Law Commons^™

Quantifying Reasonable Doubt: A Proposed Solution To An Equal Protection Problem, Harry D. Saunders

ExpressO

In this article we present the case that the Reasonable Doubt standard is in urgent need of repair. Our research reveals that a previously-recognized phenomenon arising from vagueness of the standard is more consequential than thus far realized and creates a serious equal protection problem. We show that the only legally feasible solution to this problem is to quantify the definition of the standard. While others have examined quantified standards, we make a direct case for it and overcome previous objections to it by offering a way to make it practical and workable.

The solution we envision will require new …

Does The Constitution Apply To The Actions Of The United States Anti-Doping Agency?, Dionne L. Koller

All Faculty Scholarship

Since its formation in 2000, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has aggressively pursued athletes who are believed to have used performance-enhancing substances and has aggressively prosecuted those who ultimately test positive. To many, this is a long overdue response to the growing problem of doping in sports. But to others, USADA's actions, and the federal government's support of these efforts, has sparked enormous controversy. This article examines USADA and its relationship to the federal government to determine whether USADA's actions could be constrained by the Constitution. While it is clear that USADA has very close ties to the federal …

U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power To Articulate And Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, And Punitive Damages, Thomas C. Galligan

ExpressO

U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power to Articulate and Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, and Punitive Damages analyzes and critiques the three primary areas in which the U.S. Supreme Court has found federal constitutional limits on a state’s power to articulate, develop, and apply its common law of torts. It is the first piece to consider all three areas together as an emerging body of jurisprudence which Professor Galligan calls U.S. Supreme Court tort reform. After setting forth a modest model of adjudication, the article applies that model to each of the three areas: defamation and related …

Civil And Criminal Recidivists: Extraterritoriality In Tort And Crime, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Historically, punitive damage awards and criminal sentences have shared the common justifications of punishment and deterrence, with the culpability of tortfeasors and criminals alike being enhanced as a result of repeat misconduct. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell suggests, however, that the parallels now in effect stop at the state line. The extraterritorial misconduct of tortfeasors is permitted to play a very limited role, if any, in the assessment of punitive damage awards. Meanwhile, such misconduct continues to be used by courts to significantly enhance the sentences of criminal defendants, an asymmetry accentuated by California v. …

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court decided five Miranda1 cases in 2003-2004, making this one of the most active fifteen-month periods for the law of self-incrimination since the controversial case was decided in 1966. In this Article, we consider three of those five cases-Chavez v. Martinez, Missouri v. Seibert and United States v. Patane-along with the blockbuster decision four years ago in Dickerson v. United States. in an attempt to decipher what, if anything, this remarkable level of activity teaches us about the direction of the Court's self-incrimination jurisprudence. In the end, while these cases, like those before them, may not entirely clarify …

Richard Sheppard Arnold: A Distinguished Jurist, A Loyal Colleague And A Good Friend, Gerald W. Heaney

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Little Word "Due", Andrew T. Hyman

Andrew T. Hyman

The meaning of the Due Process Clause is investigated, with special emphasis on the little word "due." The author concludes that the text and structure of the Constitution --- as well as the intentions of the framers --- strongly support the view of the late Justice Hugo Black regarding the meaning of this Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the Constitution, due process means process due according to the law of the land, and a statute is part of the law of the land if it does not violate or undermine any other provision of the Constitution. Thus, …

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia's Constitution--And Ours, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Right To Effective Assistance Of Capital Postconviction Counsel: The Scope Of The Constitutional Obligation To Monitor Counsel Performance, Celestine Richards Mcconville

Celestine Richards McConville

This article is an outgrowth of an idea developed by the author in a prior article, The Right to Effective Assistance of Capital Postconviction Counsel: Constitutional Implications of Statutory Grants of Capital Counsel, 2003 Wisconsin Law Review 31. The prior article argued that the government's decision to provide capital postconviction counsel triggers a due process-based obligation to make the right to counsel meaningful, which essentially means that the right to counsel must include the right to effective assistance of counsel. In the postconviction context, the effectiveness guarantee requires that the government must monitor counsel's performance to ensure, to the extent …