Criminal Law Commons^™

Is It Admissible?: Tips For Criminal Defense Attorneys On Assessing The Admissibility Of A Criminal Defendant's Statements, Part One, John H. Blume, Emily C. Paavola

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article addresses the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements.

Bad Faith Exception To Prosecutorial Immunity For Brady Violations, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article discusses Imbler’s adoption of absolute immunity for prosecutors. Part II discusses Imbler’s extension of absolute immunity to a prosecutor’s violation of his disclosure duty under Brady v. Maryland. Part III describes the ease with which prosecutors are able to evade the Brady rule and the difficulty of enforcing compliance with Brady. Part IV discusses the absence of any meaningful sanctions to deter and punish prosecutors for willful violations of Brady. Part V proposes a bad faith exception to absolute immunity of prosecutors for Brady violations.

Advising Noncitizen Defendants On The Immigration Consequences Of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer For The Criminal Defense Lawyer, The Court, And The Sixth Amendment, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the …

Expanding The Scope Of The Good-Faith Exception To The Exclusionary Rule To Include A Law Enforcement Officer's Reasonable Reliance On Well-Settled Case Law That Is Subsequently Overruled , Ross M. Oklewicz

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Price Tag On Constitutional Rights: Georgia V. Weis And Indigent Right To Continued Counsel, Kathryn Bosse

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Book Interview: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In The Age Of Colorblindness, Richael Faithful

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Photo Enforcement Programs: Are They Permissible Under The United States Constitution?, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (2010), Paul Mcnaughton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gps Monitoring May Cause Orwell To Turn In His Grave, But Will It Escape Constitutional Challenges? A Look At Gps Monitoring Of Domestic Violence Offenders In Illinois, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 845 (2010), Mary Ann Scholl

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Everyone Knows Medellin; Has Anyone Heard Of O'Brien? Reconciling The United States And The International Community By Amending The Vccr, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 817 (2010), Steven M. Novak

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Hobbs Act Through The Rivera-Rivera Looking Glass: A Mere Intrusion Upon Basic Fundamental Federalism Principles?, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 237 (2010), Patrick Goodwin

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Redemption Song: Graham V. Florida And The Evolving Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Robert Smith, G. Ben Choen

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without parole ("LWOP") for a juvenile under eighteen who commits a non-homicide offense. For Terrance Graham, who committed home-invasion robbery at seventeen, the decision does not mean necessarily that he someday will leave the brick walls of Florida's Taylor Annex Correctional Institution. Unlike previous Eighth Amendment decisions, such as Roper v. Simmons, where the Court barred the death penalty for juveniles, this new categorical rule does not translate into automatic relief for members of the exempted class: "A State need not guarantee the …

What Are We Doing To The Children?: An Essay On Juvenile (In)Justice, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How Far Can The Automobile Exception Go? How Searches Of Computers And Similar Devices Push It To The Limit, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1119 (2010), Andrew Wrona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Volume 6 Issue 2

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Illinois Courts And The Law Of Miranda Waivers: A Policy Worth Preserving, 30 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 429 (2010), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Preventive Detention, Character Evidence, And The New Criminal Law, Ted Sampsell-Jones

Faculty Scholarship

A new criminal law has emerged in the last quarter century. The dominant goal of the new criminal law is preventive detention-incarceration to incapacitate dangerous persons. The emergence of the new criminal law has remade both sentencing law and definitions of crimes themselves. The new criminal law has also begun to remake the law of evidence. As incapacitation has become an accepted goal of criminal punishment, the rationale of the character rule has become less compelling, and the rule itself has begun to wane in criminal practice. These changes have been subtle, but they have also been both radical and …

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence - October 2008 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

“Hard Strikes And Foul Blows”: Berger V. United States 75 Years After, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

My essay examines one of the most iconic decision of the Supreme Court seventy five years later. Berger v. United States is the most eloquent and authoritative description of the prosecutor's duty "not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done." My essay looks at why the Court decided to take up the case then, and why it has become so prominent in criminal law and ethics.

Forfeiture Of The Right To Counsel: A Doctrine Unhinged From The Constitution, Stephen A. Gerst

Cleveland State Law Review

The author contends that the doctrine of forfeiture of the right to assistance of counsel as a sanction for misconduct by a defendant towards the court or his counsel has no constitutional support in the principles that have defined the Sixth Amendment, is arbitrary in its application within the judicial system, and has become a refuge for courts, which have inadequately complied with established principles to protect fundamental rights.

