Law Commons^™

Taking Another Look At Second-Look Sentencing, Meghan J. Ryan

Meghan J. Ryan

An unprecedented number of Americans are currently behind bars. Our high rate of incarceration, and the high bills that it generates for American taxpayers, has led to a number of proposals for sentencing reform. For example, a bill recently introduced in Congress would roll back federal mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenders, and the Obama Administration has announced a plan to grant clemency to hundreds of non-violent drug offenders. Perhaps the most revolutionary proposal, though, is one advanced by the drafters of the Model Penal Code, namely that judges be given the power to resentence offenders who have been …

El Juez Constitucional Ante El Juicio De Ponderación, Juan Luis Hernández Macías

Juan Luis Hernández Macías

No abstract provided.

Fearing The Bogeyman: How The Legal System's Overreaction To Perceived Danger Threatens Families And Children, David Pimentel

David Pimentel

In the last generation, American parenting norms have shifted dramatically, reflecting a near obsession with child safety and especially the risk of stranger abduction. A growing body of literature shows, however, that the threats to children are more imagined than real, and that the effort to protect children from these “bogeymen” may be doing more harm than good. Advocates of “Free-Range” parenting argue that giving children a long leash can help them learn responsibility, explore the world outside, get physical exercise, and develop self-sufficiency. But the State, usually acting through Child Protective Services (CPS), is likely to second-guess parents’ judgments …

City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Focusing solely on whether a hotel owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry is akin to asking whether Verizon Wireless has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its customer lists. The answer to those questions should be yes, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question—and the proverbial elephant in the room—is whether hotel occupants and cell phone users forfeit their privacy rights simply because they check into the Beverly Hills Hotel or call their significant others from a Smart Phone on the Santa Monica Freeway. Put differently, a hotel owner’s expectation of privacy in a guest registry …

The Legacy Of Anthony M. Kennedy, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

The defining moments in Justice Kennedy’s tenure on the Court came in Planned Parenthood, Lawrence, and United States v. Windsor, where the Court did to the Constitution—in the name of liberty—what it also did—in the name of democracy—to Florida’s citizens in Bush v. Gore. In all three cases, Justice Kennedy’s reliance on a broad conception of liberty, rather than equal protection principles, shifted the balance too heavily in favor of judicial, rather democratic, creation of unenumerated fundamental rights.

Justice Kennedy will rightly be celebrated for safeguarding reproductive freedom and championing sexual autonomy for same-sex couples, but underneath the black …

¿Es Posible Y Deseable Inaplicar La Jurisprudencia De La Corte?, Juan Luis Hernández Macías

Juan Luis Hernández Macías

No abstract provided.

The Adversarial System, Three Lemons, And Cocaine: The Role Of Confirmation Bias, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

A short note on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance as it affects decision making by lawyers and judges.

With All Deliberate Speed: Nlrb V. Canning And The Case For Originalism, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Record numbers of Americans are renouncing their citizenship. California’s citizens have amassed enough signatures to place on the 2016 ballot a proposal to divide California into six separate states. At least 34 states recently called for a second constitutional convention. Several states have ignored or enacted laws defying Supreme Court precedent. One has threatened to secede. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has responded to this crisis by calling for the addition of six constitutional amendments, several of which expand federal authority. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. This Article argues that, to remedy the imbalance in power …

Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma E. Marouf

Fatma E Marouf

This Article challenges the constitutionality of indiscriminately restraining civil immigration detainees during removal proceedings. Not only are immigration detainees routinely placed in handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains without any individualized determination of the need for restraints, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prosecuting party, makes the decisions about the use of restraints, rather than the judge. After examining the rationale for the well-established prohibition against the indiscriminate use of restraints during criminal and civil jury trials, and discussing how some courts have extended this rationale to bench trials, this Article contends that ICE’s practice violates substantive and procedural …

Comentarios Al Proyecto Sobre Justicia En Las Relaciones De Consumo, Gabriel Martinez Medrano

Gabriel Martinez Medrano

Comentario al Proyecto del P.E. Argentino sobre Justicia para las relaciones de Consumo (menor cuantía). Visión positiva del proyecto con algunas indicaciones prácticas.

