Law Commons^™

Consistently Inconsistent: The Supreme Court And The Confusion Surrounding Proportionality In Non-Capital Sentencing, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

(Adapted by permission from 84 Ky. L. J. 107 (1995)) This article examines the Supreme Court's treatment of the Eighth Amendment with respect to claims of excessiveness regarding prison sentences. Specifically, it addresses the issue of whether and to what degree the Eighth Amendment requires that a punishment not be disproportional to the crime punished. In analyzing all of the modern holdings of the Court in this area, one finds significant fault with each. The result of this series of flawed opinions from the Supreme Court is that the state of the law with respect to proportionality in sentencing is …

Having It Both Ways: Proof That The U.S. Supreme Court Is "Unfairly" Prosecution-Oriented, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

If the assertions that this essay makes about the Court's "unfair" prosecution-orientation withstand scrutiny," two further conclusions might follow. First, the highest court in the country is so fixated on ensuring that a particular side wins that it is willing with some frequency to sacrifice the most basic attribute of any court worthy of the name-the appearance of fairness. This conclusion is a much more fundamental challenge to the Court's integrity than is the simple acknowledgement that a majority of the Justices are biased in favor of the government. Second, to the extent the Court's unfairness becomes common knowledge, its …

Proportionality In Non-Capital Sentencing: The Supreme Court's Tortured Approach To Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the Supreme Court's treatment of the Eighth Amendment with respect to claims of excessive prison sentences. Specifically, it addresses the issue of whether and to what degree the Eighth Amendment requires that a punishment not be disproportionate to the crime. In analyzing all of the modern holdings of the Court in this area, this Article finds significant fault with each. The result of this series of flawed opinions from the Supreme Court is that the state of the law with respect to proportionality in sentencing is confused, and what law can be discerned rests on weak foundations. …

Habeas After The Revolution, Joseph L. Hoffmann, William J. Stuntz

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

Do The United States Sentencing Guidelines Deprive Defendants Of Due Process?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

It is difficult to determine whether due process requires individualized sentencing because sentencing goals and practices have varied greatly during the course of this nation's history. A court applying Judge Bork's original intent doctrine of constitutional interpretation would probably reach a result different from that reached by a court employing a more liberal view of due process protections.1o It is likely that liberals and conservatives on the current Supreme Court would disagree on whether the Guidelines violate due process.

This article argues that the Guidelines can be saved and can satisfy due process requirements if the Supreme Court interprets the …

The Improper Use Of Presumptions In Recent Criminal Law Adjudication, Charles W. Collier

UF Law Faculty Publications

This note argues that, in developing the contemporary mandatory-permissive standard, the Supreme Court has misunderstood the effects of presumptions on juries. Presumptions that are ‘permissive’ in theory may nevertheless be ‘mandatory’ in fact, thereby leading some juries to convict regardless of their beliefs and inclinations. Thus, these legal presumptions may undermine the moral sense and political function of the jury.

Part I of this note shows, through doctrinal analysis, that the mandatory-permissive distinction is an anomaly in the Court's jurisprudence. Part II shows that this distinction is at variance with a substantial body of empirical social science research. This part …

The Felony-Murder Rule: A Doctrine At Constitutional Crossroads, Nelson E. Roth, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …

Federal Habeas Corpus And Ineffective Representation Of Counsel: The Supreme Court Has Work To Do, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The availability of federal habeas corpus relief for state criminal defendants has always borne a complex relationship to state rules barring defendants from litigating constitutional claims in state court because of procedural defaults in raising those claims. The Warren Court's landmark attempt to resolve this relationship was the 1963 decision in Fay v. Noia, which asserted that a state procedural forfeiture rule could not bar federal habeas review of a constitutional claim unless the defendant had "deliberately bypassed" the procedural opportunity to raise the claim; the Court defined "deliberate bypass" in terms of a defendant's intentional and voluntary relinquishment of …

Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ramifications of Wainwright v. Sykes, a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The broad question before the Court in Sykes concerned the extent to which state prisoners should have access to federal court by use of the writ of habeas corpus. The narrow issue before the Court concerned the impact on a prisoner's claim for habeas relief of procedural defaults (such as a failure to object to evidence, a failure to perfect an appeal, etc.) that occur in the state proceeding under attack. In considering these important issues Justice …

Foreword: Waiver Of Constitutional Rights: Disquiet In The Citadel, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

Foreword to Harvard Law Review review of Supreme Court 1969 Term