Law Commons^™

State Constitutional Protection For Defendants In Criminal Prosecutions, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

Proving Entrapment Under The Predisposition Test, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

Defending Conspiracy Cases: Mission Impossible?, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

Defending conspiracy cases has never been an easy task. There were days in which joint trials of 20, 30, 40, or even 50 defendants were not uncommon, creating insuperable problems for defense lawyers. Even though large joint-defendant trials are not as common today, several problems remain, particularly in light of the frequent use of the conspiracy charge at the federal level. In this article I will discuss some of the recent issues which create special difficulties for criminal defense lawyers. With regard to these issues, there is, as some would say, good news and bad news.

Improving The Reliability Of Criminal Trials Through Legal Rules That Encourage Defendants To Testify, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

Reflecting a traditional bias against defendants' trial testimony, the modern American criminal justice system, which now recognizes a constitutional right to testify at trial, unabashedly encourages defendants to waive that right and remain silent. As a result, a large percentage of criminal defendants decline to testify, forcing juries to decide the question of the defendant's guilt without ever hearing from the person most knowledgeable on the subject.

This Article contends that the inflated percentage of silent defendants in the American criminal trial system is a needless, self-inflected wound, neither required by the Constitution nor beneficial to the search for truth. …

Raise The Proof: A Default Rule For Indigent Defense, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Almost everyone agrees that indigent defense in America is underfunded, but workable solutions have been hard to come by. For the most part, courts have been unwilling to inject themselves into legislative budget decisions. And, when courts have become involved and issued favorable decisions, the benefits have been only temporary because once the pressure of litigation disappears so does a legislature's desire to appropriate more funding. This Article proposes that if an indigent defense system is under-funded, the state supreme court should impose a default rule raising the standard of proof to "beyond all doubt" to convict indigent defendants. The …

Judging Judges Fifty Years After – Was Judge Julius Hoffman’S Conduct So Different?, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In Chicago, Illinois--and in courtrooms across the United States--judicial misconduct has affected trial outcomes as long as there have been trials. While Judge Julius Hoffman's conduct in the “Chicago Eight” trial is an egregious example of judicial behavior toward criminal defendants, this piece's examination of at least ten different categories of misconduct in dozens of cases makes the argument that misbehavior by judges is less of an exception to the rule of impartiality than the thinking public might know. In considering these brazen examples, practitioners and academics alike can evaluate how to best confront the extent to which conduct like …

Law School News: Ncdc Holds Trial Practice Institute At Rwu Law 06-28-2019, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Should Robots Prosecute And Defend?, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson