Law Commons^™

Brief For Evidence And Criminal Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Alexander A. Reinert

Amicus Briefs

Amici are scholars who teach and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. We file this brief to address the relationship between rules of admissibility for psychiatric testimony and Eighth Amendment standards for procedure in capital trials. The decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals paid little attention to this relationship, but in so doing it ignored much of this Court’s important capital punishment jurisprudence. Amici write to emphasize that the Eighth Amendment’s emphasis on reliability and accuracy in capital trials has ramifications for the admissibility of expert testimony.

Our scholarly interest in this issue arises from teaching …

The Impact Of Ashcroft V. Iqbal On Pleading, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

No abstract provided.

Alternative Elements, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

The U.S. Constitution provides a criminal defendant with a right to trial by jury, and most states and the federal government require criminal juries to agree unanimously before a defendant may be convicted. But what exactly must a jury agree upon unanimously? Well-established doctrine, pursuant to In re Winship, provides that the jury must agree that the prosecution has proven every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet what the elements of any given offense are is not as clear as one might expect. Frequently, criminal statutes—especially federal statutes—describe an array of prohibited conduct, leaving ambiguous whether …