Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Sentencing (2)
- Sentencing Reform Act (2)
- Attorneys' fees (1)
- Commission's Preliminary Draft (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Criminal forfeiture (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal sanctions (1)
- Defense attorney fees (1)
- Distribution (1)
- Drug trafficker (1)
- Forfeit (1)
- Forfeiture (1)
- Forfeiture Act of 1984 (1)
- Freedom of Information (1)
- Guidelines (1)
- Inc. v. Virginia (1)
- Property (1)
- Punishment (1)
- RICO (1)
- Racketeers (1)
- Richmond Newspapers (1)
- Right to know (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- United States Sentencing Commission (1)
- United States v. Harvey (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Note: United States V. Harvey: Are Criminal Defense Fees More Vulnerable Than Necessary?, Eric Easton
Note: United States V. Harvey: Are Criminal Defense Fees More Vulnerable Than Necessary?, Eric Easton
All Faculty Scholarship
In United States v. Harvey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Congress may not constitutionally require convicted racketeers and drug traffickers to forfeit property used to pay legitimate defense attorney fees. To the extent that such forfeitures and related pre-conviction restraints on transfer are authorized by provisions of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (the Act), those provisions violate an accused's right to counsel of choice as secured by the Sixth Amendment.This article argues that the court's holding in Harvey was more narrowly drawn than necessary, and that as a consequence criminal defense attorney …
Whatever Happened To The "Right To Know?": The Right Of Access To Government-Controlled Information Since Richmond Newspapers On Those Who Don't, Michael Hayes
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Dissent From The United States Sentencing Commission's Proposed Guidelines, Paul H. Robinson
Dissent From The United States Sentencing Commission's Proposed Guidelines, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
I believe the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the United States Sentencing Commission, contains two main directives. First, the Commission's guidelines must provide a rational and principled sentencing system that will further the purposes of just punishment and crime control. Second, the guidelines must reduce unwarranted disparity among sentences for similar offenders who commit similar offenses. The Act provides that this is to be achieved through the Commission's promulgation of a comprehensive sentencing system that will bind all federal judges. I opposed the Commission's Preliminary Draft of September, 1986, because I saw it as lacking both guiding principles …
A Sentencing System For The 21st Century?, Paul H. Robinson
A Sentencing System For The 21st Century?, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the United States Sentencing Commission and directed it to devise sentencing guidelines for the federal criminal justice system. The Commission recently fulfilled this mandate, promulgating a final set of rules, which took effect November 1. Commissioner Robinson, in filing the lone dissent to these guidelines, argued that they neither meet the expectations of the Act nor provide a comprehensive and workable system. In this Article, Commissioner Robinson discusses the necessary components of a modern, principled, and workable system. He first identifies an ideal system by describing its primary goals and by offering the …
Hybrid Principles For The Distribution Of Criminal Sanctions, Paul H. Robinson
Hybrid Principles For The Distribution Of Criminal Sanctions, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
Most criminal codes, and most criminal law courses, begin with the 'familiar litany' of the purposes of criminal law sanctions - just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation of the dangerous, and rehabilitation. We train and direct our lawyers, judges, and legislators to use these purposes as guiding principles for the distribution of criminal sanctions. The purposes are thus to guide both the drafting and interpretation of criminal statutes and the imposition of criminal sentences in individual cases. The purposes frequently conflict, however, as part I will demonstrate. Conflicts arise because each purpose requires consideration of different criteria; in some cases, a particular …