Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Riddle Of Harmless Error Revisited, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

Half a century ago, in Chapman v. California, the Supreme Court imposed on appellate courts an obligation to vacate or reverse criminal judgments marred by constitutional error unless the government demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court did not explain the juridical status of this obligation or its relation to the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2111. In the intervening years, commentators have struggled to make sense of Chapman. Some see it as a constitutional mandate. Others view it as an example of constitutional common law. In THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR, written …

Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

In the companion cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. However, the Court defined effective assistance of counsel in only one narrow phase of plea bargaining: the client counseling phase. The Court said it would not look more broadly at the negotiation process itself as "[b]argaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style.” This statement indicates that the Court does not fully understanding developments in the field of negotiation over the last thirty years. Negotiation …

Padilla V. Kentucky: Sound And Fury, Or Transformative Impact, Steven Zeidman

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Realizing Padilla’S Promise: Ensuring Noncitizen Defendants Are Advised Of The Immigration Consequences Of A Criminal Conviction, Yolanda Vàzquez

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle, Steven I. Friedland

Duke Law & Technology Review

In Fourth Amendment decisions, different concepts, facts and assumptions about reality are often tethered together by vocabulary and fact, creating a ‘Stickiness Principle.’ In particular, form and function historically were considered indistinguishable, not as separate factors. For example, “containers” carried things, “watches” told time, and “phones” were used to make voice calls. Advancing technology, though, began to fracture this identity and the broader Stickiness Principle. In June 2014, Riley v. California and its companion case, United States v. Wurie, offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to begin untethering form and function and dismantling the Stickiness Principle. Riley presented the question …

Muscle Memory And The Local Concentration Of Capital Punishment, Lee B. Kovarsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"I Plead The Fifth": New York's Integrated Domestic Violence Courts And The Defendant's Fifth Amendment Dilemma, Rhona Mae Amorado

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Antidemocratic Sixth Amendment, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Criminal procedure experts often claim that poor people have no Sixth Amendment right to choose their criminal defense lawyers. These experts insist that the Supreme Court has reserved the Sixth Amendment right to choose for the small minority of defendants who can afford to hire counsel. This Article upends that conventional wisdom with new doctrinal, theoretical, and practical arguments supporting a Sixth Amendment right to choose for all defendants, including the overwhelming majority who are indigent. The Article’s fresh case analysis shows the Supreme Court’s “no-choice” statements are dicta, which the Court’s own reasoning and rulings refute. The Article’s new …

Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

"Does Oregon's Constitution Need A Due Process Clause?" Thoughts On Due Process And Other Limigations On State Action, Thomas A. Balmer

Washington Law Review Online

During a legislative hearing last year, an Oregon state senator asked, “Does Oregon’s Constitution need a due process clause?” That question raises fundamental issues of constitutional law and of the relationship between the federal and state constitutions. Can and should state courts rely primarily on federal constitutional principles, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in deciding critical questions about the rights of criminal defendants, freedom of speech and religion, and equal protection? Or should state courts focus on their own constitutions—state due process, equal privileges and immunities, and similar “great ordinances” or more specific …

The Death Penalty And The Fifth Amendment, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Can the Supreme Court find unconstitutional something that the text of the Constitution “contemplates”? If the Bill of Rights mentions a punishment, does that make it a “permissible legislative choice” immune to independent constitutional challenges?

Recent developments have given new hope to those seeking constitutional abolition of the death penalty. But some supporters of the death penalty continue to argue, as they have since Furman v. Georgia, that the death penalty must be constitutional because the Fifth Amendment explicitly contemplates it. The appeal of this argument is obvious, but its strength is largely superficial, and is also mostly irrelevant …

Confrontation As A Rule Of Production, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Confrontation Clause is cost blind; the Supreme Court is not. In 2004, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court trumpeted its commitment to a procedural Confrontation Clause that required the prosecution to produce its witnesses in court, regardless of the cost or inconvenience. In 2007, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Court retreated, offering courts, legislatures, and prosecutors an easy way to avoid Confrontation-laden trials. On the one hand, the Court warned that legislatures and courts could not “suspend the Confrontation Clause,” even if there were “other ways — and in some cases better ways — to challenge or verify” …

Fourth Amendment Time Machines (And What They Might Say About Police Body Cameras), Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

When it comes to criminal investigation, time travel is increasingly possible. Despite longstanding roots in traditional investigation, science is today providing something fundamentally different in the form of remarkably complete digital records. And those big data records not only store our past, but thanks to data mining they are in many circumstances eerily good at predicting our future. So, now that we stand on the threshold of investigatory time travel, how should the Fourth Amendment and legislation respond? How should we approach bulk government capture, such as by a solar-powered drone employing wide-area persistent stare technology? Is it meaningfully different …

