Law Commons^™

The Next Era Of Sentencing Reform, Steven L. Chanenson

Steven L. Chanenson

Hoist With Their Own Petard?, Steven Chanenson

Steven L. Chanenson

In 2003, Congress and the Department of Justice tried to increase their control over the United States Sentencing Commission and federal sentencing generally. Congress appeared to have achieved this goal when it passed the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (“PROTECT Act”), which resulted in reduced grounds for downward departures, Congressionally-revised text of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and a constrained Sentencing Commission potentially devoid of judges. Yet pro-government interpretations of the PROTECT Act may have been premature because the Supreme Court has now struck down parts of Washington State’s legislatively-enacted sentencing guidelines in …

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure: An Analysis Of Developments In The Law Regarding The Inclusion Of A Forfeiture Judgment In The Sentence Imposed In A Criminal Case, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

The article surveys the developments in the case law regarding criminal forfeiture procedure in 2003-04.

Criminal Justice And Videoconferencing Technology: The Remote Defendant, Anne Poulin

Anne Poulin

This Article addresses the increasing use of videoconferencing to avoid bringing criminal defendants to court for certain proceedings. Unfortunately, courts use videoconferencing technology to bring criminal defendants to court without carefully evaluating the impact of that practice on the quality of justice. This Article evaluates the implications of using technology to have defendants appear through videoconferencing and argues against the practice. It brings to bear the literature from other fields, particularly communications and social psychology. That body of literature suggests that videoconferencing may have a negative impact on the way the defendant is perceived by those in court as well …

In Pennsylvania, The Sentencing Remains The Same, Steven Chanenson, Frank Dermody

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure: The Investigatory Process, David Rudstein

David S Rudstein

No abstract provided.

Get The Facts, Jack! Empirical Research And The Changing Constitutional Landscape Of Consent Searches, Steven L. Chanenson

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

Implementing Nj's Anti-Terrorism Laws To Prevent Terrorist Financing: A Statutory Analysis Of The September 11, 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, James B. Johnston

James B Johnston

The 9/11 hijackers received much of the money they used to implement their plan of murder by funnelling money sent to them by Al Qaeda opertives to banks located in NJ. As a result the NJ legislature signed off on powerful terrorist financing legislation when it passed the September 11, 2001 Anto Terrorism Act. This article provides a step by step analysis of these new statutes and discusses other state legislation that can allow law enforcement to confiscate money linked to terrorism.

Terrorism And The Financial Sector: Are The Right Prosecutorial Tools Being Used?, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

The article suggests that the statutes enacted to deal specifically with terrorist financing are not always the most appropriate vehicles either for bringing criminal charges or recovering assets under the forfeiture laws, but that most traditional and generic statutes, such as those dealing with money laundering, bulk cash smuggling and currency reporting violations might be more effective in most cases.

Bulk Cash Smuggling And The Globalization Of Crime, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

The articles discusses the legislative history of the bulk cash smuggling statute, 31 U.S.C. 5332, and constitutional issues raised under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment when the government seeks to use the statute to forfeit the currency being smuggled.

The Forfeiture Of Property Involved In Money Laundering Offenses, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

The article discusses in detail the legal theories that the government uses to forfeit property involved in money laundering offenses under both the civil and criminal forfeiture laws. The money laundering offenses include violations of 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, as well as the anti-structuring and bulk cash smuggling statutes in Title 31.