Law Commons^™

Hurst V. Florida’S Ha’P’Orth Of Tar: The Need To Revisit Caldwell, Clemons, And Proffitt, Craig Trocino, Chance Meyer

University of Miami Law Review

In Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court held Florida’s death penalty scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because judges, rather than juries, found sentencing facts necessary to impose death. That Sixth Amendment ruling has implications for Florida’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

Under the Eighth Amendment rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, capital juries must appreciate their responsibility for death sentencing. Yet, Florida has instructed juries that their fact-findings merely support sentencing recommendations, while leaving the ultimate sentencing decision to a judge. Because Hurst clarifies that the Sixth Amendment requires juries to find the operative set of facts on which sentences are …

You Can’T Handle The Truth: A Primer On False Confessions, Craig J. Trocino

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking The Direct File Statute To Criminal Court: Immigration Consequences For Juveniles, Marlon J. Baquedano

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

Florida is one of fifteen jurisdictions in the United States that have enacted a direct file statute that grants prosecutors the ability to transfer juveniles from the juvenile justice system to adult court. Critiques of the direct file statute have focused on its effectiveness on deterrence and recidivism, its arbitrariness in application, and the tension with the role of juvenile justice in reforming rather than punishing youth. This Note explores the harmful consequences of the direct file statute on non-citizen youth in immigration proceedings and the probability of obtaining immigration relief. An adult conviction as opposed to a juvenile delinquency …

Sentence Structure: Prohibiting “Second Or Successive” Habeas Petitions After Patterson V. Secretary, Christina M. Frohock

University of Miami Law Review

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Patterson v. Secretary includes a heated dispute over the prohibition against “second or successive” habeas corpus petitions in 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b). Considering an amended criminal sentence from Florida state court, the majority and dissenting opinions structure that sentence differently and, thus, apply the prohibition differently. This Article argues that both the majority and the dissent conceal policy judgments beneath the surface of legal decision-making. First, the Article analyzes the statutory prohibition against “second or successive” habeas petitions, as applied previously by the U.S. Supreme Court in Magwood v. Patterson and by the Eleventh Circuit …

A Bronx Tale: Disposable People, The Legacy Of Slavery, And The Social Death Of Kalief Browder, D. Marvin Jones

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ready, Fire, Aim: How Universities Are Failing The Constitution In Sexual Assault Cases, Tamara Rice Lave

Articles

This Article looks critically at the procedural protections American universities give students accused of sexual assault. It begins by situating these policies historically, providing background to Title IX and the different guidelines promulgated by the Department of Education. Next, it presents original research on the procedural protections provided by the fifty flagship state universities. In October 2014, university administrators were contacted and asked a series of questions about the rights afforded to students, including the standard of proof right to an adjudicatory hearing, right to confront and cross examine witnesses, right to counsel, right to silence, and right to appeal. …