Criminal Law Commons^™

Roving Border Patrols In New York – Sometimes The Drug Smuggler Does Not Get Convicted: The Legal Limitations Regarding Vehicle Stops And Consent Searches Based Upon Reasonable Suspicion - People V. Banisadr, Robert Mitchell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do Automobile Passengers Have A Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy? An Analysis Of Reasonable Expectation Under The Fourth Amendment - People V. Howard, Lisa Belrose

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Seal On White-Collar Criminal Search Warrant Materials , David Horan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: New York Vs. Federal Approach - People V. Keita, Tillie S. Mirman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inevitable Discovery Rule - Justice Served Or Justice Thwarted? - People V. Pinckney, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S In The Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, And The Authority To Grant Consent - United States V. Harris, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guns And Ammo: For Convicted Americans Viewing Pictures Of Others Enjoying Their Constitutional Right To Bear Arms In A Magazine Is The Closest They Will Ever Get To Seeing The Second Amendment At Work - People V. Hughes, Ronald P. Perry

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Absentee Post-Conviction Constitutional Safeguards – People V. Zowaski, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor.

The …

Revisiting "Special Needs" Theory Via Airport Searches, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Controversy has raged since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) introduced Advanced Imaging Technology, capable of producing detailed images of travelers' bodies, and "enhanced" pat frisks as part of everyday airport travel. In the face of challenges in the courts and in public discourse, the TSA has justified the heightened security measures as a necessary means to prevent terrorist attacks. The purpose of this Essay is to situate the Fourth Amendment implications of the new regime within a broader historical context. Most germane, after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced sweeping new screening of air travelers in the 1960s and 1970s …

Racial Disparities In Sentencing In The U.S. And Georgia, Kamal Rattray, Nicole Lee

Georgia Journal of Public Policy

Incarceration represents the ultimate use of coercive power, and in the state of Georgia, that power is being disproportionately levied upon people of color, particularly African Americans.1 According to 2011 statistics from the Georgia Department of Corrections, the total prison population statewide was approximately 53,341 inmates. The majority of that number were Blacks (33,069 inmates), followed by Whites (17,752 inmates), Hispanics (2,306 inmates) and other ethnic groups.

When The Cheering (For Gideon ) Stops: The Defense Bar And Representation At Initial Bail Hearings, Douglas L. Colbert

Faculty Scholarship

This article suggests that the absence of representation at the beginning of a State criminal prosecution must come to a screeching halt. The criminal defense bar should take a leadership role and dedicate Gideon's anniversary to making certain that an accused's right to the effective assistance of counsel begins at the initial bail hearing. Indeed, guaranteeing vigorous representation should be the defense bar's number one priority.

Association For Civil Rights In Israel V. Israel Police, Dorit Beinisch, Asher Grunis, Miriam Naor, Esther Hayut, Hanan Melcer, Eliezer Rivlin, Edna Arbel

Translated Opinions

This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

Petitions concerning the constitutionality of some of the arrangements prescribed in the scope of the Criminal Procedure Act (Powers of Enforcement – Communications Data), 5768-2007, which came into effect on June 27, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Communications Data Act” or “the Act”) and enables the Israeli investigatory authorities to obtain communications data from all the communications companies – the various cellular or …

Wikileaks And The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone

Federal Communications Law Journal

FCBA Distinguished Speaker Series

In November 2010, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks collaborated with major media organizations to release thousands of classified U.S. State Department documents. American soldier Bradley Manning stands accused of leaking those documents to the website. In response, Congress introduced the SHIELD Act to amend the Espionage Act of 1917, making it a crime for any person to disseminate any classified information concerning American intelligence or the identity of a classified informant. Such sweeping language, while possibly constitutional as applied to government employees like Manning, is plainly unconstitutional as applied to those like Assange and WikiLeaks who subsequently publish …

United States V. Renzi: Reigning In The Speech Or Debate Clause To Fight Corruption In Congress Postrayburn, A.J. Green

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Saving Their Own Souls: How Rluipa Failed To Deliver On Its Promises, Sarah Gerwig-Moore

Legislation and Policy Brief

In the summer of 2001, as a graduate student in law and theology, I began work on a master’s thesis that examined the predicament of men of faith on San Quentin’s Condemned Row. I was working in the California Appellate Project—mostly assisting with direct appeals and state habeas petitions on behalf of men under a death sentence—when a colleague guided me into theological conversations with some of our clients. On Condemned Row, they waited—up to five years to be assigned a court-appointed appellate attorney, on judges’ rulings, and to find whether the legal system would ultimately exact the penalty it …

