Law Commons^™

The Georgia Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act Of 1995, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

On April 10, 1995, Gov. Zell Miller signed into law Georgia's Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995. The Act is premised upon the following findings and determinations of the General Assembly: that through direct appeal, sentence review, and habeas corpus the state now provides persons sentenced to death "adequate opportunities" to assert their constitutional rights; that habeas corpus proceedings should not be used by persons sentenced to death "solely as a delaying tactic under the guise of asserting rights;" and that "strict compliance" with habeas corpus procedures "will prevent the waste of limited resources and will eliminate unnecessary …

Changing Notions Of State Agency In International Law: The Case Of Paul Touvier, Claire Oakes Finkelstein

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Duress: A Philosophical Account Of The Defense In Law, Claire Oakes Finkelstein

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Prosecutors, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The power and prestige of the American prosecutor have changed dramatically over the past twenty years. Three generalizations appropriately describe this change. First, prosecutors wield vastly more power than ever before. Second, prosecutors are more insulated from judicial control over their conduct. Third, prosecutors are increasingly immune to ethical restraints. Only the last point may provoke some controversy; the first two are easily documented, and generally accepted by the courts and commentators.

Part I of this article examines in greater detail this vast accretion of prosecutorial power, and explains how this transformation has resulted in a radical skewing of the …

The Most Fundamental Change In The Criminal Justice System: The Role Of The Prosecutor In Sentence Reduction, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

As every lawyer knows, the prosecutor is the most powerful figure in the American criminal justice system. The prosecutor decides whom to charge, what charges to bring, whether to permit a defendant to plead guilty, and whether to confer immunity. In carrying out this broad decision-making power, the prosecutor enjoys considerable independence. Indeed, one of the most elusive and vexing subjects in criminal justice has been to define the limits of the prosecutor’s discretion.

The Adversarial System At Risk, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The most ominous recent development affecting the balance of forces in the adversary system is the unprecedented attack by prosecutors on criminal defense lawyers themselves. Grand jury subpoenas to attorneys, law office searches, disqualification motions, fee forfeiture proceedings, and, most recently, IRS attempts to enforce currency-reporting regulations do not seem to be isolated occurrences or mere happenstance. Rather, perhaps inspired by Shakespeare's injunction in Henry VI to "kill all the lawyers," some prosecutors appear to have concluded that the most effective way to prevail in the battle against crime is to cripple the defense lawyers, particularly those who represent defendants …

The Thin Blue Line: Art Or Trial In The Fact-Finding Process?, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Commentary objectively analyzes The Thin Blue Line, focusing on the film’s monologues, dramatizations, and exhibits. The film's organizational structure roughly parallels the stages of the criminal justice process, from the investigation and arrest of Adams to his trial, conviction, sentence, and post-conviction litigation. The prologue and epilogue unify the story. Part II attempts to explain the bizarre judicial result, focusing on the prosecutor's dominant role in the criminal justice process. It concludes, as does the film, that one of the fundamental features of our legal system - the intrinsic ability of the adversary process to discover …

Proving The Defendant's Bad Character, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The classic study of the American jury shows that when a defendant's criminal record is known and the prosecution's case has weaknesses, the defendant's chances of acquittal are thirty-eight percent, compared to sixty-five percent otherwise. Because of the danger that jurors will assume that the defendant is guilty based on proof that his bad character predisposes him to an act of crime, the courts and legislatures have attempted to circumscribe the use of such evidence. Some prosecutors, however, although well aware of the insidious effect such prejudicial evidence can have on jurors, violate the rules of evidence, as well as …

Attorney Loyalty And Client Perjury - A Postscript To Nix V. Whiteside, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

How much, if at all, can a criminal defense lawyer cooperate in his or her client's decision to commit perjury? Courts, commentators, and bar committees have grappled with this question for years without offering clear or consistent guidelines. Any principled response must take into account some very hard questions. Under what circumstances, for instance, does the lawyer ever really "know" that his client's proposed testimony is false? Is it sufficient if the lawyer simply disbelieves his client's story, or that of his client's witnesses? Does it make any difference if the attorney learns of a plan to perjure during the …

