statute, part of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, allows a retrial when an individual's acquittal was tainted, which, under the statute, means an acquittal resulting from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror, witness, or potential witness. In allowing a retrial in such circumstances, the statute creates an exception to the …

Introduction To The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum, Russell L. Weaver

San Diego Law Review

The Third Criminal Procedure Discussion Forum was held at the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law on December 14, 2006. As with prior fora, the goal of this forum was to bring together a small group of prominent criminal procedure scholars to discuss matters of common interest. This year's forum focused on two topics: "confessions jurisprudence" and "the most underrated criminal procedure decision(s)."

Truth, Justice, And The American Dilemma, Robert Batey

San Diego Law Review

McCleskey v. Kemp is without doubt a memorable case. Professor David C. Baldus and his colleagues, Charles A. Pulaski and George Woodworth, had produced a detailed statistical study of the operation of the death penalty in Georgia showing, in the words of the Supreme Court, that "black defendants, such as McCleskey, who kill white victims have the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty." McCleskey used this study to challenge his capital sentence under both the Equal Protection and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses. Like any statistical proof, the Baldus study had been challenged on methodological grounds. The Supreme Court …

Smith V. Hooey: Underrated But Unfulfilled, Leslie W. Abramson

San Diego Law Review

The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial applies to prosecutions in the federal courts and to state prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. This constitutional right is probably the least favorite of the Bill of Rights, because it would satisfy most defendants if the government never - promptly or otherwise - disposed of their pending charges. One group of persons, though, who may regard the right to a speedy trial as important are convicted defendants currently serving sentences, but who have pending charges brought against them by other states or the federal government. For them, denying the …

The Supreme Court, Confessions, And Judicial Schizophrenia, Arnold H. Loewy

San Diego Law Review

Schizophrenia literally means "split mind." Consequently, it should not be too surprising that the United States Supreme Court, which is a theoretically continuing body with nine ever-changing minds, would say things in one year that seem schizophrenic when contrasted with last year's jurisprudence. Unfortunately, many of the inconsistent statements remain good law, and the result largely depends on which doctrine the Court chooses to trot out. In this essay, four such statements and the extent that each should be taken will seriously be examined.

Interrogating Terrorists: From Miranda Warnings To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Ronald J. Rychlak

San Diego Law Review

An American citizen arrested within the United States would certainly have the right not to incriminate himself. A foreign national arrested outside of the U.S. would presumably not be protected. Other scenarios present more difficult issues. American courts, therefore, have to determine whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies to non-American citizens, and whether an American police or military agent conducting an investigation abroad must provide some type of warnings before conducting an interrogation. The initial question would seem to be whether terrorist suspects are even entitled to the right protected by Miranda - the right not to incriminate …

Preventing False Confessions: Is Oickle Up To The Task?, Dale R. Ives

San Diego Law Review

In R. v. Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly stated that the Canadian confessions rule "should recognize which interrogation techniques commonly produce false confessions so as to avoid miscarriages of justice." As a result, the Court reformulated the traditional confessions rule in an attempt to better protect against false confessions. An obvious question is whether the Court succeeded in attaining this goal. An examination of the reformulated rule indicates that, viewed in the abstract and measured against the current state of knowledge on false confessions, the modern rule does offer considerable protection to innocent persons, but it also has …

Privacy As Struggle, Andrew R. Taslitz

San Diego Law Review

The title of this short essay is "Privacy as Struggle," a title meant in part to capture the Court's requirement of superhuman individual efforts to attain secrecy, that is, totally veiling one's activities from the state's prying eyes as an essential prerequisite to the existence of privacy, all too often at the expense of human relationships, interpersonal trust, and political voice. I want, therefore, to paint an apocalyptic vision of the Court's Fourth Amendment privacy jurisprudence, as the reader will no doubt have noticed I have already done in connection with my reading of Hoffa. I want to do so …

