Law Commons^™

Class V. United States: An Imperfect Application Of The Menna-Blackledge Doctrine To Post-Guilty Plea Constitutional Claims, Nikolaus Albright

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Examining Rule 11(B)(1)(N) Error: Guilty Pleas, Appellate Waiver, And Dominguez Benitez, Leanna C. Minix

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waivering About The Dirty Business Of Plea Bargains—A Comment, Jonathan Shapiro

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waive Goodbye To Appellate Review Of Plea Bargaining: Specific Performance Of Appellate Waiver Provisions Should Be Limited To Extraordinary Circumstances, Holly P. Pratesi

Brooklyn Law Review

In the federal criminal justice system, plea bargaining remains the predominant method for disposing of cases. An important provision in most plea agreements consists of the waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal the conviction or sentence. This note explores the constitutional, contractual, and policy implications of a recent Third Circuit decision that would allow specific performance as a remedy where a defendant’s only breach of the plea agreement consists of filing an appeal arguably precluded by an appellate waiver provision. This note argues that the approach taken by the Third Circuit in United States v. Erwin could effectively preclude …

Cassinelli V. State Of Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 131(Aug. 27, 2015), Mackenzie Warren

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that (1) the district court erred by ruling that Cassinelli was not eligible for alcohol treatment under NRS § 458.300(1)(d); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cassinelli’s request for assignment to a program of treatment; (3) the plea agreement was not breached and the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct at sentencing; (4) the district court did not err by refusing Cassinelli an opportunity to cross-examine the victim during her impact statement at sentencing; (5) Cassinelli’s sentence was illegal.

Not So Fast: I Have Been Deprived Of My Right To Counsel, Elias Arroyo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

United States V. Reeves: The Struggle To Save The Direct/Collateral Consequences Test After Padilla, Soojin Kim

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Invalidity Of A Plea Of Guilty To A Criminal Offense Made By Video Teleconferencing When The Defendant Is Not Present In Open Court, William R. Simpson Jr., Clint Miller, David Sudduth

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

A guilty plea by a defendant is more than an admission of conduct; it is the nail in the coffin that closes the case and results in conviction. Despite the critical importance of this moment, Arkansas district and circuit courts are more commonly taking guilty pleas from defendants by video teleconferencing (VTC) instead of requiring defendants to be physically present in the courtroom. This essay sets forth three separate arguments in support of the notion that a guilty plea to a criminal offense by VTC without the defendant being present in open court is invalid as a matter of Arkansas …

The Machinery Of Criminal Justice, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Two centuries ago, the American criminal justice was run primarily by laymen. Jury trials passed moral judgment on crimes, vindicated victims and innocent defendants, and denounced the guilty. But over the last two centuries, lawyers have taken over the process, silencing victims and defendants and, in many cases, substituting a plea-bargaining system for the voice of the jury. The public sees little of how this assembly-line justice works, and victims and defendants have largely lost their day in court. As a result, victims rarely hear defendants express remorse and apologize, and defendants rarely receive forgiveness. This lawyerized machinery has purchased …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Virginia B. Theisen

University of Richmond Law Review

Once more, the past year yielded a wealth of developments in the area of criminal law and procedure. The author has endeavored to cull the most significant decisions and legislative enactments, with an eye toward the "takeaway" from a case rather than a discussion of settled principles.

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Juan Rivera V. State Of Maryland, No. 08-80, Maureen A. Sweeney

Court Briefs

The petitioner requested the Maryland Court of Appeals to reverse a decision that his criminal plea of guilty was voluntary. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland had ruled it voluntary. Law professors at the University of Maryland and the University of Baltimore filed this amicus brief in support of the petitioner.

The brief presents the issue of whether a guilty plea is voluntary and knowingly given when it is based on affirmative misinformation about the direct immigration consequences of such a plea. The amici argue that the petitioner’s plea was unconstitutionally involuntary and unknowing because his attorney, the prosecutor, …

Does New York's Death Penalty Statute Violate The New York Constitution?, Honorable Stewart F. Hancock Jr., Christopher Quinn, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guilty Plea Revocation, Constitutional Waiver, And The Charter: "A Guilty Plea Is Not A Trap", John Dr Craig

Dalhousie Law Journal

The entry of a guilty plea has significant constitutional ramifications. It relieves the Crown of its obligation to prove the elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt and constitutes a waiver by the accused of various rights including the right to put the Crown's case to the test of a trial, the right to confront Crown witnesses through cross-examination and the right to remain silent in relation to the determination of legal guilt. In light of these constitutional dimensions, the article considers an issue which has received little academic attention: the revocation of a guiltyplea. The authorassesses the existing …

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Equitable Treatment Of Unauthorized Prosecutorial Promises Of Immunity, Sherry Perkins Bartley

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Williams V. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975), Richard W. Epstein

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Law- GUILTY PLEAS- FACTUAL BASIS DETERMINATION NOT MANDATORY WHEN A COURT ACCEPTS A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE.

Conviction: The Determination Of Guilt Or Innocence Without Trial, By Donald J. Newman

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Courts - Rule 20 Of Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure - Constitutionality, William Burnett Harvey

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-Due Process Clause-Right Of An Accused To Have Counsel Appointed By The Court, Frank H. Roberts

Michigan Law Review

On May 16, 1932, petitioner, then seventeen years of age, was arraigned, tried, convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner was without legal assistance throughout these proceedings, was never advised of his rights to counsel, was never informed of the consequences of a guilty plea and, as disclosed by the record, was considerably confused as to the effect of such plea. In 1945, he moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial in the court in which he was convicted, on the ground that there had been serious impairment of his …