Balancing The Scales: Adhuc Sub Judice Li Est Or Trial By Media, Casey J. Cooper

Casey J Cooper

The right to freedom of expression and free press is recognized under almost all major human rights instruments and domestic legal systems—common and civil—in the world. However, what do you do when a fundamental right conflicts with another equally fundamental right, like the right to a fair trial? In the United States, the freedom of speech, encompassing the freedom of the press, goes nearly unfettered: the case is not the same for other common law countries. In light of cultural and historic facts, institutional factors, modern realities, and case-law, this Article contends that current American jurisprudence does not take into …

It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …

It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …

The Temptation Of Common Sense, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

The fallacies of invoking arguments from ‘common sense’ in legal briefs.

Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting The Appellate Standard Of Review For Hearsay, Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson

Matthew J. Peterson, Discretion Abused: Reinterpreting the Appellate Standard of Review for Hearsay

Abstract:

The decision by a federal a court to exclude or admit hearsay can be crucial to the case of either party. Despite this prospective impact, the federal courts of appeal currently defer to district courts’ expertise by reviewing a district court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay for an abuse of discretion. Such deference often insulates district courts’ incorrect interpretation of the rule against hearsay and the improper application of the exclusions and exceptions to the rule from appellate reversal.

Lowering the standard of review for …

The Scarlet Letter: Why Courts’ Reliance On Recidivist Statutes During Sentence Enhancement Hearings May Create Fifth And Eighth Amendment Violations, Jesse S. Weinstein

Jesse Weinstein

No abstract provided.

Impropriety’S Invisible Hand: Judicial Race And Gender Biases Within State Supreme Courts, Robert K. Christensen, John Szmer, Anthony M. Kreis

Robert Christensen

No abstract provided.

Evidence And The Pursuit Of Truth In The Law, Jeffery L. Johnson

Jeffery L Johnson

Lawyers should be much more concerned with the concepts of truth and evidence. The entire profession depends on truth. It is what police detectives, District Attorneys, juries, trial judges, appellate judges, and academic lawyers offering interpretive theories, are all concerned with. But, since truth is seldom apparent on its sleeve, these legal actors are equally dependent on evidence as the only(?) reliable(?) means of determining truth. I defend a commonsensical theory of [good] evidence. I argue that this view, inference to the best explanation, captures most, if not all, of a lawyer’s appeal to evidence. It is far from clear, …

Criminal Innovation And The Warrant Requirement: Reconsidering The Rights-Police Efficiency Trade-Off, Tonja Jacobi, Jonah Kind

Tonja Jacobi

It is routinely assumed that there is a trade-off between police efficiency and the warrant requirement. But existing analysis ignores the interaction between police investigative practices and criminal innovation. Narrowing the definition of a search or otherwise limiting the requirement for a warrant gives criminals greater incentive to innovate to avoid detection. With limited police resources to develop countermeasures, police will often be just as effective at capturing criminals when facing higher Fourth Amendment hurdles. We provide a game theoretic model that shows that when police investigation and criminal innovation are considered in a dynamic context, the police efficiency rationale …

Bounties For Bad Behavior: Rewarding Culpable Whistleblowers Under The Dodd-Frank Act And Internal Revenue Code, Jennifer M. Pacella

Jennifer M. Pacella, Esq.

In 2012, Bradley Birkenfeld received a $104 million reward or “bounty” from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for blowing the whistle on his employer, UBS, which facilitated a major offshore tax fraud scheme by assisting thousands of U.S. taxpayers to hide their assets in Switzerland. Birkenfeld does not fit the mold of the public’s common perception of a whistleblower. He was himself complicit in this crime and even served time in prison for his involvement. Despite his conviction, Birkenfeld was still eligible for a sizable whistleblower bounty under the IRS Whistleblower Program, which allows rewards for whistleblowers who are convicted …

Behavioral International Law, Tomer Broude

Tomer Broude

Economic analysis and rational choice have in the last decade made significant inroads into the study of international law and institutions, relying upon standard assumptions of perfect rationality of states and decision-makers. This approach is inadequate, both empirically and in its tendency towards outdated formulations of political theory. This article presents an alternative behavioral approach that provides new hypotheses addressing problems in international law while introducing empirically grounded concepts of real, observed rationality. First, I address methodological objections to behavioral analysis of international law: the focus of behavioral research on the individual; the empirical foundations of behavioral economics; and behavioral …

“Clear Beyond The Peradventure Of A Doubt,” Or, Plain English, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

The article urges judges and lawyers to write briefs and opinions in plain English. This outreach from the legal world to the public is important. As the public understands what courts do, the public will be increasingly supportive of the courts, more likely to comply with courts directives, and more likely to engage in meaningful debate concerning the justice system. In this sense, writing in plain English is a civic duty.

