Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Beyond (1)
- Biomedical research (1)
- Blakely v. Washington (1)
- Brooklyn Law Review (1)
-
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Element (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Guilt (1)
- Innocence (1)
- Jury Instructions (1)
- Jury Trial (1)
- Offense (1)
- Presume (1)
- Proof (1)
- Prosecute (1)
- Prosecution (1)
- Prove (1)
- Race (1)
- Racial pragmatizing (1)
- Reasonable doubt (1)
- Science (1)
- Sex crimes (1)
- Sexually violent predator (SVP) (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Statute (1)
- Statutpry presumptions (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Presumed Guilty, Terrence Cain
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 …
The Regulation Of Race In Science, Kimani Paul-Emile
The Regulation Of Race In Science, Kimani Paul-Emile
Faculty Scholarship
The overwhelming majority of biological scientists agree that there is no such thing as race among modern humans. Yet, scientists regularly deploy race in their studies, and federal laws and regulations currently mandate the use of racial categories in biomedical research. Legal commentators have tried to make sense of this paradox primarily by looking to equal protection strict scrutiny analysis. However, the colorblind approach that attends this doctrine — which many regard as synonymous with invalidation — does not offer a particularly useful way to think about the use of race in research. It offers no way to address how …
Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy Or Substantive Due Process?: An Empirical Inquiry, Tamara Rice, Justin Mccrary
Do Sexually Violent Predator Laws Violate Double Jeopardy Or Substantive Due Process?: An Empirical Inquiry, Tamara Rice, Justin Mccrary
Faculty Scholarship
In 1997, the Supreme Court held that the sexually violent predator (SVP) act in Kansas did not violate double jeopardy or substantive due process even though it indefinitely commits an individual to a locked state-run facility after that individual has completed a maximum prison term. In this article, we question a core empirical foundation for the Court’s holding in Hendricks: that SVPs are so dangerous that they will commit repeat acts of sexual violence if they are not confined. Our findings suggest that SVP laws have had no discernible impact on the incidence of sex crimes. These results challenge …