Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (4)
- Law and Society (4)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (4)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (3)
- Constitutional Law (2)
-
- Criminology and Criminal Justice (2)
- Legal Profession (2)
- Legal Studies (2)
- Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation (2)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (2)
- Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance (2)
- Sociology (2)
- American Politics (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminology (1)
- Education (1)
- Ethics and Political Philosophy (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Higher Education (1)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Legal History (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain
Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain
All Faculty Scholarship
This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .
Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to section numbers of L. MCLAIN, …
The Legal Limits Of “Yes Means Yes”, Paul H. Robinson
The Legal Limits Of “Yes Means Yes”, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
This op-ed piece for the Chronicle of Higher Education argues that the affirmative consent rule of "yes means yes" is a useful standard that can help educate and ideally change norms regarding consent to sexual intercourse. But that goal can best be achieved by using “yes means yes” as an ex ante announcement of the society's desired rule of conduct. That standard only becomes problematic when used as the ex post principle of adjudication for allegations of rape. Indeed, those most interested in changing existing norms ought to be the persons most in support of distinguishing these two importantly different …
What's Wrong With Sentencing Equality?, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
What's Wrong With Sentencing Equality?, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Equality in criminal sentencing often translates into equalizing outcomes and stamping out variations, whether race-based, geographic, or random. This approach conflates the concept of equality with one contestable conception focused on outputs and numbers, not inputs and processes. Racial equality is crucial, but a concern with eliminating racism has hypertrophied well beyond race. Equalizing outcomes seems appealing as a neutral way to dodge contentious substantive policy debates about the purposes of punishment. But it actually privileges deterrence and incapacitation over rehabilitation, subjective elements of retribution, and procedural justice, and it provides little normative guidance for punishment. It also has unintended …
What Gideon Did, Sara Mayeux
What Gideon Did, Sara Mayeux
All Faculty Scholarship
Many accounts of Gideon v. Wainwright’s legacy focus on what Gideon did not do—its doctrinal and practical limits. For constitutional theorists, Gideon imposed a preexisting national consensus upon a few “outlier” states, and therefore did not represent a dramatic doctrinal shift. For criminal procedure scholars, advocates, and journalists, Gideon has failed, in practice, to guarantee meaningful legal help for poor people charged with crimes.
Drawing on original historical research, this Article instead chronicles what Gideon did—the doctrinal and institutional changes it inspired between 1963 and the early 1970s. Gideon shifted the legal profession’s policy consensus on indigent defense away from …
Designing Plea Bargaining From The Ground Up: Accuracy And Fairness Without Trials As Backstops, Stephanos Bibas
Designing Plea Bargaining From The Ground Up: Accuracy And Fairness Without Trials As Backstops, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
American criminal procedure developed on the assumption that grand juries and petit jury trials were the ultimate safeguards of fair procedures and accurate outcomes. But now that plea bargaining has all but supplanted juries, we need to think through what safeguards our plea-bargaining system should be built around. This Symposium Article sketches out principles for redesigning our plea-bargaining system from the ground up around safeguards. Part I explores the causes of factual, moral, and legal inaccuracies in guilty pleas. To prevent and remedy these inaccuracies, it proposes a combination of quasi-inquisitorial safeguards, more vigorous criminal defense, and better normative evaluation …