For The Protection Of Society's Most Vulnerable, The Ada Should Apply To Arrests, Thomas J. Auner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse—Unless You’Re A Cop, Hannah Dunn

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Miranda 2.0, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, significant numbers of innocent suspects are falsely confessing to crimes while subject to police custodial interrogation. Critics on the left and right have proposed reforms to Miranda, but few such proposals are appropriately targeted to the problem of false confessions. Using rigorous psychological evidence of the causes of false confessions, this Article analyzes the range of proposals and develops a realistic set of reforms — Miranda 2.0 — which is directed specifically at this foundational challenge to the justice system. Miranda 2.0 is long overdue; it should require: warning suspects how long they …

The Big Picture View Of Anonymous Tips From Ordinary People, Amanda M. Dadiego

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Right And Double Jeopardy In Contempt Cases, Saba Khan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When The Police Get The Law Wrong: How Heien V. North Carolina Further Erodes The Fourth Amendment, Vivan M. Rivera

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Ventriloquism: People V. Tom And The Substantive Use Of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence To Infer Consciousness Of Guilt, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Model Or Anti-Model? U.S. Regulatory Takings Doctrine In Foreign Jurisdictions, Melanie Benesh

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

Canada and Australia have taken a different approach to regulatory takings than Peru, despite some similarities among the countries. Like Peru, Canada and Australia both have IIAs with the United States. Like Peru, both have also addressed regulatory takings issues in their domestic jurisprudence since signing those IIAs. And like Peru, both Canada and Australia have looked to U.S. regulatory takings doctrine while developing their own domestic jurisprudence. However, unlike Peru, Canada and Australia have both ultimately decided that the U.S. regulatory takings doctrine would not be viable in their constitutional and political systems. They view U.S. regulatory takings doctrine …

Lawn Signs: A Fourth Amendment For Constitutional Curmudgeons, Andrew Ferguson, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

What is the constitutional significance of the proverbial “keep off the grass” sign? This question—asked by curmudgeonly neighbors everywhere—has been given new currency in a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, Florida v. Jardines might have bestowed constitutional curmudgeons with significant new Fourth Amendment protections. By expressing expectations regarding—and control over—access to property, “the people” may be able to claim greater Fourth Amendment protections not only for their homes, but also for their persons, papers, and effects. This article launches a constitutionally grounded, but lighthearted campaign of citizen education and empowerment: Fourth Amendment LAWn signs. With every …

A Rose By Any Other Name: Regulating Law Enforcement Bulk Metadata Collection, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In Other People’s Papers, Jane Bambauer argues for careful reform of the Fourth Amendment’s third party doctrine, providing an important contribution to an increasingly rich field of scholarship, judicial opinion, statute, and law reform. Bambauer is especially concerned with access to bodies of third-party data that can be filtered and mined, as they can be privacy invasive but also effective and less subject to traditional investigative prejudices and limitations. Although her article provocatively overclaims in trying to set itself apart from existing proposals, by analyzing existing constitutional and statutory law—including what I have termed a “limited” third party doctrine—and comparing …

Comparative Reflections On Duncan V. Louisiana And Baldwin V. New York, William Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Unintended Lawlessness Of Stand Your Ground: Justitia Fiat Coelum Ruat, Ann Marie Cavazos

Journal Publications

This paper will examine Florida's Stand Your Ground law by analyzing the origins and purpose of the law, vis-a-vis comparative analysis, and by discussing the application of this law. It will compare the stories of victims and further dissect the necessity and benefits of the Stand Your Ground laws, and examine in particular how it has affected the citizens of Florida and the nation. This Article will examine unforeseen outcomes derived from the enactment of a law meant for the common good and will further discuss how the Castle Doctrine evolved into the current Stand Your Ground laws. It will …

You've Got Legal Mail: Applying Constitutional Protections To Attorney-Inmate E-Mail Communications, Gregory R. Steele

Georgia Law Review

Several U.S. Attorney's offices have begun to read e-mails between defense attorneys and their inmate-clients sent through the Bureau of Prisons TRULINCS system. District courts have been split on how they address the issue. This Note argues that the practice of reading attorney-inmate e- mails violates the Sixth Amendment. It specifically argues that the legal mail doctrine should be applied to invalidate this practice. It then argues the Bureau of Prisons should promulgate new regulations for legal e-mail that ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements of the newly applied legal e-mail doctrine.

The Juror’S Sacred Oath: Is There A Constitutional Right To A Properly Sworn Jury?, Kathleen M. Knudsen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Montgomery V. Louisiana: An Attempt To Make Juvenile Life Without Parole A Practical Impossibility, Erin Dunn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administration Of The Criminal Justice System: When Efficiency Trumps A Fundamental Right, Sean Mcleod

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.