Law Commons^™

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

Sheri Lynn Johnson

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Of Atkins And Men: Deviations From Clinical Definitions Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher W. Seeds

Sheri Lynn Johnson

Under Atkins v. Virginia, the Eighth Amendment exempts from execution individuals who meet the clinical definitions of mental retardation set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. Both define mental retardation as significantly subaverage intellectual functioning accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning, originating before the age of 18. Since Atkins, most jurisdictions have adopted definitions of mental retardation that conform to those definitions. But some states, looking often to stereotypes of persons with mental retardation, apply exclusion criteria that deviate from and are more restrictive than the accepted scientific and clinical …

Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality Of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes, Jennifer L. Eberhardt, P G. Davies, Valerie J. Purdie-Vaughns, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

Researchers previously have investigated the role of race in capital sentencing, and in particular, whether the race of the defendant or victim influences the likelihood of a death sentence. In the present study, we examined whether the likelihood of being sentenced to death is influenced by the degree to which a Black defendant is perceived to have a stereotypically Black appearance. Controlling for a wide array of factors, we found that in cases involving a White victim, the more stereotypically Black a defendant is perceived to be, the more likely that person is to be sentenced to death.

Racism, Unreasonable Belief, And Bernhard Goetz, Stephen P. Garvey

Stephen P. Garvey

How should the law respond when one person (D) kills another person (V), who is black, because D believes that V is about to kill him, but D would not have so believed if V had been white? Should D be exonerated on grounds of self-defense? The canonical case raising this question is People v. Goetz. Some commentators argue that norms of equal treatment and anti-discrimination require that D’s claim of self-defense be rejected. I argue that denying D’s claim of self-defense would be at odds with the principle that criminal liability should only be imposed on an actor if …

What's Wrong With Involuntary Manslaughter?, Stephen P. Garvey

Stephen P. Garvey

Efforts to explain when and why the state can legitimately impose retributive punishment on an actor who inadvertently creates an unjustified risk of causing death (and death results) typically rely on one of two theories. The prior-choice theory claims that retributive punishment for inadvertent lethal risk-creation is justified if and only if the actor's inadvertence or ignorance was a but-for and proximate result of a prior culpable choice. The hypothetical-choice theory claims that retributive punishment for inadvertent lethal risk-creation is justified if and only if the actor would have chosen to take the risk if he had been aware of …

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

The Dilemma Of The Criminal Defendant With A Prior Record - Lessons From The Wrongfully Convicted, John H. Blume

John H. Blume

This article examines challenges the conventional wisdom that an innocent defendants will testify on their own behalf at trial. Data gathered from the cases of persons subsequently exonerated due to DNA evidence demonstrates that factually innocent defendants do not testify on their own behalf at substantially higher rates than criminal defendants generally. Why? The primary reason is that many of these individuals had been previously convicted of a crime, and they did not testify at trial because of the risk that their credibility would be impeached with evidence of the prior record and, despite any limiting instruction the court might …

Killing The Willing: "Volunteers," Suicide And Competency, John H. Blume

John H. Blume

Of the 822 executions, in the modern era of capital punishment, 106 involved volunteers, or inmates who chose to waive their appeals and permit the death sentence to be carried out. The debate about volunteers, although intense, has primarily been polemic. Those who wish to curtail a death row inmate’s ability to waive his appeals refer to volunteer cases as nothing more than “state assisted suicide;” advocates of permitting inmates to choose execution reject the suicide label, instead focusing on respect for a death row inmate’s right to choose whether to accept his punishment. This article takes a different approach. …

Of Atkins And Men: Deviations From Clinical Definitions Of Mental Retardation In Death Penalty Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Johnson, Christopher W. Seeds

John H. Blume

Under Atkins v. Virginia, the Eighth Amendment exempts from execution individuals who meet the clinical definitions of mental retardation set forth by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. Both define mental retardation as significantly subaverage intellectual functioning accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning, originating before the age of 18. Since Atkins, most jurisdictions have adopted definitions of mental retardation that conform to those definitions. But some states, looking often to stereotypes of persons with mental retardation, apply exclusion criteria that deviate from and are more restrictive than the accepted scientific and clinical …

The Widespread Handcuffing Of Arrestees In The United States, Francois Quintard-Morenas

Francois Quintard-Morenas

Handcuffing in the United States has become ubiquitous, regardless of age, offense, or circumstances. Across the nation, children, teenagers, women, men, and elders are handcuffed upon arrest for the most minor offenses. Their ages range from five to ninety-seven. This phenomenon has received little attention from legal scholars, despite its dramatic reversal of a long-standing common law rule.

