Law Commons^™

Summary Of Whisler V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 40, Jared R. Gibb

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The defendant, Douglas Whisler, appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of controlled substances or chemicals.

Discretion And Criminal Law: The Good, The Bad, And The Mundane, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Most academic papers condemn discretion in the enforcement and prosecution of crime. This essay argues that discretion should be understood to come in three varieties: good discretion, which is beneficial; bad discretion, which is typified by acts motivated by race, sex, or class considerations; and mundane discretion, which is value-neutral. The decision to pursue a drunken driver rather than a speeder, for example, is a good use of discretion while the decision to pursue one speeder rather than another based on race is bad discretion. Most motives that prompt acts of discretion, however, are value-neutral or what I call “mundane” …

Time Travel, Hovercrafts, And The Framers: James Madison Sees The Future And Rewrites The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

The Framers could not have contemplated the interpretational problems that cloud the Fourth Amendment because police, in the modern sense, were unknown to the Framers. Also unknown to the Framers, of course, were wiretaps, drug interdiction searches, thermal imagining, helicopters, and blood tests. We can infer from the history surrounding the Fourth Amendment what the Framers hoped it would accomplish in their time. What if the Framers could have seen the future and known the kind of police techniques that are being used today? What kind of Fourth Amendment would they have written with that knowledge? This article seeks to …

Broadening The Holistic Mindset: Incorporating Collateral Consequences And Reentry Into Criminal Defense Lawyering, Michael Pinard

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Michael Pinard highlights the holistic model of criminal defense representation, which seeks to address the myriad issues that often lead to the client’s involvement with the criminal justice system with the overarching goal of providing a comprehensive solution to those underlying factors. While lauding these developments, however, Professor Pinard argues that the holistic model has largely overlooked two facets of the criminal justice system that impact greatly the client’s life once the formal representation has concluded: the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry. Professor Pinard explores the emerging attention devoted to these two components, but …

The Lessons Of People V. Moscat: Confronting Judicial Bias In Domestic Violence Cases Interpreting Crawford V. Washington, David Jaros

All Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington was a groundbreaking decision that radically redefined the scope of the Confrontation Clause. Nowhere has the impact of Crawford and the debate over its meaning been stronger than in the context of domestic violence prosecutions. The particular circumstances that surround domestic violence cases 911 calls that record cries for help and accusations, excited utterances made to responding police officers, and the persistent reluctance of complaining witnesses to cooperate with prosecutors -- combine to make the introduction of "out-of-comment statements" a critical component of many domestic violence prosecutions. Because domestic violence cases are subject to a unique set …

Reliability Matters: Reassociating Bagley Materality, Strickland Prejudice, And Cumulative Harmless Error, John H. Blume, Christopher W. Seeds

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most commonly invoked after conviction and direct appeal, when a defendant may claim that his lawyer was ineffective or that the government failed to disclose exculpatory information, the Brady doctrine, which governs the prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense, and the Strickland doctrine, which monitors defense counsel’s duty to represent the client effectively, have developed into the principal safeguards of fair trials, fundamental to the protection of defendants’ constitutional rights and arguably defendants’ strongest insurance of a reliable verdict. But the doctrines do not sufficiently protect these core values.

The doctrines, despite their common due process heritage …

Plea Bargaining At The Hague, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

Plea bargaining has come to The Hague. For most of its existence, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) shunned plea bargains. However, under pressure from United Nations member states and the impending deadline for the resolution of its caseload, the ICTY has increasingly relied on plea bargains in recent months. This Article exposes the deficiencies in guilty plea procedures at The Hague, particularly those designed to assess whether a plea is fully informed and voluntary. In a series of case studies, the Article argues that judicial questioning techniques have exploited the vulnerable state of defendants appearing before …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.

Summary Of Fiegehen V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 30, Michael Shalmy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An intruder entered a residence, killed one person and shot another. The victim placed a 911 call, but within minutes, the 911 connection went dead. Sheriff's deputies arrived at the residence shortly thereafter and found one victim alive, lying on the floor in a pool of blood. The telephone line nearby had been cut. A body was discovered on a deck outside. Evidence implicated Christopher Fiegehen as the primary suspect. However, he abruptly fled Nevada on the day of the crime. Two months later, he was stopped and questioned by police officers in Indiana, where they apprehended him after a …

Summary Of Wilson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, Kathleen L. Fellows

