Law Commons^™

Autonomy Isn't Everything: Some Cautionary Notes On Mccoy V. Louisiana, W. Bradley Wendel

W. Bradley Wendel

The Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in McCoy v. Louisiana has been hailed as a decisive statement of the priority of the value of a criminal defendant’s autonomy over the fairness and reliability interests that also inform both the Sixth Amendment and the ethical obligations of defense counsel. It also appears to be a victory for the vision of client-centered representation and the humanistic value of the inherent dignity of the accused. However the decision is susceptible to being read too broadly in ways that harm certain categories of defendants. This paper offers a couple of cautionary notes, in response …

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Confronting Science: Expert Evidence And The Confrontation Clause, David H. Kaye, Jennifer L. Mnookin

David Kaye

In Crawford v Washington, the Supreme Court substantially changed its understanding of how the Confrontation Clause applies to hearsay evidence. Since then, the Court has issued three bitterly contested expert-evidence-related Confrontation Clause decisions, and each one has generated at least as many questions as answers. This article analyzes this trilogy of cases, especially the most recent, Williams v Illinois.

In Williams, the Court issued a bewildering array of opinions in which majority support for admitting the opinion of a DNA analyst about tests that she did not perform was awkwardly knitted together out of several incompatible doctrinal …

Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried

David Kaye

DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected.At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic area …

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part Two, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

Part One of this article addressed the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements. Part Two discusses the Sixth Amendment, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and impeachment issues.

Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rules: Policies, Principles, And Politics, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

The exclusionary evidence rules derived from the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments continue to play an important role in constitutional criminal procedure, despite the intense controversy that surrounds them. The primary justification for these rules has shifted from an "imperative of judicial integrity" to the "deterrence of police conduct that violates... [constitutional] rights." Regardless of the justification it uses for the rules' existence, the Supreme Court continues to limit their breadth "at the margin," when "the acknowledged costs to other values vital to a rational system of criminal justice" outweigh the deterrent effects of exclusion. The most notable limitation on …

Effective Assistance Of Counsel: In Quest Of A Uniform Standard Of Review, Theresa L. Springmann, John Eric Smithburn

J. Eric Smithburn

No abstract provided.

Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Schemes Across The Nation, Sarah A. Mourer

Sarah Mourer

The legislature has forgotten the lessons taught by Furman v. Georgia and today, the “untrammeled discretion” once held by juries is now held by the judiciary. Many death penalty sentencing procedures are unconstitutional, in violation of both the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, because the judge alone is authorized to sentence the defendant to life or death despite being uninformed of the jury’s factual findings. Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment as articulated in Ring v. Arizona, the factual findings upon which a death sentence rests must be found by the jury, and only the jury. Nevertheless, many jurisdictions permit the judge …

Hold On: The Remarkably Resilient, Constitutionally Dubious "48-Hour Hold", Steven Mulroy

Steven Mulroy

This article discusses the surprisingly widespread, little-known practice of “48-hour holds,” where police detain a suspect without charge or access to bail for up to 48 hours to continue their investigation; at the end of 48 hours, they either charge or release him. Although it has not been discussed in the scholarly literature, the practice has occurred in a number of large local jurisdictions over the past few decades, and continues today in some of them. The “holds” often take place, admittedly or tacitly, without the probable cause needed to charge a defendant, and thus in violation of the Fourth …

Massachusetts Firearms Prosecutions In The Wake Of Melendez-Diaz, Kevin P. Chapman

Kevin P. Chapman

The Supreme Court ruling in Melendez-Diaz fundamentally changed the way that firearms offenses are prosecuted in Massachusetts. This paper presents the history of firearms prosecutions and the current state of the law, and it raises several unanswered questions that could further change the nature of future firearms prosecutions.

Padilla V. Kentucky And The Evolving Right To Deportation Counsel: Watershed Or Work-In-Progress?, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

Though widely heralded by immigration and human rights lawyers as a “landmark,” possible “watershed,” and even “Gideon decision” for immigrants, Padilla v. Kentucky is perhaps better understood as a Rorschach test, than as a clear constitutional precedent. It is surely a very interesting and important U.S. Supreme Court case in the (rapidly converging) fields of immigration and criminal law in which the Court struggles with the functional relationship between ostensibly “civil” deportation proceedings and criminal convictions. This is a gratifying development, for reasons not only of justice, fairness, proportionality, and basic human decency, but also (perhaps) of doctrinal consistency. The …

“Bull” Coming From The States: Why The U.S. Supreme Court Should Use Williams V. Illinois To Close One Of Bullcoming’S Confrontation Clause Loopholes, Tara Klimek Price

Tara Price

Imagine that you are selected as a juror in a trial where the defendant is accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol. You listen to the police officer who testifies that he observed the defendant and believed him to be intoxicated. You hear about how after obtaining a warrant, the officer took the defendant to the emergency room for a blood-alcohol test. The police officer finishes his testimony, and the next witness will testify about the results of the defendant’s blood-alcohol test.