At common law, police officers were prohibited from handcuffing arrestees absent special circumstances, such as a threat to safety, resistance, or risk of escape. Established in nineteenth-century England and embraced early by U.S. courts, this principle still prevails in most common law …

The Intellectual Disability Facade, Megan Bibliowicz

Megan Bibliowicz

No abstract provided.

The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": The Eighth Amendment As A Bar To Cruel Innovation, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

In recent years, both legal scholars and the American public have become aware that something is not quite right with the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Legal commentators from across the spectrum have described the Court's treatment of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as "embarrassing," "ineffectual and incoherent," a "mess," and a "train wreck." The framers of the Bill of Rights understood the word "unusual" to mean "contrary to long usage." Recognition of the word's original meaning will precisely invert the "evolving standards of decency" test and ask the Court to compare challenged punishments with the longstanding principles and …

Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

In the Supreme Court's latest Eighth Amendment decision, Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that statutes authorizing mandatory sentences of life in prison with no possibility of parole are unconstitutional as applied to offenders who were under eighteen when they committed their crimes. This short essay examines several themes presented in Miller, including the constitutional significance of youth and science, the legitimacy of mandatory life sentences and juvenile transfer statutes, and the conflict between “evolving standards of decency” and the Supreme Court’s “independent judgment.” This essay also introduces important articles by Richard Frase, Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Franklin Zimring …

The Illusory Eighth Amendment, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

Although there is no obvious doctrinal connection between the Supreme Court’s Miranda jurisprudence and its Eighth Amendment excessive punishments jurisprudence, the two are deeply connected at the level of methodology. In both areas, the Supreme Court has been criticized for creating “prophylactic” rules that invalidate government actions because they create a mere risk of constitutional violation. In reality, however, both sets of rules deny constitutional protection to a far greater number of individuals with plausible claims of unconstitutional treatment than they protect. This dysfunctional combination of over- and underprotection arises from the Supreme Court’s use of implementation rules as a …

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor. The …

Incapacitation Through Maiming: Chemical Castration, The Eighth Amendment, And The Denial Of Human Dignity, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

This year marks the tenth anniversary of California's enactment of the nation's first chemical castration law. This law requires certain sex offenders to receive, as part of their punishment, long-term pharmacological treatment involving massive doses of a synthetic female hormone called medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). MPA treatment is described as chemical castration because it mimics the effect of surgical castration by eliminating almost all testosterone from the offender's system. The intended effect of MPA treatment is to alter brain and body function by reducing the brain's exposure to testosterone, thus depriving offenders of most (or all) capacity to experience sexual desire …

The Opioid-Dependent Criminal: Improving The Criminal Justice System To Account For Their Needs, Courtney Priolo

Courtney E Priolo

Over the past twenty-five years national concern over the drug-crime relationship has been increasing. This increase has led to growth of criminal justice penalties as opposed to therapeutic approaches such as medication-assisted treatment, resulting in an expansion of the drug-involved criminal justice population. Individuals who are opioid-dependent are vulnerable at the time of arrest, and at the time of their initial detention due to their chemical dependence and impairment of their neurocognitive functioning. The denial of medication to inmates in order to alleviate withdrawal symptoms is stigmatizing, punishing, and potentially life-threatening. This article argues that medication-assisted treatment for the criminal …

The Criminal Practitioner's Guide To Understanding The New York Securities Laws And Penal Law Scheme To Defraud, John C. Henry

John C. Henry

No abstract provided.

Navigating The Rock And The Whirlpool: Managing Critical Incident Investigations And Garrity, Joseph R. Sullivan

Joseph R Sullivan

This article presents a best practice model for managing officer-involved shooting or other critical incident investigations on behalf of the officer; one that protects the officer’s legal interests and still preserves the most accurate factual information for investigators. Section I details the causes and effects of critical incident amnesia as it relates to officer-involved shootings. Section II analyzes the relationship between a public employee’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a public employer’s ability to compel work related statements. Section III discusses the practical implications and aftermath of an officer-involved shooting or other critical incident and section IV synthesizes the …

Smoke And Mirrors: Model Penal Code § 305.7 And Compassionate Release, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

The American Law Institute has revised the sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code to include three important sentence modification measures. One of these provisions, Model Penal Code § 305.7, would allow a judge to reduce a prison sentence at any time for any “compelling” reason, if the purposes of sentencing justify sentence modification. Compelling circumstances may include advanced age, physical infirmity, or any other circumstance that sufficiently affects the retributive or utilitarian aims that animate limiting retributivism, the philosophy undergirding the revised Model Penal Code sentencing articles. Limiting retributivism provides that individual sentences should occur within the bounds of …

