Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In this symposium contribution, I argue that (1) courts infringe on jurors' deliberative autonomy in a morally problematic way whenever they refuse to admit evidence that is both relevant and reasonably available; (2) this infringement is especially problematic in the Fourth Amendment setting; and (3) although there are several ways in which these moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, the best approach might be to abandon the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule entirely.
Counsel And Confrontation, Todd E. Pettys
Counsel And Confrontation, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Responding to the Court’s recent reworking of its confrontation jurisprudence, I argue that, under the Anglo-American common-law principles that the Confrontation Clause now incorporates, defendants are not entitled to an attorney’s assistance when interrogating witnesses prior to trial. Although the Assistance of Counsel Clause and the Due Process Clauses will pick up the slack in many cases, I contend that there are other instances in which the Constitution now leaves unrepresented defendants responsible for cross-examining witnesses on their own. I suggest that legislative reform may be necessary to ameliorate the new constitutional landscape’s deficiencies.
The Immoral Application Of Exclusionary Rules, Todd E. Pettys
The Immoral Application Of Exclusionary Rules, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In both civil and criminal cases today, judges routinely withhold relevant evidence from jurors, fearing that jurors would use it in an irrational or legally impermissible manner. Forcing jurors to take responsibility for a verdict based upon a government-screened pool of evidence stands in sharp contrast to the way we ordinarily think about government efforts to withhold potentially useful information from citizens faced with important decisions. The First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech, for example, reflects a moral judgment that the government offends its citizens’ deliberative autonomy when it restricts speech based upon fears about what that speech …
The Emotional Juror, Todd E. Pettys
The Emotional Juror, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Addressing the dichotomy often drawn between emotions and rationality, I argue that, while emotions sometimes exert undesirable influences in the courtroom, there are a variety of ways in which emotions aid rational decision-making by jurors.
State Habeas Relief For Federal Extrajudicial Detainees, Todd E. Pettys
State Habeas Relief For Federal Extrajudicial Detainees, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
I argue that the Court’s nineteenth-century rulings in Ableman v. Booth and Tarble’s Case marked a little-known but sharp break with state courts’ decades-long practice of granting habeas relief to federal extrajudicial detainees. I contend that the Court’s reasoning in those cases is unpersuasive, and that modern efforts to rationalize those cases’ outcomes fare no better. I also argue that the Suspension Clause bars Congress from stripping state courts of their power to grant habeas relief to persons being extrajudicially detained by federal authorities.
Killing Roger Coleman: Habeas, Finality, And The Innocence Gap, Todd E. Pettys
Killing Roger Coleman: Habeas, Finality, And The Innocence Gap, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
For the past fifteen years, the execution of Roger Coleman has served as perhaps the most infamous illustration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination to help the states achieve finality in their criminal cases. Convicted of rape and murder in 1982, Coleman steadfastly maintained his innocence and drew many supporters to his cause. In its 1991 ruling in Coleman v. Thompson, however, the Court refused to consider the constitutional claims raised in Coleman’s habeas petition. The Court ruled that Coleman had forfeited his right to seek habeas relief when, in prior state proceedings, his attorneys mistakenly filed their notice of …
Evidentiary Relevance, Morally Reasonable Verdicts, And Jury Nullification, Todd E. Pettys
Evidentiary Relevance, Morally Reasonable Verdicts, And Jury Nullification, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In Old Chief v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that evidence offered by the Government in a criminal case has “fair and legitimate weight” if it tends to show that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable. This Article focuses on that proposition. First, it discusses the ways in which Old Chief’s analysis rests upon a broadened understanding of evidentiary relevance. Second, it argues that significant theoretical difficulties impede any effort to determine whether evidence tends to show that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable. Third, it argues that adopting Old Chief’s conception of relevance would necessitate significant …