Jumping On The Bandwagon: The United States Supreme Court Prohibits The Execution Of Mentally Retarded Persons In Atkins V. Virginia, Lisa Odom

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brady, Trust, And Error, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Unlocking The Courthouse Door: Removing The Barrier Of The Plra’S Physical Injury Requirement To Permit Meaningful Judicial Oversight Of Abuses In Supermax Prisons And Isolation Units, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In recent years the number of inmates held in isolation in American prisons has increased dramatically. At the same serious abuses have occurred in these isolation units. These abuses, which include subjecting inmates to degrading, humiliating and unnecessary suffering, often do not cause physical injury. Even though constitutional rights are violated by these acts, federal courts have often failed to provide relief to victims of these abuses. The reason is that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) deprives federal courts of the ability to provide relief from degrading and even torturous behavior if there is not physical injury. This article …

Can California Save Its Death Sentences? Will Californians Save The Expense?, Scott W. Howe

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ewing V. California: Upholding California's Three Strikes Law, Robert Clinton Peck

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The T-Rex Without Teeth: Evolving Strickland V. Washington And The Test For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Robert R. Rigg

Pepperdine Law Review

In Strickland v. Washington the United States Supreme Court formulated the test for determining whether counsel in a criminal case is ineffective. When the Court decided Strickland it created a doctrine of enormous proportions, but with little impact--a legal tyrannosaurus rex without teeth. In the last decade, by using American Bar Association (“ABA”) standards to evaluate counsel's performance, the Court has given the T-Rex some sizable incisors. The purposes of this article are to: (1) determine how frequently the United States Supreme Court uses ABA standards in its decisions and describe briefly for what purposes the Court uses those standards; …

Finding The Original Meaning Of American Criminal Procedure Rights: Lessons From Reasonable Doubt’S Development, Randolph N. Jonakait

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “The prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt for a valid conviction. The Constitution nowhere explicitly contains this requirement, but the Supreme Court in In re Winship1 stated that due process commands it. Justice Brennan, writing for the Court, noted that the Court had often assumed that the standard existed, that it played a central role in American criminal justice by lessening the chances of mistaken convictions, and that it was essential for instilling community respect in criminal enforcement. The reasonable doubt standard is fundamental because it makes guilty verdicts more difficult. As Winship …

Are Bills Of Attainder The New Currency? Challenging The Constitutionality Of Sex Offender Regulations That Inflict Punishment Without The "Safeguard Of A Judicial Trial", Joel A. Sherwin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juror Privacy In The Sixth Amendment Balance, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Some eight million citizens report for jury duty every year. Arguably, jury duty is one of the most significant opportunities to participate in the democratic process. For the accused, the jury acts as an indispensable safeguard against government overreaching. One might expect, therefore, that our justice system would treat potential jurors with care and tact. The opposite is true. During voir dire, prospective jurors are required to share insights into their own lives, quirks, proclivities, and beliefs. Litigants have probed jurors’ sexual orientation, criminal histories, criminal victimization, health, family relations, and beyond. A few scholars have chided the system for …

A Criminal Quartet: The Supreme Court's Resolution Of Four Critical Issues In The Criminal Justice System, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guy Fawkes's Dangerous Remedy: The Unconstitutionality Of Government-Ordered Assassination Against U.S. Citizens And Its Implications For Due Process In America, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2012), Emily Kendall

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Control, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004), face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser is the constitutionally normative mode of presentation for testimonial evidence. Yet, eight years into the Crawford revolution, courts routinely hold that counsel can waive a defendant's confrontation rights without even discussing the matter with the defendant. Why? Because counsel, not client, has the authority to decide whether to confront and cross-examine government witnesses.

This Essay, written as part of the Texas Tech Sixth Amendment Symposium, explores this peculiar and perplexing rule. If confrontation is essential to a constitutionally valid criminal trial, how can defense …

The Death Penalty And The Mentally Ill: A Selected And Annotated Bibliography, Jean Mattimoe

Articles

The United States Supreme Court over the last decade has selectively whittled away at the scope and availability of the death penalty by exempting certain groups from execution under the Eighth Amendment. In 2002 the court ruled that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In 2005 the court ruled that the Constitution forbids the execution of individuals who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes. Currently there is an active debate on whether to extend the categorical exemptions created by the Court to the mentally ill. At the forefront …

Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A significant and growing portion of the United States population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. …