But before the witness can testify, defense counsel objects. Apparently, this is not the laboratory analyst …

Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Lessons From Hurricane Katrina: Prison Emergency Preparedness As A Constitutional Imperative, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters ever to strike the United States, in terms of casualties, suffering, and financial cost. Often overlooked among Katrina's victims are the 8,000 inmates who were incarcerated at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) when Katrina struck. Despite a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, these men and women, some of whom had been held on charges as insignificant as public intoxication, remained in the jail as the hurricane hit, and endured days of rising, toxic waters, a lack of food and drinking water, and a complete breakdown of order within OPP. When the inmates …

Faint-Hearted Fidelity To The Common Law In Justice Scalia’S Confrontation Clause Trilogy, Ellen Yee

ellen yee

FAINT-HEARTED FIDELITY TO THE COMMON LAW IN JUSTICE SCALIA’S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE TRILOGY Ellen Liang Yee ABSTRACT In Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), the Supreme Court issued the third Confrontation Clause opinion in its recent Crawford trilogy. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Giles Court reiterated its interpretive approach in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is “most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.” The Court’s decision purports to hold that a defendant does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment confrontation …

The Facts About Ring V. Arizona And The Jury's Role In Capital Sentencing, Sam Kamin, Justin Marceau

Sam Kamin

When it was decided in 2002, Ring v. Arizona appeared to be a watershed in the way capital sentences are handed out in the United States: it overturned several states’ death penalty statutes and appeared to imperil many more. Ring announced that the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey applied to capital sentencing and required that any fact necessary to the imposition of the death penalty be proven to a jury and beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet eight years after the case was decided, it is not clear what, if anything, Ring in fact demands of the states. Determining exactly …

Violent Crimes And Known Associates: The Residual Clause Of The Armed Career Criminal Act, David C. Holman

David Holman

Confusion reigns in federal courts over whether crimes qualify as “violent felonies” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA requires a fifteen-year minimum sentence for felons convicted of possessing a firearm who have three prior convictions for violent felonies. Many offenders receive the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years based on judges’ guesses that their prior crimes could be committed in a violent manner—instead of based on the statutory crimes of which they were actually convicted. Offenders who do not deserve a minimum sentence of fifteen years may receive it anyway.

The courts’ application of …

The Requirement Of An Investigator In Public And Private Practice, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Justice Deserts: Spatial Inequality And Local Funding Of Indigent Defense, Lisa R. Pruitt

Lisa R Pruitt

Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst

Stephen A Gerst

The Sixth Amendment right to an attorney is so fundamental that the United States Supreme Court has carefully developed requirements to ensure that an indigent defendant does not go to trial in any criminal case where there is a possibility of a deprivation of freedom without an attorney unless there is an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel on the record. However, the Supreme Court has not addressed what the record must show for finding that a defendant has lost his right to counsel as a result of the defendant's own misconduct toward the court or the defendant's attorney. …

Debacle: How The Supreme Court Has Mangled American Sentencing Law And How Justice Sotomayor Might Help Fix It, Frank O. Bowman

Frank O. Bowman III

This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with McMillan v. Pennsylvania in 1986, crescendoed in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker in 2004-2005, and continues in 2009 in cases such as Oregon v. Ice, has been a colossal judicial failure. First, the Court has failed to provide a logically coherent, constitutionally based answer to the fundamental question of what limits the Constitution places on the roles played by the institutional actors in the criminal justice system. It failed to recognize that defining, adjudicating and punishing crimes implicates both the …

“I’M Dying To Tell You What Happened”: The Admissibility Of Testimonial Dying Declarations Post-Crawford, Peter Nicolas

Peter Nicolas

In Crawford v. Washington and its progeny, the U.S. Supreme Court has re-theorized the relationship between hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause. Post-Crawford, hearsay statements that are “testimonial” in nature are, as a general rule, inadmissible when offered against the accused in a criminal case. Yet in footnote 6 of Crawford, the Supreme Court suggested that an exception to the general rule may exist for dying declarations. This manuscript builds on the dictum set forth in footnote 6 of Crawford, the meaning of which the lower courts are just beginning to explore. In the manuscript, I first demonstrate that the …

Preface: Reclaiming Criminal Procedure, Jeffrey L. Fisher

Jeffrey L Fisher

The key to making sense of Crawford is to appreciate that the decision turned the right to confrontation from an evidentiary principle back into a criminal procedure right. As the Court ultimately put it, the Confrontation Clause "commands . . . that reliability be assessed in a particular manner by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. The Clause Thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.

This way of conceptualizing a constitutional right is unique to criminal procedure. Instead …

Scalian Skepticism And The Sixth Amendment In The Twilight Of The Rehnquist Court, M. Katherine B. Darmer

M. Katherine B. Darmer

While the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist left behind a rich criminal procedure legacy marked by pro-government successes in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment contexts, this paper argues that Rehnquist's vision failed with respect to the Sixth Amendment. In both the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Confrontation Clause contexts, Justice Scalia marked out very different positions than Rehnquist on both the scope of the right to trial by jury and the right of cross-examination. Ultimately, Scalia's views prevailed, and part of the legacy of the Rehnquist Court is now the invalidation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and a testimonial approach to …

Crawford’S Aftershock: Aligning The Regulation Of Non-Testimonial Hearsay With The History And Purposes Of The Confrontation Clause, Fred O. Smith

Fred O. Smith Jr.

This Article explores what the purposes, history and text of the Confrontation Clause have to say about the admission of non-testimonial hearsay statements. Part I examines historical sources such as the common law near the Founding, as well as the text of the clause, and concludes that non-testimonial hearsay was one of the ills that the Confrontation Clause was designed to protect. Part I additionally proposes a two-tiered approach to interpreting the Confrontation Clause, in which testimonial statements receive the most vigorous form of constitutional scrutiny, but non-testimonial statements receive meaningful scrutiny as well. The United States Constitution is no …