Constitutional Law Commons^™

"Bad Juror" Lists And The Prosecutor's Duty To Disclose, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Prosecutors sometimes use what are known as "bad juror" lists to exclude particular citizens from jury service. Not only does this practice interfere with an open and fair jury-selection process, thus implicating a defendant's right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers, but it also violates potential jurors' rights to serve in this important capacity. But who is on these lists? And is a prosecutor required to disclose the lists to defense counsel? These questions have largely gone unnoticed by legal analysts. This Article addresses the prosecutor's duty to disclose bad-juror lists. It reviews the federal …

Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Predictive policing is a new law enforcement strategy to reduce crime by predicting criminal activity before it happens. Using sophisticated computer algorithms to forecast future events from past crime patterns, predictive policing has become the centerpiece of a new smart-policing strategy in several major cities. The initial results have been strikingly successful in reducing crime.This article addresses the Fourth Amendment consequences of this police innovation, analyzing the effect of predictive policing on the concept of reasonable suspicion. This article examines predictive policing in the context of the larger constitutional framework of “prediction” and the Fourth Amendment. Many aspects of current …

Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

One of the central protections of our system of criminal justice is the right of the accused in all criminal prosecutions "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It provides assurance that prosecution witnesses will give their testimony in the way demanded for centuries by Anglo-American courts-in the presence of the accused, subject to cross-examination- rather than in any other way. Witnesses may not, for example, testify by speaking privately to governmental agents in a police station or in their living rooms. Since shortly after it was adopted, however, the confrontation right became obscured by the ascendance of a …

Does The Lawyer Make A Difference? Public Defender V. Appointed Counsel, Peter A. Joy, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Scholarship@WashULaw

A recent study found that poor criminal defendants in Philadelphia who were represented by court-appointed private lawyers were more often found guilty and sentenced to more time in prison than similarly situated defendants represented by public defenders. In this column, we review the details of the study, its findings, and its ethical and constitutional implications.

The Master Mason: How Professor Baldus Built A Bridge From Learning To Law And The Legacy Of Equal Justice He Leaves Behind, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

These are Chief Judge Baker’s remarks eulogizing the late Professor David Baldus. Chief Judge Baker observes that Professor Baldus was an extraordinary educator-lawyer who mastered the fields of social science and statistics. He adds that Professor Baldus was diligent in his research and strived to make the law accessible. Chief Judge Baker discusses how Professor Baldus’s research on the death penalty and proportionality review successfully bridged the law and learning, without ever losing sight of compassion.

Don’T Blame Crawford Or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All Davis’S Fault, Deborah Ahrens, John Mitchell

Faculty Articles

In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed …

Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington radically transformed the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Before Crawford, a prosecutor could introduce against an accused evidence of a hearsay statement, even one made in contemplation that it would be used in prosecution, so long as the statement fit within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception or the court otherwise determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable to warrant admissibility. Crawford recognized that the Clause is a procedural guarantee, governing the manner in which prosecution witnesses give their testimony. Therefore, a prosecutor may not introduce a statement that is testimonial …

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Fourteenth Amendment Originalism, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

In Baze v. Rees, the Supreme Court rejected a death-row inmate's claim that a state's use of a lethal injection protocol that carried risks of severe pain from improper administration violated the Constitution. Justice Thomas wrote a remarkable concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia, in which he argued that the plurality opinion announcing the governing standard for claims of this sort was wrong, and should have hewed more closely to the original understanding of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote that "the Framers intended to prohibit torturous modes of punishment akin to those that formed the historical backdrop of …

Requiring Miranda Warnings For The Christmas Day Bomber And Other Terrorists, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Sky Is Still Not Falling, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Cases since Crawford have mainly fallen into two categories. One involves accusations of crime, made by the apparent victim shortly after the incident. In Michigan v. Bryant, a majority of the Court adopted an unfortunately constricted view of the word "testimonial" in this context. That decision was a consequence of the Court having failed to adopt a robust view of when an accused forfeits the confrontation right. How the Court will deal with this situation-one mistake made in an attempt to compensate for another-is a perplexing and important question. This Essay, though, concentrates on the other principal category of post-Crawford …

A Mosaic Shield: Maynard, The Fourth Amendment, And Privacy Rights In The Digital Age, Erin Smith Dennis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert L. Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert L. Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Faculty Scholarship

This is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Educating Prosecutors And Supreme Court Justices About Brady V. Maryland, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The author reviews the Supreme Court decision in Connick v. Thompson and provides a course outline, including problems, for training prosecutors on their duty to disclose materially favorable evidence to the defendant under Brady v. Maryland.

