Constitutional Law Commons^™

Seize First, Search Later: The Hunt For Digital Evidence, Paige Bartholomew

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Retroactive Change In The Law To Punish A Defendant, George Schoenwaelder

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death, Desuetude, And Original Meaning, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

One of the most common objections to originalism is that it cannot cope with cultural change. One of the most commonly invoked examples of this claimed weakness is the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, whose original meaning would (it is argued) authorize barbaric punishment practices like flogging and branding, and disproportionate punishments like the death penalty for relatively minor offenses. This Article shows that this objection to originalism is inapt, at least with respect to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. As I have shown in prior articles, the original meaning of “cruel and unusual” is “cruel and contrary to …

Speedy Trial As A Viable Challenge To Chronic Underfunding In Indigent-Defense Systems, Emily Rose

Michigan Law Review

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial at both the state and federal levels. Attempts to increase funding for indigent defense by bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims have been thwarted by high procedural and substantive hurdles, and consequently these attempts have failed to bring significant change. This Note argues that, because ineffective assistance of counsel litigation is most likely a dead end for system-wide reform, indigent defenders should challenge the constitutionality of underfunding based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial. Existing speedy trial jurisprudence suggests that the overworking and furloughing of …

Ryan V. Gonzalez And The Potential Elimination Of The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Post Conviction Failsafe, Kathleen Carlson

Florida Law Review

Recently, the United States Supreme Court addressed in Ryan v. Gonzales “whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension of the prisoner’s federal habeas corpus proceedings.” In a unanimous decision, the Court held that “the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits both erred in holding that district courts must stay federal habeas proceedings when petitioners are adjudged incompetent.” The decision leaves unanswered questions with regard to a petitioner’s ability to protect himself from ineffective or incompetent counsel both before and during the habeas proceeding.

Future Of The Fourth Amendment: The Problem With Privacy, Poverty And Policing, Kami Chavis Simmons

Faculty Publications

For decades, the reasonable expectation of privacy has been the primary standard by which courts have determined whether a "search" has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Jones, however, has reinvigorated the physical trespass doctrine's importance when determining whether there has been a "search" triggering constitutional protection. Recognizing the unpredictability of the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine and that doctrine's bias against the urban poor, many scholars hope that the Jones opinion may ameliorate the class divide that has developed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This Article argues that while …

Substantive Habeas, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

Substantive Habeas identifies the US. Supreme Court's recent shift in its habeas jurisprudence from procedure to the substance of habeas review and explores the implications of this change. For decades, the US. Supreme Court has attempted to control the flood of habeas corpus petitions by imposing procedural requirements on prisoners seeking to challenge constitutional error in their cases. These restrictive procedural rules have remained at the center of habeas decision making until recently. Over the past few years, instead of further constraining the procedural gateway for habeas cases, the Supreme Court has shifted its focus to the substance of habeas. …

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Must Treaty Violations Be Remedied?: A Critique Of Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, John Quigley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence, Roger Roots

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Speedy Trial Right And National Security Detentions: Critical Comments On United States V. Ghailani, Anthony O'Rourke

Journal Articles

This article reviews the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to uphold the conviction and sentence of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the sole Guantánamo detainee to have been transferred to the United States for trial. Ghailani was captured nearly five years before his arraignment and argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay. The article contends that, in rejecting Ghailani’s argument, the Second Circuit distorted the doctrinal framework governing speedy trial claims and mischaracterized the interests that the speedy trial right is intended to protect. The article also explores …

Summary Of Jones V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, Kylee Gloekner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) whether a criminal defendant’s access to the courts can be restricted by the district court when he or she is challenging a judgment of conviction and sentence or the computation of time served under a judgment of conviction; and (2) whether there is an established approach courts should take when restricting the access.

Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Charles E. Cox Jr.

Mercer Law Review

Each year the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issue numerous decisions concerning the rights afforded to criminal defendants by the United States Constitution. This Article surveys selected Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court decisions issued in 2013 that will likely be of interest to criminal law practitioners.

Gideon V. Wainwright--From A 1963 Perspective, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for …

State V. Brossart: Adapting The Fourth Amendment For A Future With Drones, Thomas Bryan

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Conversational Consent Search: How “Quick Look” And Other Similar Searches Have Eroded Our Constitutional Rights, Alexander A. Mikhalevsky

Georgia State University Law Review

One area in which law enforcement agencies have stretched constitutional limits concerns the scope of a suspect’s consent to search his or her vehicle. Police forces across the country have tested the limits of consent by asking vague, conversational questions to suspects with the goal of obtaining a suspect’s consent to search, even though that individual may not want to allow the search or may not know that he or she has the right to deny consent.

Conversational phrases like “Can I take a quick look?” or “Can I take a quick look around?” have “emerg[ed] as . . . …

53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series, The Hon. Justice John Paul Stevens

Georgia State University Law Review

Remarks by the Honorable John Paul Stevens, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the 53rd Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture Series.

Dirty Secrets: The First Amendment In Protective-Order Litigation, Dustin B. Benham

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Rational Basis Review Of General Suspicionless Searches And Seizures, Richard C. Worf

Touro Law Review

This article examines the constitutional status of suspicionless searches and seizures of groups- an exceedingly important question in the age of terror, and a subject recently brought back to the forefront by the searches of subway passengers in New York City. It draws on process theory to argue that when a legislature has authorized a group search or seizure, courts should generally apply rational basis review.

First, other areas of constitutional doctrine exhibit deep trust in the power of groups to protect their interests in political process, and there is no reason why fourth amendment doctrine should not do the …

Criminal Court, New York County, People V. Dejesus, Justin Goldberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court, Queens County, In Re German F. And Hector R., Angelique Hermanowski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Tam, Elaine Yang

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People V. Mcfarley, Erica R. Borgese

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Court, Nassau County, People V. Osbourne, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department, People V. Smith, Jennifer Belk

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Ramchair, Joseph Maehr

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.