Conditional Release Under The Bail Reform Act: The Solution To Pretrial Detention For ‘Economic Harm’, Edward C. Nazzaro Mr.

Edward C Nazzaro Mr.

This comment examines whether the language of the Federal Bail Statute and the threat of ‘economic harm’ is sufficient to take away the freedom of an accused person awaiting trial. The introduction discusses Bernard ‘Bernie’ Madoff and the conditions of pretrial release used by United States Magistrate Judges to allow Madoff to remain free until conviction. After introducing this concept with a high-profile defendant, the comment provides an overview of the Bail Reform Act and how it was changed in 1984 to include ‘danger’ as a relevant factor in pretrial detention matters, adding to the preexisting power to detain defendants …

A Free Lunch In Chicago, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

A discussion of the ethical issues implicated by judges’ acceptance of travel and related expenses when attending privately sponsored judicial education, including seminars offered by educational institutions.

Why The Judicial Electons Debate Matters Less Than You Think: Retention As The Cornerstone Of Independence And Accountability, Layne S. Keele

Layne S. Keele

The judicial elections debate has once again claimed the national spotlight with the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and with the 2010 electoral defeat of three Iowa Supreme Court judges who joined an opinion striking down Iowa’s law refusing to recognize same-sex marriage. Judicial election opponents generally criticize elections as interfering with judicial independence, while election advocates laud them as a means to increase judicial accountability. What can be overlooked in these debates, however, is that judicial elections are not the source of the threat to judicial independence—instead, that threat arises from re-elections, or …

Does De Jure Independence Really Matter?: A Reevaluation Of Explanations For Judicial Independence, Tom Ginsburg, James Melton

Tom Ginsburg

The relationship between de jure and de facto judicial independence is much debated in the literature on judicial politics. Some studies find no relationship between the formal rules governing the structure of the judiciary and de facto judicial independence, while others find a tight correlation. This article sets out to reassess the relationship between de jure and de facto judicial independence using a new theory and an expanded data set. De jure institutional protections, we argue, do not work in isolation but work conjunctively, so that particular combinations of protections are more likely to be effective than others. We find …

Metaphor And Analogy: The Sun And Moon Of Legal Persuasion, Linda L. Berger

Linda L. Berger

Drawing on recent studies in social cognition, decision making, and analogical processing, this article will recommend that lawyers turn to novel characterizations and metaphors to solve a particular kind of persuasion problem that is created by the way judges and juries think and decide. According to social cognition researchers, we perceive and interpret new information by following a process of schematic cognition, analogizing the new data we encounter to the knowledge structures embedded in our memories. Decision-making researchers differentiate between intuitive and reflective processes (System 1 and System 2), and they agree that in System 1 decision making, only the …

Anti-Anti-Evasion In Constitutional Law, Brannon P. Denning, Michael B. Kent Jr.

Brannon P. Denning

In a previous paper, we identified “anti-evasion doctrines” (AEDs) that the U.S. Supreme Court develops in various areas of constitutional law to prevent the circumvention of constitutional principles the Court has sought to enforce. Typically, the Court employs an AED – crafted as an ex post standard – to bolster or backstop a previously-designed decision rule – crafted as an ex ante rule – so as to prevent government officials from complying with the form of the prior rule while evading the constitutional substance the rule was designed to implement. Although AEDs present benefits and tradeoffs in constitutional doctrine, their …

Justice Stewart Meets The Press, Keith Bybee

Keith J. Bybee

Among the Supreme Court Justices who have articulated distinctive views of free expression, Justice Potter Stewart alone placed particular emphasis on the First Amendment's protection of a free press. Drawing upon the lessons of history, the plain language of the Constitution, the political events of his day, and his own personal experience, Stewart argued that the organized news media should be considered an essential part of the checks-and-balances competition between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. Stewart’s emphasis on the special structural function of the established press placed him at odds with most of his colleagues …

The Place Of The Judiciary In The Constitutional Culture Of New Zealand, Matthew S. R. Palmer Qc

The Hon Justice Matthew Palmer

New Zealand constitutional culture is dominated by the political branches of government: representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty are perhaps the two most fundamental New Zealand constitutional norms. The judiciary has historically occupied an inferior, residual role with a relatively inaudible voice in constitutional dialogue. Against this context the paper explores the position of the judiciary in contemporary New Zealand constitutional culture. It concludes that it would take a striking judicial decision, consistent with public opinion, against government action, to invigorate popular support for the judicial branch of government. The normative prescription for the institutional health of the judicial branch is …