Criminal Law Commons^™

The Moussaoui Case: The Mess From Minnesota, Afsheen John Radsan

William Mitchell Law Review

This article, after giving a brief history of the Moussaoui case, identifies the main paradoxes or problems of continuing to deal with him in the criminal system. By no stretch of the imagination does this article provide an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the Moussaoui case. Each problem, by itself, could be the subject of a separate law review article. This article suggests that Moussaoui, rather than Yaser Esam Hamdi, or Jose Padilla, or the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, could have served as the true test for determining the minimum process that the American Constitutional system owes to an individual …

State V. Askerooth: Re-Applying The Terry Principle Of Reasonableness To Traffic Stops Under The Minnesota Constitution, Jodie Carlson

William Mitchell Law Review

This note first discusses the Minnesota Supreme Court’s use of the Minnesota Constitution to provide broader protections for its citizens in the area of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. This note then explains the rationale for the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Askerooth. Finally, this note discusses the Atwater decision and whether it was necessary for the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide Askerooth under the state constitution.

Revenge Of Mullaney V. Wilbur: United States V. Booker And The Reassertion Of Judicial Limits On Legislative Power To Define Crimes, The, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers a historically grounded account of the twists and turns in the Supreme Court's sentencing jurisprudence from the end of World War II to the Court's stunning rejection of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The doctrinal shifts that have roiled this area of the law can best be understood as the Court's effort to respond to the changing political and social landscape of crime in America. In the mid 1970's, legislative activity in the criminal law was largely focused on Model Penal Code influenced recodification. In that era, the Supreme Court took power from an ascendant judiciary and gave …

A Jurisprudence Of Doubt: Missouri V. Seibert, United States V. Patane, And The Supreme Court's Continued Confusion About The Constitutional Status Of Miranda, Johnathan L. Rogers

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gates V. Cook: Are Courts Equipped To Manage Prisons?, Katherine T. Wainwright

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Crawford V. Washington: The Admissibility Of Statements To Physicians And The Use Of Closed-Circuit Television In Cases Of Child Sexual Abuse, Jon Simon Stefanuca

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Robinson: The Eighth Amendment As Constitutional Support For Theories Of Criminal Responsibility, Jeffrey A. Rowe

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Military Spying In The United States: When It Is Not Your Neighbor Knocking At Your Door, Where Do You Turn?, Miriam Schneider

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note will describe the role of the military in the United States and its relationship to privacy rights. Part I of this Note will describe the historical underpinnings that led to a limited role for the military within the United States territory, beyond defending against attack. Part II will describe the expectations by the courts and legislature for the military. In addition, it will illustrate instances where the military, along with numerous federal agencies, overstepped its traditional, constitutional and legal bounds. Part III will offer the legislature's response to, and its subsequent regulation of, the military and other federal …

Prosecutorial Ethics And Victims' Rights: The Prosecutor's Duty Of Neutrality, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In recent years, enhanced legal protections for victims has caused victims to become increasingly involved in the criminal justice process, often working closely with prosecutors. In this Article, Professor Gershman analyzes the potential challenges to prosecutors' ethical duties that victims'participation may bring and suggests appropriate responses.

Judicial Selection And Democratic Theory: Demand, Supply, And Life Tenure, Judith Resnik

Cardozo Law Review

How ought a democracy select its judges? Critics in Canada, England, and Wales invoke the democratic values of accountability and transparency to call for a diminution in prime ministerial control over judicial appointments. In the United States, Article III of the Constitution's text directs that the President nominate - with the advice and consent of the Senate - life-tenured federal judges. Bitter conflicts about particular nominees have produced many proposals for changes of that system. And in those states that rely on various forms of judicial election, concerns focus on funding and campaigning. In short, both globally and locally, democracies …

The Story Of United States V. Salerno: The Constitutionality Of Regulatory Detention, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

Is it constitutional for the government to lock up people without waiting to convict them at trial? If it is, what are the limits on the government's power to lock up anyone it deems dangerous? These are issues raised by preventive detention provisions in bail statutes, and addressed in United States v. Salerno. The controversy about these bail statutes, once so hotly contested, has died down. But the broader questions about the government's power to detain suspected criminals without giving them the benefit of full criminal process remain unresolved, and have taken on a new urgency as the nation confronts …

Rethinking Retroactivity, Robert J. Jackson Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Under the stringent test set forth in Teague v. Lane,' defendants convicted of criminal offenses are generally unable to collaterally attack their convictions by invoking constitutional rules of criminal procedure announced after their convictions become final.2 The purported exception to this general principle is said to require that a new constitutional rule be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'3 for it to be applied to criminal cases decided before its pronouncement. Once a rule of criminal procedure is characterized as "new,"4 Teague prohibits the rule's invocation in habeas proceedings unless the rule both "assure[s] that no man has been …

Conceptualizing Blakely, Douglas A. Berman

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

The Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington has generated impassioned judicial and academic criticisms, perhaps because the “earthquake” ruling seems to announce a destructive rule in search of a sound principle. Read broadly, the jury trial rule articulated in Blakely might be thought to cast constitutional doubt on any and all judicial fact-finding at sentencing. Yet judicial fact-finding at sentencing has a long history, and such fact-finding has been an integral component of modern sentencing reforms and seems critical to the operation of guideline sentencing. The caustic reaction to Blakely reflects the fact that the decision has sowed confusion …