Justice, Mercy, And Craziness, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Entrapment, Shocked Consciences, And The Staged Arrest, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article discusses the relatively spare and unsettled case law relating to the staged arrest, reflected primarily in United States v. Archer and Nigrone v. Murtagh. Part III of this Article examines the defense of entrapment, one of the most confusing and controversial legal doctrines, and its application to the staged arrest. Because the staged arrest ineluctably raises questions of offensive government conduct that neither constitutes unlawful entrapment nor invades any independent rights of citizens, part IV considers the analysis of courts that have invoked the due process clause to limit government investigations. In view of the failure of these …

The "Perjury Trap", Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

It is the aim of the present Article, first, to explore the boundaries of legitimate grand jury interrogation as it bears on the subject of perjury and, second, to formulate guidelines that strike a balance between the needs of the investigatory process and the rights of witnesses.

Postconviction Habeas Corpus Relief In Georgia: A Decade After The Habeas Corpus Act, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

Part II of this Article will highlight the grounds for relief from a conviction or sentence that were available to a Georgia prisoner prior to 1967 and the procedural obstacles to relief that existed. Part III will explore the grounds for relief currently available, and Part IV will examine the procedural obstacles to postconviction relief that remain. Part V will briefly summarize the availability of postconfiction relief in federal court to determine whether the 1967 Act has in fact eliminated the friction between the state courts and the federal courts.

The Twilight Of Welfare Criminology, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"A Most Deplorable Paradox": Admitting Illegally Obtained Evidence In Georgia--Past, Present, And Future, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in Georgia criminal cases prior to 1961 and during the post-Mapp era and endeavors to assess the future admissibility of illegally seized evidence in Georgia under both federal and state law.

The Twilight Of Welfare Criminology: A Final Word, Stephen J. Morse

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A New Role For An Ancient Writ: Postconviction Habeas Corpus Relief In Georgia (Part Ii), Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

In Part I of this Article, appearing in Volume 8 of the Georgia Law Review at page 313, Professor Wilkes traced the development of postconviction habeas corpus in Georgia up to 1967. In this the second part of the Article, he examines the background and passage of the Georgia Habeas Corpus Act of 1967. Finally, Professor Wilkes assesses the degree to which the Act has fulfilled its purposes, and suggests several possible changes for the future.

"Criminal Records"--A Comparative Approach, Sigmund A. Cohn

Scholarly Works

There is in the United States a need to balance the interest of the public in the apprehension and conviction of criminals with that of individuals arrested but not convicted of any wrongdoing. As has been shown, some of the leading civil law countries have approached this goal in two ways: first, by not requiring an arrest in a great number of criminal cases and thus not furthering in the mind of the public the idea that arrest and criminal wrongdoing are identical, and second, by confining entries in criminal records, at least on principle, to final convictions of criminal …

A New Role For An Ancient Writ: Postconviction Habeas Corpus Relief In Georgia (Part I), Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

Because it has been esteemed in this state for centuries, the writ of habeas corpus has played a significant role in the history of Georgia civil liberties. Indeed, one Georgia court early state that "[w]hen the writ is applied for, no inquiry is made as to the complexion of the petitioner, or the place of his permanent allegiance. All of every condition, of every country and of every complexion are equally entitled to it, the native of South Africa, not less than the Peer of the Realms." In the first part of his Article, Professor Wilkes examines the origins of …

Warrantless Searches And Seizures, Mack Allen Player

Scholarly Works

The fourth amendment to the Constitution has two basic clauses. The first, the reasonableness clause, protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The second, the warrant clause, sets forth conditions under which a warrant may issue. Searches and seizures made pursuant to a warrant are, quite obviously, governed by the commands of the warrant clause. However, the effect of the warrant clause upon searches and seizures made without warrants is not clear from the amendment itself, and the Supreme Court has failed to develop a consistent interpretation of the proper role of that clause.