Law Commons^™

Keeping Guns In The Hands Of Abusive Partners: Prosecutorial And Judicial Subversion Of Federal Firearms Laws, Bonnie Carlson

Articles

State actors are imbued with the power of the government to enforce and apply the law. When they use that power to instead inhibit a law’s enforcement, they are engaging in subversion. Subversion is problematic on its face: it frustrates legislative intent, creates confusion, and destabilizes the separation of powers foundational to our democracy. But subversion is particularly insidious when it is done to the detriment of vulnerable individuals. That is the case when state prosecutors and judges purposefully undermine federal law intended to keep firearms out of the hands of abusive partners. Guns and domestic violence can be a …

Madison V. Alabama: An Analysis And Future Considerations, Kaleb Byars

Articles

In 1985, Vernon Madison killed a police officer in Alabama. At trial, an Alabama jury convicted Madison of capital murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death. While awaiting his execution, Madison suffered strokes and was diagnosed with several mental disorders, including vascular dementia. Madison averred these disorders, particularly vascular dementia, rendered him unable to remember committing his crime. Accordingly, Madison petitioned to stay his execution, arguing his disorders rendered him mentally incompetent. Particularly, Madison argued the inability to remember committing the murder prevented him from understanding his conviction. ...

Part I of this Article has introduced the facts …

Remedial Reading: Evaluating Federal Courts’ Application Of The Prejudice Standard In Capital Sentences From “Weighing” And “Non-Weighing” States, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

On March 31, 2016, the State of Georgia executed my client, Joshua Bishop. Until the time of his execution, several successive legal teams challenged his conviction and sentence through the usual channels: direct appeal, state habeas corpus proceedings, and federal habeas corpus proceedings. The last hearing on the merits of his case was before a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which accepts appeals from death penalty cases out of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. In a lengthy opinion describing the many mitigating circumstances present in Mr. Bishop’s case, the Eleventh Circuit denied relief. This …

On Competence: (Re)Considering Appropriate Legal Standards For Examining Sixth Amendment Claims Related To Criminal Defendants’ Mental Illness And Disability, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

This Article addresses the questions of attorney error and client competency and examines the following issues: the origin and development of the legal tests for intellectual competency to stand trial or enter a plea and the tests for evaluating Sixth Amendment effective assistance of counsel claims; the range of state and federal approaches to circumstances when those two situations converge; and whether and how our legal tests should be shaped to best assess attorney error when the client likely has an intellectual disability or incompetence. When consideration of a defendant's mental illness or mental disability forms the basis of a …

Cold Comfort Food: A Systematic Examination Of The Rituals And Rights Of The Last Meal, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

Last meals are a resilient ritual accompanying executions in the United States. Yet states vary considerably in the ways they administer last meals. This paper explores the recent decision in Texas to abolish the tradition altogether. It seeks to understand, through consultation of historical and contemporary sources, what the ritual signifies. We then go on to analyze execution procedures in all 35 of the states that allowed executions in 2010, and show that last meal allowances are paradoxically at their most expansive in states traditionally associated with high rates of capital punishment (Texas now being the exception to that rule.) …

Gideon'S Vuvuzela: Reconciling The Sixth Amendments Promises With The Doctrines Of Forfeiture And Implicit Waiver Of Counsel, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Articles

Dating back to the early decades of the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has articulated clear, venerable standards for the waiver of constitutional rights--and in particular the right to counsel. This is a rich area for both litigation and teaching, if only to be able to repeat phrases such as "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" and "we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." A defendant must proceed with "eyes open," and a waiver will not be presumed from a "silent record." Consistently affirmed and reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court and …