Anthrax Hoaxes, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

INTRODUCTION: "[Y]ou are a disgusting piece of dirt."' Judge Steven Shutter, a county judge in South Florida, used these words to describe a twenty- four-year-old woman whom he labeled a terrorist and who was condemned by the media. Aside from name-calling, Judge Shutter raised the woman's bail from $3,500 to $25,000 when he learned the nature of the offense, 'just in case" the woman might be able to afford the lower bond. Given the strength of Judge Shutter's animosity toward her, one might assume that Yasmin Kassima Sealey- Doe had provided assistance to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade …

Mental Disorder And The Civil/Criminal Distinction, Grant H. Morris

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This essay, written as part of a symposium issue to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the University of San Diego Law School, discusses the evaporating distinction between sentence-serving convicts and mentally disordered nonconvicts who are involved in, or who were involved in, the criminal process–people we label as both bad and mad. By examining one Supreme Court case from each of the decades that follow the opening of the University of San Diego School of Law, the essay demonstrates how the promise that nonconvict mentally disordered persons would be treated equally with other civilly committed mental patients was made and …

The Rave Act: A Specious Solution To The Serious Problem Of Increased Ecstasy Distribution Within The United States That Is Unconstitutionally Overbroad, Erin Treacy

ExpressO

The RAVE Act amends the 1986 "Crackhouse Statute" on the assumption that electronic music concerts are comparable to crackhouses. This article submits that the rationale behind the former Crackhouse statute does not logically support the RAVE Act and that the new law, as enacted, is unconstitutionally overbroad, infringing upon First Amendment rights. This article shows that the “rave culture,” its associated drug use and electronic music performances (sometimes known as raves) are not inextricably linked. The article also explores policy arguments that may be asserted against the RAVE Act and provides suggestions on how to amend the existing statute to …

Apprendi's Limits, Roger Craig Green

ExpressO

This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional. It also claims that the best interpretation of Apprendi v. New Jersey would uphold the Guidelines because they do not result in a punishment above the crime of conviction's statutory maximum. The notion that statutory maxima are constitutionally important stems from separation of power principles. Congress, not the Commission, is responsible for defining crimes, and thereby for prescribing how much punishment is authorized by a jury's guilty verdict.

Jurisprudence: Due Process Concerns For The Underrepresented Domestic Violence Victim, Rebecca Fialk, Tamara Mitchel

Buffalo Women's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Third Parallel Primrose Path: The Supreme Court's Repeated, Unexplained, And Still Growing Regulation Of State Courts' Criminal Appeals, Russell M. Coombs

ExpressO

Recently the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Ornelas v. United States, that decisions of certain mixed questions of federal constitutional law and fact, arising under various amendments, must be reviewed de novo on direct appeal. The Court has not specified that state courts are bound by these rulings, but has used conflicting language relevant to that issue. Faced with this ambiguity, the courts of a number of states have departed from their prior practices by following these rulings, at least some because they consider themselves bound to do so, and have extended …

'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

ExpressO

In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.

I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …

The Alley Behind First Street, Northeast: Criminal Abortion In The Nation's Capital 1873-1973, Douglas R. Miller

ExpressO

The thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade found our country no less divided over abortion than it was during the era of its prohibition. As the bitter struggle over judicial nominations throughout the present administration suggests, abortion’s future remains at the forefront of American political debate.

In their push for increased limitations, abortion opponents generally overlook the historical consequences of prohibition. Abortion rights proponents often invoke history in their opposition to new restrictions, but tend to do so superficially, and only in a manner that supports their position.

This article attempts a more complex study of criminal abortion’s legal and …

Mental Disorder And The Civil/Criminal Distinction, Grant H. Morris

San Diego Law Review

This essay, written as part of a symposium issue to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the University of San Diego Law School, discusses the evaporating distinction between sentence-serving convicts and mentally disordered nonconvicts who are involved in, or who were involved in, the criminal process–people we label as both bad and mad. By examining one Supreme Court case from each of the decades that follow the opening of the University of San Diego School of Law, the essay demonstrates how the promise that nonconvict mentally disordered persons would be treated equally with other civilly committed mental patients was made and …

Donating "Blood Money": Fundraising For International Terrorism By United States Charities And The Government's Efforts To Constrict The Flow, Montgomery E. Engel

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the U.S. government's use of blocking orders against charitable organizations suspected of supporting terrorism, arguing that while such orders are effective in disrupting terrorist financing, they raise significant concerns about due process, transparency, and the equitable treatment of Muslim-American donors. The author advocates for a shift toward criminal prosecution as a more effective and equitable strategy, balancing national security with civil liberties.

“Which One Of You Did It?” Criminal Liability For “Causing Or Allowing” The Death Of A Child, Lissa Griffin

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Endorsing Religion: Drug Courts And The 12-Step Recovery Support Program, Emily M. Gallas

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Process Right Due? Examining Whether A Capital Defendant Has A Due Process Right To A Jury Selection Expert, Steven C. Serio

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifteen Famous Supreme Court Cases From Georgia, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

John Inscoe, UGA professor of history and editor of the New Georgia Encyclopedia, invited Hosch Professor Dan T. Coenen to contribute a series of essays on the most significant U.S. Supreme Court cases that originated in the state of Georgia. This article, which proposes an unranked top 15 list, is built on this work.

Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Deportations, Removals And The 1996 Immigration Acts: A Modern Look At The Ex Post Facto Clause, Lupe S. Salinas

ExpressO

The article addresses the punitive aspects of the deportation procedures as impacted by the 1996 Immigration Acts. When faced with the precedents in the field, that deportation is a civil procedure, federal courts conclude that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply. However, the article draws upon common law and other historical bases for the conclusion that a modern view should hold that conviction-related removals are punitive and subject to ex post facto analysis.