Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Law

Alleyne On The Ground: Factfinding That Limits Eligibility For Probation Or Parole Release, Nancy J. King, Brynn E. Applebaum Jan 2014

Alleyne On The Ground: Factfinding That Limits Eligibility For Probation Or Parole Release, Nancy J. King, Brynn E. Applebaum

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article addresses the impact of Alleyne v. United States on statutes that restrict an offender’s eligibility for release on parole or probation. Alleyne is the latest of several Supreme Court decisions applying the rule announced in the Court’s 2000 ruling, Apprendi v. New Jersey. To apply Alleyne, courts must for the first time determine what constitutes a minimum sentence and when that minimum is mandatory. These questions have proven particularly challenging in states that authorize indeterminate sentences, when statutes that delay the timing of eligibility for release are keyed to judicial findings at sentencing. The same questions also arise, …


Originalism And Summary Judgment, Brian T. Fitzpatrick Jan 2010

Originalism And Summary Judgment, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Over the last several years, the Supreme Court has revolutionized modern criminal procedure by invoking the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to strike down several sentencing innovations. This revolution has been led by members of the Supreme Court who follow an "originalist" method of constitutional interpretation. Recent work by the legal historian Suja Thomas has raised the question whether a similar "originalist" revolution may be on the horizon in civil cases governed by the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. In particular, Professor Thomas has argued that the summary judgment device is unconstitutional because it permits judges …


Habeas Corpus And State Sentencing Reform: A Story Of Unintended Consequences, Nancy J. King, Suzanna Sherry Jan 2008

Habeas Corpus And State Sentencing Reform: A Story Of Unintended Consequences, Nancy J. King, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article tells the story of how fundamental shifts in state sentencing policy collided with fundamental shifts in federal habeas policy to produce a tangled and costly doctrinal wreck. The conventional assumption is that state prisoners seeking habeas relief allege constitutional errors in their state court convictions and sentences. But almost 20 percent of federal habeas petitions filed by noncapital state prisoners do not challenge state court judgments. They instead attack administrative actions by state prison officials or parole boards, actions taken long after the petitioner's conviction and sentencing. Challenges to these administrative decisions create serious problems for federal habeas …


How Different Is Death? Jury Sentencing In Capital And Non-Capital Cases Compared, Nancy J. King Jan 2004

How Different Is Death? Jury Sentencing In Capital And Non-Capital Cases Compared, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Drawing upon a recent study of felony jury sentencing in Kentucky, Virginia, and Arkansas, this essay highlights some of the similarities and differences between jury sentencing in capital cases and jury sentencing in non-capital cases. Unlike jury sentencing in capital cases, jury sentencing in non-capital cases includes functional differentials in judge and jury options for sentencing, and fewer controls on arbitrary decision-making. Jury sentencing in both contexts shares the potential for reluctance on the part of elected judges to reduce jury sentences, information gaps on the part of jurors in setting sentences, and, above all, service as a tool in …


The Origins Of Felony Jury Sentencing In The United States, Nancy J. King Jan 2003

The Origins Of Felony Jury Sentencing In The United States, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

All of the states admitted to the Union by 1800 eventually abandoned capital punishment for most felonies in favor of discretionary terms of imprisonment. But of these states, only Virginia, Kentucky, and Georgia adopted jury sentencing. In 1786, Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt discretionary terms of hard labor and imprisonment as the primary punishment for felony offenses-delegating to judges the authority to select those terms. In 1796, Virginia opted for jury sentencing, while New York followed Pennsylvania's lead. After 1796, with both Pennsylvania's judge sentencing and Virginia's jury sentencing models to choose from, New Jersey and all of …


On Determining Negligence: Hand Formula Balancing, The Reasonable Person Standard, And The Jury, Stephen G. Gilles Apr 2001

On Determining Negligence: Hand Formula Balancing, The Reasonable Person Standard, And The Jury, Stephen G. Gilles

Vanderbilt Law Review

trial practice ensure that the operational meaning of negligence is largely determined by juries in particular cases, rather than by the doctrines stated in appellate decisions (and restated in Restatements of Torts). Even if these practices are misguided, it is clear that no Restatement could repudiate them without drastically departing from the American Law Institute's ("ALI") traditional position that Restatements are predominantly positive and only incrementally normative.

On the other hand, the conception of negligence articulated in the Restatement (First) of Torts ("Restatement (First)")--which was carried over virtually unchanged into the Restatement (Second) of Torts ("Restatement (Second)"), and hence has …


The American Criminal Jury, Nancy J. King Jan 1999

The American Criminal Jury, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

As juries become both less common and more expensive, some have questioned the wisdom of preserving the criminal jury in its present form. The benefits of the jury are difficult to quantify, but jury verdicts continue to earn widespread acceptance by the public and trial by jury remains a cherished right of most Americans. In any event, many basic features of the criminal jury in the United States cannot be modified without either constitutional amendment or radical reinterpretations of the Bill of Rights. Judges and legislators continue to tinker within constitutional confines, some hoping to improve the jury trial by …


What Juries Can't Do Well: The Jury's Performance As A Risk Manager, W. Kip Viscusi, Reid Hastie Jan 1998

What Juries Can't Do Well: The Jury's Performance As A Risk Manager, W. Kip Viscusi, Reid Hastie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Can juries handle complex cases? One way to frame this question in behavioral science terms is to ask: What tasks can juries perform well and what tasks will they perform poorly? Our basic precept is that the legal system should ask juries to perform tasks that they are good at performing and should not require juries to carry out tasks that they cannot perform well. A second guiding theme in our approach to the issue of jury competency is that the most relevant, most useful analyses of jury performance are based on empirical observations and data, not on rational analyses …


Nameless Justice: The Case For The Routine Use Of Anonymous Juries In Criminal Trials, Nancy J. King Jan 1996

Nameless Justice: The Case For The Routine Use Of Anonymous Juries In Criminal Trials, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

We ask a lot of our jurors. The financial and emotional burdens of jury duty can be significant even in mundane cases. Deciding another's fate is often a trying ordeal, aggravated by unintelligible instructions, hostile attorneys or court personnel, miserable working conditions, and interminable delays.1 The voir dire process may require jurors to reveal intimate, embarrassing, or damning information about themselves and their families that they would not voluntarily choose to reveal.2 Confronted with allegations of violence, injury, or abuse, some jurors become traumatized or ill.3 On top of all of this jury service exposes jurors, their families, and their …


Variable Verbalistics -- The Measure Of Persuasion In Tennessee, Kenneth L. Roberts, William M. Sinrich Oct 1958

Variable Verbalistics -- The Measure Of Persuasion In Tennessee, Kenneth L. Roberts, William M. Sinrich

Vanderbilt Law Review

In a trial one party always has the affirmative burden of persuading the finder of fact to adopt his allegations as true. This burden is met by inducing a particular degree of belief in the mind of the fact finder.'Manifestly, absolute truth is not attainable in a lawsuit. Rather certain facts are found to exist from all the evidence presented and these findings labeled true for the purposes of the case. Since different factual situations require different measures of persuasion, it is necessary that the fact finder, whether judge or jury, know and understand the particular measure applicable in order …