Law Commons^™

Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused, Barbara E. Armacost

Vanderbilt Law Review

Public officials receive qualified immunity from damages liability for constitutional violations if they reasonably could have believed their actions were constitutional under clearly established law. In this regard qualified immunity is quite unusual. In most other legal contexts, failure to know the law is virtually never excused. The only other context where notice or knowledge of illegality plays any role is in criminal law, but even mistakes of penal law are rarely excused.

In this Article, Professor Armacost uses fair notice in criminal law as a paradigm for analyzing the role of notice in constitutional damages actions. She argues that …

Psychiatric Evidence In Criminal Trials: To Junk Or Not To Junk?, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article begins, in Part I, with a brief review of the past four decades" of psychiatric and psychological testimony in criminal trials (henceforth referred to simply as "psychiatric testimony"). Although this review cannot be called comprehensive, it does make clear that, contrary to what the popular literature would have us believe, psychiatric innovation is neither at an all time high nor the prevalent form of opinion testimony by mental health professionals. At the same time, such "nontraditional" expert opinion from clinicians, on those rare occasions when it does occur, has changed over the past few decades in both content …

Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside The Jury Room And Outside The Courtroom, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Jurors in criminal cases occasionally "nullify" the law by acquitting defendants who they believe are guilty according to the instructions given to them in court. American juries have exercised this unreviewable nullification power to acquit defendants who face sentences that jurors view as too harsh, who have been subjected to what jurors consider to be unconscionable governmental action, who have engaged in conduct that jurors do not believe is culpable, or who have harmed victims whom jurors consider unworthy of protection. Recent reports suggest jurors today are balking in trials in which a conviction could trigger a "three strikes" or …