The Death Of Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.

Scholarly Works

This article argues that neither the presumptive warrant requirement nor the presumptive suspicion requirement are correct. Though representative of the common law, they do not reflect the totality of our historic experience, which includes civil search practices. More importantly, modern developments - such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and security concerns post-9/11 - have sufficiently changed circumstances so that these rules are not just unworkable now, they are demonstrably wrong. Worst of all, adhering to them has prevented us from formulating a more coherent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. A new paradigm confronts us, in …

Coercing Voluntariness, Wadie E. Said

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Stepping Out Of The Vehicle: The Potential Of Arizona V. Gant To End Automatic Searches Incident To Arrest Beyond The Vehicular Context , Angad Singh

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judging Cruelty, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

he wisdom of the death penalty has recently come under attack in a number of states. This raises the question of whether states’ retreat from the death penalty, or other punishments, will pressure other states - either politically or constitutionally - to similarly abandon the punishment. Politically, states may succumb to the trend of discontinuing a punishment. Constitutionally, states may be forced to surrender the punishment if it is considered cruel, and, as a result of a large number of states renouncing it, the punishment also becomes unusual. If a punishment is thus found to be both cruel and unusual, …

Does The Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Prohibit Only Punishments That Are Both Cruel And Unusual, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

There is a great struggle in the United States between proponents of the death penalty and death penalty abolitionists who believe that the practice is cruel and even unconstitutional. Although the punishment of death is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have followed its moral compass in chipping away at the death penalty because of the cruelty of the practice. The Court's struggle between the text of the Constitution and its moral inclinations in the death penalty context has resulted in an inconsistent and confusing Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause jurisprudence. While …

Introduction: Challenging The School-To-Prison Pipeline, Deborah N. Archer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Shadow Of State Secrets, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The shadow of state secrets casts itself longer than previously acknowledged. Between 2001 and 2009 the government asserted state secrets in more than 100 cases, while in scores more litigants appealed to the doctrine in anticipation of government intervention. Contractor cases ranged from breach of contract, patent disputes, and trade secrets, to fraud and employment termination. Wrongful death, personal injury, and negligence suits kept pace, extending beyond product liability to include infrastructure and services, as well as conduct of war. In excess of fifty telecommunications suits linked to the NSA warrantless wiretapping program emerged 2006-2009, with the government acting, variously, …

Prosecutorial Discretion In The Shadow Of Advisory Guidelines And Mandatory Minimums, Michael A. Simons

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Imagine the following rather run-of-the-mill crime spree:

Three young men, ranging in age from eighteen to twenty and without significant criminal histories, get together to rob a convenience store in New York City. They take an unloaded an inoperable gun, go into the store, point the gun at the clerk behind the counter, and take a few hundred dollars from the cash register. Flush with success, they decide to do it again, this time at a jewelry store down the block. One of the young men points the unloaded gun at the store employees, another stands guard by the …

Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tenetur Principle In Borderline Cases, Luis E. Chiesa

Journal Articles

In this article I examine three borderline cases in which it is not clear whether a confession had been obtained in violation of the nemo tenetur principle (i.e. the rights against self-incrimination and forced inculpation). The case of the false confession presents a situation in which a person made a voluntary confession but the overwhelming evidence pointed to the falsity of the statements. In contrast, the confession obtained in the case of the truth serum is of high probative value. However, it could be argued that the suspect did not voluntarily decide to incriminate himself, given that he confessed when …

What Does Graham Mean In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court held that life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime.1 In this context, the Graham Court extensively discussed the diminished culpability of juvenile criminal defendants, as compared to adults. The Court relied on current scientific research regarding adolescent development and neuroscience. While the narrowest holding of Graham has little impact in Michigan, the science it relies on, and the potential broader implications for adolescents in Michigan, are significant.

Innocence Commissions And The Future Of Post-Conviction Review, David Wolitz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the fall of 2006, North Carolina became the first state to establish an innocence commission – a state institution with the power to review and investigate individual post-conviction claims of actual innocence. And on February 17, 2010, after spending seventeen years in prison for a murder he did not commit, Greg Taylor became the first person exonerated through the innocence commission process. This article argues that the innocence commission model pioneered by North Carolina has proven itself to be a major institutional improvement over conventional post-conviction review. The article explains why existing court-based procedures are inadequate to address collateral …