Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Power To “Try” “Cases Of Impeachment”: Some Reflections On The Finality, Transparency And Integrity Of Senate Adjudications Of Presidential Impeachments (Including That Of Donald J. Trump), Vikram D. Amar, Jason Mazzone
The Power To “Try” “Cases Of Impeachment”: Some Reflections On The Finality, Transparency And Integrity Of Senate Adjudications Of Presidential Impeachments (Including That Of Donald J. Trump), Vikram D. Amar, Jason Mazzone
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …
12 Angry Men (And Women) In Federal Court, Nancy Gertner
12 Angry Men (And Women) In Federal Court, Nancy Gertner
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The movie 12 Angry Men reflected everything that is extraordinary and troubling about the American jury system. It portrayed twelve lay people, struggling with questions of guilt or innocence, bias and fairness, or racism and rationality. But the movie was troubling in equal measure. These important struggles about guilt or innocence were played out in an all-white, all-male jury, while the defendant was a minority. Jury trials in federal court reflect the same extraordinary and troubling pattern, particularly as street crime is "federalized." Constitutional remedies—as they are currently construed—are inadequate to the task. The Jury Selection and Service Act has …
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …