Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Not So Speedy Trial Act, Shon Hopwood
The Not So Speedy Trial Act, Shon Hopwood
Washington Law Review
The Speedy Trial Act (STA) of 1974 occupies a peculiar place in the criminal justice system. Very few pieces of legislation can lay claim to protecting both the rights of criminal defendants and the public’s significant interest in timely justice, while reducing the cost of judicial administration. The STA formerly accomplished these lofty aims by reducing pretrial delays. But for the past two decades legal scholars have ignored the STA, and both prosecutors and defense attorneys have subverted the STA’s goals by routinely moving for continuances. And although the Act categorically applies in every federal criminal case, it has been …
Miller'S Promise: Re-Evaluating Extreme Criminal Sentences For Children, Nick Straley
Miller'S Promise: Re-Evaluating Extreme Criminal Sentences For Children, Nick Straley
Washington Law Review
Scientific, legal, and societal notions about youth have come together to reaffirm an age-old concept—children are different and they change as they grow older. In recent decisions, the United States Supreme Court has required courts and legislatures to take a new look at extreme criminal sentences imposed upon children. Life without parole sentences and decades-long, determinate sentences are constitutionally suspect when applied to children because they fail to adequately account for the dynamism of youth. Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida announced two important principles: (1) that an extreme sentence can only be imposed upon a child following an …
Not-So-Harmless Error: A Higher Standard For Mitigation Errors On Capital Habeas Review, Ryan C. Thomas
Not-So-Harmless Error: A Higher Standard For Mitigation Errors On Capital Habeas Review, Ryan C. Thomas
Washington Law Review
This Comment looks at how federal courts handle mitigation errors during the penalty phase of capital punishment cases on habeas corpus review; it argues that the United States Supreme Court should expressly adopt the Chapman “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard rather than the Brecht “substantial and injurious effect” standard. The heightened stakes of capital sentencing dictate that a higher standard of review should apply. The Court has yet to rule on this matter, and the United States Courts of Appeals cannot agree upon which standard to apply. Currently, a lopsided circuit split exists regarding whether harmless error review applies …
Not-So-Harmless Error: A Higher Standard For Mitigation Errors On Capital Habeas Review, Ryan C. Thomas
Not-So-Harmless Error: A Higher Standard For Mitigation Errors On Capital Habeas Review, Ryan C. Thomas
Washington Law Review
This Comment looks at how federal courts handle mitigation errors during the penalty phase of capital punishment cases on habeas corpus review; it argues that the United States Supreme Court should expressly adopt the Chapman “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard rather than the Brecht “substantial and injurious effect” standard. The heightened stakes of capital sentencing dictate that a higher standard of review should apply. The Court has yet to rule on this matter, and the United States Courts of Appeals cannot agree upon which standard to apply. Currently, a lopsided circuit split exists regarding whether harmless error review applies …
The Undersigned Attorney Hereby Certifies: Ensuring Reasonable Caseloads For Washington Defenders And Clients, Andrea Woods
The Undersigned Attorney Hereby Certifies: Ensuring Reasonable Caseloads For Washington Defenders And Clients, Andrea Woods
Washington Law Review
The Standards governing Washington’s public defenders represent a significant reform aimed at protecting an important constitutional right for our state’s vulnerable citizens. This Comment provides the necessary introduction to the Standards and addresses skepticism on the part of current practitioners and elected officials. Cooperation among defense attorneys, local governments, and the courts could ensure the Standards’ success and—in turn—a better system of public defense for attorneys and defendants alike. Part I of this Comment introduces the reader to the new Standards. Part II offers an overview of common critiques of the Washington State Supreme Court Standards that were voiced by …