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A jury convicted Wiley Gene Wilson of four counts of use of a minor in the production of pornography and four counts of possession of visual presentations depicting sexual conduct of a person under sixteen years of age. Wilson appealed, arguing that his four convictions for using a child in a sexual performance were redundant convictions. In September of 2001, Wilson and the ten-year-old female victim (M.T.) left M.T.'s father's trailer to attend to errands related to installing a satellite television system. Apparently, while running errands and stuck in traffic, M.T. urinated in her clothing. Subsequently, Wilson took M.T. to …

Summary Of State V. Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 25, Kimberly Lou

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The State of Nevada convicted David Robert Riker (“Riker”) for murder. Riker filed two sets of post-conviction petitions for the writ of habeas corpus—one in 1998 and one in 2004. The district court denied the 1998 petition, but granted the 2004 petition and an evidentiary hearing. The State of Nevada petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arguing that Riker’s habeas corpus claims are procedurally barred and that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed in part with the State and ordered the district court to apply …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Overcriminalization, Discretion, Waiver: A Survey Of Possible Exit Strategies, Donald A. Dripps

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

In both the constitutional law of American criminal justice and the scholarly literature that law has generated, substance and procedure receive radically different treatment. The Supreme Court, even in this conservative political period, continues to require costly procedural safeguards that go beyond what elected legislatures have provided by statute. The Court, however, has shown great deference to the choices these same legislatures have made about what conduct may be made criminal and how severely it may be punished.

The distinction between substance and procedure pervades academic thinking all the way down to its foundations. Substantive criminal law still holds its …

Pursuing Justice For The Mentally Disabled, Grant H. Morris

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This article considers whether lawyers act as zealous advocates when they represent mentally disordered, involuntarily committed patients who wish to assert their right to refuse treatment with psychotropic medication. After discussing a study that clearly demonstrates that lawyers do not do so, the article explores the reasons for this inappropriate behavior. Michael Perlin characterizes the problem as “sanism,” which he describes as an irrational prejudice against mentally disabled persons of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnic bigotry. The article critiques Perlin’s characterization …

Missing Miranda's Story, A Review Of Gary L. Stuart's, Miranda: The Story Of America's Right To Remain Silent, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Miranda v. Arizona is the best known criminal procedure decision in the history of the Supreme Court. It has spawned dozens of books and hundreds of articles. The world does not need another Miranda book unless it has something new and interesting to tell readers. Unfortunately, to borrow an old cliche, the parts of Gary Stuart’s book that are new are, for the most part, not interesting and the parts that are interesting are, for the most part, not new. Stuart adds material to the Miranda storehouse about the involvement of local Arizona lawyers and judges in the original case, …

Summary Of Rosky V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22, Jason Peck

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Police executed a search warrant at John Rosky’s apartment as part of an investigation into the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. Two police officers eventually drove Rosky to a police substation for questioning but they did not formally arrest him or administer Miranda warnings. Police informed Rosky that his participation was voluntary and that he was free to leave at any time. At one point during the questioning, Rosky took a ten-minute break and went outside the police station unaccompanied by the detectives. The detectives used mild forms of deception and confronted Rosky with their belief that he was …

Summary Of Viray V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Chris Orme

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A jury convicted Benjardi Batucan Viray for lewdness with a minor. He appealed claiming that there was an improper inclusion of new information at a preliminary hearing and that this inclusion was sufficient to declare a mistrial. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a change in the factual situation is not sufficient to declare a mistrial if the inclusion of new information does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights and the charged offense remained the same. The second issue was whether a court should declare a mistrial when a juror disregards the admonishment of the court to not speak about …

Foreword: Beyond Blakely And Booker: Pondering Modern Sentencing Process, Douglas A. Berman

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Blakely v. Washington and its federal follow-up United States v. Booker are formally about the meaning and reach of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial. But these decisions implicate and reflect, both expressly and implicitly, a much broader array of constitutional provisions and principles, in particular, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the notice provision of the Sixth Amendment. And the future structure and operation of modern sentencing systems may greatly depend on how courts and others approach the due process provisions and principles which lurk in …

Causing Constitutional Harm: How Tort Law Can Help Determine Harmless Error In Criminal Trials, Jason M. Solomon

Scholarly Works

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part II is a brief overview of harmless-error doctrine in the context of habeas challenges to state criminal convictions, focusing on the nature of the inquiry and the doctrinal deadlock described above. Part III is an empirical analysis of the post-Brecht cases in the federal courts of appeals. To search for a way out of the doctrinal deadlock, I started with a relatively straightforward question: what has happened to harmless-error analysis since Brecht? To answer this question, I reviewed and, with the help of a research assistant, coded all of the 315 …