Covenants For The Sword, Alice Ristroph

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Up Against The Wall: A Guide To The Effective Screening Of Former Government Attorneys In New York, Shira Mizrahi

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note examines New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11, which governs conflicts of interest for former government attorneys transitioning to private practice. It highlights the rule's strict requirements for screening to prevent conflicts and the "appearance of impropriety" standard, which allows courts to disqualify firms even without evidence of wrongdoing. The analysis critiques the rule's effectiveness, particularly in small firms, and proposes reforms to balance public trust, client interests, and attorneys' career mobility.

A Brave New World Of Stop And Frisk, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In this article, the author Ron Bacigal discusses the editorials, The Shame of New York by Bob Herbert and Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are by Heather MacDonald. These editorials were prompted by the New York City Police Department's release of figures regarding "stop and frisk" incidents within New York City.' MacDonald and Herbert reacted to the same statistical report by putting two very different spins on the raw data. While it's always helpful to compile empirical evidence, Bacigal suggests that we also need to look beyond the mere numbers. If you put aside anecdotal versions of encounters between minorities …

J.D.B. V. North Carolina And The Reasonable Person, Christopher Jackson

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

This Term, the Supreme Court was presented with a prime opportunity to provide some much-needed clarification on a "backdrop" issue of law-one of many topics that arises in a variety of legal contexts, but is rarely analyzed on its own terms. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court considered whether age was a relevant factor in determining if a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes, and thus must have her rights read to her before being questioned by the police. Miranda, like dozens of other areas of law, employs a reasonable person test on the custodial question: it asks …

Where Do We Go From Here: Plea Colloquy Warnings And Immigration Consequences Post-Padilla, Vivian Chang

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues for the passage of criminal procedure rules that would require judges to warn criminal defendants about immigration consequences at plea colloquy. Part I addresses the overlap of criminal and immigration law, arguing that the increased use of the criminal justice system to police federal immigration laws calls for greater protection of non-citizen defendants at plea colloquy. Part II then addresses the legal duties imposed on both defense counsel and trial courts in relation to plea colloquy. Padilla merely addressed the duty of defense counsel to provide constitutionally effective assistance before plea colloquy and did not reach the …

Executions In America: How Constitutional Interpretation Has Restricted Capital Punishment, Andrea Paone

Pell Scholars and Senior Theses

In upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has utilized a strict construction interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which has led the opponents of capital punishment to abandon the Due Process approach and look to the Eighth Amendment, for which the justices utilize a loose construction interpretation.

An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Staring Down The Sights At Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago: Why The Second Amendment Deserves The Kevlar Protection Of Strict Scrutiny, James J. Williamson Ii

Legislation and Policy Brief

In June of 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring that a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of handguns in a private home for personal protection violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  Justice Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority, recognized that the protections provided by the Second Amendment apply to individuals—not just “militias”—and emphatically declared that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.  These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”  After four years of …

Mcdonald's Other Right, Samuel L. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Slavery Revisited In Penal Plantation Labor, Andrea C. Armstrong

Seattle University Law Review

This Article argues that society must critically examine the types of labor we require our inmates to perform and prohibit the imposition of slavery, even when the enslaved is an inmate. Part II focuses on the text and history of Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment11 and argues that the Amendment’s exception allowing forced inmate labor is not as broad as it first appears. Part III examines the Eighth Amendment and how the imposition of slave status on inmates should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Lastly, Part IV applies these concepts to the history and operation of one such …

Such Visible Fiction: The Expansion Of Scott V. Harris To Prisoner Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claims, Nina Frank

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecution Without Representation, Douglas L. Colbert

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright established indigent defendants' constitutional right to counsel, poor people throughout the country still remain without a lawyer when first appearing before a judicial officer who determines pretrial liberty or bail. Absent counsel, low-income defendants unable to afford bail remain in jail for periods ranging from 3-70 days until assigned counsel appears in-court. Examining Walter Rothgery's wrongful prosecution, the article includes a national survey that informs readers about the limited right to counsel at the initial appearance and the extent of delay in each of the 50 states. …

Realizing Padilla's Promise: Ensuring Noncitizen Defendants Are Advised Of The Immigration Consequences Of A Criminal Convictions, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

On March 31, 2010 the United States Supreme court decided Padilla v. Kentucky and created a Sixth Amendment duty for defense attorneys to advise defendants of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. While Padilla answered the broad question of whether there is a duty to advise a defendant under the Sixth Amendment, it left many questions unanswered. One critical inquiry is how defense attorneys and the courts will determine what advice concerning the immigration consequences of the criminal conviction will satisfy defense counsels’ Sixth Amendment duty under Padilla.

This Article discusses the potential detrimental impact of Padilla’s ambiguous holding …

In Order To Be Silent, You Must First Speak: The Supreme Court Extends Davis's Clarity Requirement To The Right To Remain Silent In Berghuis V. Thompkins, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 423 (2011), Harvey Gee

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Convicted By A Sleeping Jury: Harmless Error Or A Challenge To The Integrity Of Our Criminal Justice System, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 751 (2011), Rhandi Childress

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.