Representational Competence: Defining The Limits Of The Right To Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competence standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to delineate a permissible representational competence standard but indicated that findings of incompetence based on a lack of decisionmaking ability would withstand constitutional scrutiny. To date, no court or commentator has suggested a comprehensive competence standard to address the particular decisional context of self-representation at trial. Conceptualizing self-representation as an exercise in problem solving, this Article draws upon social problem-solving theory to identify abilities necessary for autonomous decisionmaking. The Article develops …

Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to specify the contents of a permissible representational competence standard, but cited with support the construct of adjudicative competence developed by Professor Richard Bonnie. While Bonnie's proposal may provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the competence of represented defendants' decisions, it is at most a starting point for defining the capacities needed for self-representation at trial. This Article begins by exposing three reasons why Bonnie's approach is …

Humane Punishment For Seriously Disordered Offenders: Sentencing Departures And Judicial Control Over Conditions Of Confinement, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

At sentencing, a judge may foresee that an individual with a major mental disorder will experience serious psychological or physical harm in prison. In light of this reality and offenders’ other potential vulnerabilities, a number of jurisdictions currently allow judges to treat undue offender hardship as a mitigating factor at sentencing. In these jurisdictions, vulnerability to harm may militate toward an order of probation or a reduced term of confinement. Since these measures do not affect offenders’ day-to-day experience in confinement, these expressions of mitigation fail to protect adequately those vulnerable offenders who must serve time in prison. This Article …

Vulnerability And Just Desert: A Theory Of Sentencing And Mental Illness, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

This Article analyzes risks of serious harms posed to prisoners with major mental disorders and investigates their import for sentencing under a just deserts analysis. Drawing upon social science research, the Article first establishes that offenders with serious mental illnesses are more likely than non-ill offenders to suffer physical and sexual assaults, endure housing in solitary confinement, and experience psychological deterioration during their carceral terms. The Article then explores the significance of this differential impact for sentencing within a retributive framework. It first suggests a particular expressive understanding of punishment, capacious enough to encompass foreseeable, substantial risks of serious harm …

An Administrative "Death Sentence" For Asylum Seekers: Deprivation Of Due Process Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(D)(6)'S Frivolousness Standard, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

In 1996, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by providing a new sanction for asylum seekers: if an immigration judge makes a finding that a noncitizen has knowingly filed a fraudulent asylum application, then that person is permanently ineligible for immigration benefits. For eleven years, immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have imposed and reviewed this sanction without specifying a burden of proof. When it did act to fill the statutory gap in April 2007, the Board held that the government must prove the elements of the statute by a preponderance of the evidence. This …

Conditions Of Confinement At Sentencing: The Case Of Seriously Disordered Offenders, E. Lea Johnston

E. Lea Johnston

At sentencing, a judge can often foresee that an individual, given his major mental disorder and other vulnerabilities, will experience serious harm in prison. These harms may include psychological deterioration and mental distress, attempted suicide, or victimization by staff or other inmates. In response, some jurisdictions allow a judge to commit a disordered offender for treatment in lieu of incarceration, while others designate need for treatment and undue offender hardship as mitigating factors for use at sentencing. None of these measures, however, goes far enough to protect vulnerable prisoners. This Article builds a case for expanding judges’ sentencing power by …

Investigating And Trying A Homicide Case, Andrea Lyon

Andrea D. Lyon

No abstract provided.

Response To Commentators, Michelle Dempsey

Michelle Madden Dempsey

This short essay responds to commentators who generously contributed to Criminal Law & Philosophy’s symposium on my book, PROSECUTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (Oxford University Press 2009)

'I Know My Rights, You Go'n Need A Warrant For That:' The Fourth Amendment, Riley's Impact, And Warrantless Searches Of Third-Party Clouds, Laurie Buchan Serafino

Laurie B. Serafino

Scholars have frequently suggested that the Fourth Amendment ought to be applied with varying degrees of rigor depending on the seriousness of the crime investigated. Courts have largely rejected such an offense-specific approach to constitutional protections, but have demonstrated deference to the Executive Branch in matters of national security in other contexts. The particularly heightened concern raised by the threat of terrorism suggests that, at least in the context of these most serious of cases, courts ought to engage in some form of balance that recognizes the uniquely strong government interest. Such an approach, however, has to recognize that the …

Preliminayr Study On The Advisory Jurisdiction Of International Criminal Court, Ying Yang

Ying Yang

The Rome Statute and the Regulations of the International Criminal Court stipulate the very detailed contentious jurisdiction, but the Advisory Jurisdiction are not mentioned. Advisory jurisdiction, as the complement of the contentious jurisdiction, not only provides the other aspect support of legal basis for the settlement of international disputes, but also provides a new way of legal remedies for the statutory advisory qualified international organizations and other subjects of international law. Therefore, I try to suggest that the International Criminal Court can establish an Advisory Committee that includes two parts, one part is the Advisory Committee on Legal Texts, the …