Summary Of Miller V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 And Summary Of Daniel V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, Hagar Labouz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Both Miller and Daniel arise out of a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) decoy program designed to combat an increase in street-level robberies occurring in downtown Las Vegas. In Miller, a detective with the LVMPD disguised himself as an intoxicated vagrant and carried exposed cash in his pocket. The detective then positioned himself across from a bus station and leaned against a chain link fence. Richard Miller, an individual walking down the street, approached the detective and asked him for money. When the detective refused, Miller pulled the detective closer to him and took the cash from the detective’s …

Summary Of Sparks V. State, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 12, Bryce Loveland

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that “Failure to Appear” clauses are not unconscionable in plea agreements and upheld one in this case.c

An Economic Analysis Of The Private And Social Costs Of The Provision Of Cybersecurity And Other Public Security Goods, Bruce H. Kobayashi

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

This paper examines the incentives of private actors to invest in cybersecurity. Prior analyses have examined investments in security goods, such as locks or safes that have the characteristics of private goods. The analysis in this paper extends this analysis to examine expenditures on security goods, such as information, that have the characteristics of public goods. In contrast to the private goods case, where individual uncoordinated security expenditures can lead to an overproduction of security, the public goods case can result in the underproduction of security expenditures, and incentives to free ride. Thus, the formation of collective organizations may be …

Conditional Rights And Comparative Wrongs: More On The Theory And Application Of Comparative Criminal Liability, Vera Bergelson

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

This article continues to develop an argument in favor of comparative criminal liability started in "Victims and Perpetrators: An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law," (http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/fp/art19/) Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 385 (2005). The essence of my argument is that people’s rights are not static but depend on their actions, and victims may reduce their right not to be harmed either voluntarily, by consent, waiver or assumption of risk, or involuntarily, by an attack on some legally recognized rights of the perpetrator. If that happens, perpetrators should be entitled to a defense of complete or partial justification, which would eliminate …

The Two Unanswered Questions Of Illinois V. Caballes: How To Make The World Safe For Binary Searches, Ric Simmons

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

This Article discusses the recent Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Caballes, which held that the Fourth Amendment does not bar the use of drug-detection dogs, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion. It argues that the Caballes case paves the way for widespread and indiscriminant use of a new type of surveillance known as a binary search. A binary search is defined as a search which provides the law enforcement official with no information about the subject other than whether or not illegal activity is present. Drug-detection dogs are one example of a binary search, but there are many others …

Murder, Meth, Mammon & Moral Values: The Political Landscape Of American Sentencing Reform (In Symposium On White Collar Crime), Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the ongoing American experiment in mass incarceration and considers the prospects for meaningful sentencing reform.

The Right To A Jury Decision On Sentencing Facts After Booker: What The Seventh Amendment Can Teach The Sixth, Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

(the) Supreme Court's Sixth and Seventh Amendment jurisprudence has not created a more expansive jury right for criminal defendants. Instead, it has produced a system in which a civil litigant may demand a jury decision on questions that, if presented in a criminal case, would fall within the exclusive province of the judge. This Article explores this anomaly and argues that the Supreme Court in Booker missed a critical opportunity to redress the constriction of the criminal defendant's right to have a jury decide those facts that lead to the deprivation of the defendant's liberty.

My argument (on these points) …

Lagrand And Avena Establish A Right, But Is There A Remedy? Brief Comments On The Legal Effect Of Lagrand And Avena In The U.S., Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.

Archibald Cox And The Genius Of Our Institutions In Memoriam - Celebration Of The Life Of Archibald, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

I am confident that historians will write that the trend of decisions during the 1950's and 1960's was in keeping with the mainstream ofAmerican history - a bit progressive but also moderate, a bit humane but not sentimental, a bit idealistic but seldom doctrinaire, and in the long run essentially pragmatic - in short, in keeping with the true genius of our institutions. 1 In the dedication of his classic work Democracy and Distrust2 to Chief Justice Earl Warren, the late John Hart Ely wrote "You don't need many heroes if you choose carefully." 3 For several generations of lawyers …

The Failure Of The Federal Sentencing System: A Structural Analysis, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

For most of the last decade, I numbered myself among the supporters of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and wrote extensively in their defense, while chronicling their defects. In the past year, I have reluctantly concluded that the federal sentencing guidelines system has failed. This Article explains the Guidelines' failure. The Sentencing Reform Act was intended to distribute the power to make sentencing policy and rules and to control individual sentencing outcomes among a range of national and local actors - the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, the federal appellate courts, and the Department of Justice at the national level, and district …

The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay’s request for appointed counsel. Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …