Law Commons^™

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

The Line Holds, But Death May Matter: The Supreme Court's Criminal Procedure Decisions Of The 2001 Term, William Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Road To Booker And Beyond: Constitutional Limits On Sentence Enhancements, John Gleeson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumed Guilty, Terrence Cain

Faculty Scholarship

It would probably surprise the average American to learn that prosecutors need only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes. Although the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution require that the government prove each element of an alleged criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of statutory presumptions has relieved the government of this responsibility, and in some cases, has even shifted the burden to the defendant to disprove the presumption. Likewise, the Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to have the jury and the jury alone determine whether the government has met its burden and ultimately …

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.

One such …

Criminal Law: The Oklahoma Court Of Criminal Appeals' Procedural And Substantive Application Of Ring V. Arizona To Oklahoma's Capital Sentencing Scheme, Seth S. Branham

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Err Is Human: The Judicial Conundrum Of Curing Apprendi Error, Joshua Fairfield

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Does Apprendi V. New Jersey Change The Standard Of Proof In Criminal Forfeiture Cases?, Stefan D. Cassella

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.