Toward A More Robust Right To Counsel Of Choice, Janet C. Hoeffel

San Diego Law Review

This Article takes its lead from the core principles of the right to counsel of choice expressed in Gonzalez-Lopez. These principles indicate that the right should include an indigent defendant's right to continue an attorney-client relationship established at some point in the past, and that, for both nonindigent and indigent defendants, the right to continue a trial with counsel of choice must be honored by trial courts unless it would be unethical or manifestly unjust to do so. This means that trial courts must almost always grant a continuance to accommodate that choice and could rarely deny such a request …

Justice Powell's Garden: The Ciraolo Dissent And Fourth Amendment Protection For Curtilage-Home Privacy, Catherine Hancock

San Diego Law Review

It was not surprising that the majority opinion in Ciraolo provoked an impassioned dissent. The decision was unprecedented in sanctioning aerial surveillance as a police strategy for evading Fourth Amendment prohibitions of surveillance on the ground. The officers rented a plane because they did not have probable cause to obtain a warrant to enter and search the backyard, and because their attempts to peer into the yard were stymied by a tall fence. They could not crawl over the fence because that intrusion would violate the householder's protected expectation of privacy in his curtilage, the Fourth Amendment buffer zone of …

International Criminal Jurisdiction In The Twenty First Century: Rediscovering United States V. Bowman, Ellen S. Podgor, Daniel M. Filler

San Diego Law Review

In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - far broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing …

Striking A Balance In Unlawfully Obtained Confession Cases: United Kingdom Pragmatism Against Principle, Jenny Mcewan

San Diego Law Review

In Part I of this Article, we provide a description of the facts and holding of United States v. Bowman. In Part II, we describe the ways in which lower courts have interpreted this decision. We point to various cases citing Bowman and show how these courts give exceedingly broad application to the holding - broader application than the opinion warrants. Finally, in Part III, we discuss the ways in which the courts should read Bowman and demonstrate how this more accurate reading of the Court's decision is consistent with the realities of twenty-first century global economies. In doing so, …

Miranda At Forty, Russell L. Weaver

San Diego Law Review

In some respects, the Miranda decision was relatively uncontroversial because the Court did little more than require the police to inform suspects of their rights and prescribe procedures for the waiver of those rights. But Miranda's holding was not inevitable. In the Court's later decision in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the Court held that suspects can consent to searches of their persons or property even though they have not been informed that they have a Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent. A critic of Schneckloth might legitimately question how suspects can validly waive Fourth Amendment rights that they do not know …

Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For New And Compelling Evidence, David S. Rudstein

San Diego International Law Journal

More than 240 years ago, Sir William Blackstone, perhaps the most important commentator on the English common law, wrote that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any indictment, or other prosecution, before any court having competent jurisdiction of the offence, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same crime. This plea of autrefois acquit (a former acquittal), Blackstone explained, is based upon the principle that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offence, which he called a universal maxim of …

Litigating Child Recruitment Before The Special Court For Sierra Leone, Noah B. Novogrodsky

San Diego International Law Journal

In May 2004, the Special Court for Sierra Leone issued a landmark decision finding that an individual may be held criminally responsible for the offense of recruiting child soldiers into armed conflict. As a hybrid tribunal established by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone to try those who "bear the greatest responsibility" for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the country's civil war after November 1996, the Special Court is the first international criminal body to indict a person for the crime of recruiting and employing children in war. The decision in the case of …

Brief Of The University Of Toronto International Human Rights Clinic As Amicus Curiae To The Special Court For Sierra Leone, Noah B. Novogrodsky

San Diego International Law Journal

This brief addresses three questions: 1) the illegality of recruiting child soldiers into armed conflict; 2) the application of penal sanctions in international humanitarian law; and 3) the proper application of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. Part I of our argument will establish that the recruitment of children into armed conflict is and was unquestionably a violation of international humanitarian law at the time the alleged offences took place. Part II will explain when international law permits prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law irrespective of whether penal sanctions are attached. Amici conclude that such prosecutions are permitted …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …