Criminal Law Commons^™

Cutting The Cord: Ho'oponopono And Hawaiian Restorative Justice In The Criminal Law Context , Andrew J. Hosmanek

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Ho'oponopono is a traditional Hawaiian dispute resolution system that has recently experienced a resurgence of interest. The word ho'oponopono literally means to make right. In this system, both the offender and victim participate in a type of guided mediation along with other stakeholders in the offense. Ho'oponopono is different from typical mediations because after the session is successfully completed, the participants figuratively cut the cord of legal and psychological entanglement which binds them - in other words, the dispute is put to rest forever. When victim and offender come to a true resolution of the problem, and jointly make the …

Shame By Any Other Name: Lessons For Restorative Justice From The Principles, Traditions And Practices Of Alcoholics Anonymous , Victoria Pynchon

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Because the painful experience of shame is believed to deter anti-social and criminal conduct, it has long been a staple of our criminal justice system. Its purpose has been to accomplish moral education about the wrongfulness of the crime and to prevent its occurrence through social and self-disapproval. In criminal ADR or "restorative justice" circles, the beneficial effects of "reintegrative" shame are meant to be accomplished by a "restorative justice conference" or "victim-offender mediation" ("VOMS"). These VOMs bring together victims and their loved ones; offenders and their friends and family; and, caring members of the community for the purpose of …

The Gacaca Experiment: Rwanda's Restorative Dispute Resolution Response To The 1994 Genocide, Jessica Raper

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since its rise to power in July of 1994, the Rwandan government has been committed to prosecuting all those accused of genocide. To prosecute the approximately 130,000 defendants, Rwanda has adopted a program called gacaca, based on Rwanda's traditional customary dispute resolution system. The gacaca law provides a reconciliation component that allows defendants to trade confessions of past genocide crimes for indemnification, as well as a prosecution component that holds the most serious offenders accountable in a Western style prosecution in a formal court of law. One of the main goals of gacaca is to end the so-called "culture …

Meet Me On Death Row: Post-Sentence Victim-Offender Mediation In Capital Cases, Rachel Alexandra Rossi

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since the 1970's, victim-offender mediation (VOM) has increased in use, most commonly with minor offenses. More recently, VOM has been sparingly applied to serious and violent crimes, including "rape, vehicular homicide, attempted homicide, and murder." Death penalty cases have rarely been the focus of restorative justice or VOM, likely because the victim has died and the offender will soon be executed, and these two parties are traditionally the focus of restorative justice. However, while capital cases involve unique concerns and issues, VOM can still be applied in these cases. The process would only require some modification of the focus and …

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 …

The Defense Attorney As Mediator In Plea Bargains, Gabriel Hallevy

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In this article, it will be argued that defense counsel's function in negotiating plea bargains is identical to that of a mediator, seeking to reconcile the positions of the defendant and the prosecution. Within this framework, the plea bargain should be seen as part of the broad conception of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which first made its appearance at the end of the 1970s. An analysis of plea bargains in the Western world as part of the broader concept of ADR actually shows that it is the defense attorney, rather than the court or the other parties to the issue, …

(Re)Forming The Jury: Detection And Disinfection Of Implicit Juror Bias, Anna Roberts

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Waiving Innocence, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Criminal Sanctions In The Defense Of The Innocent, Ehud Guttel, Doron Teichman

Michigan Law Review

Under the formal rules of criminal procedure, fact finders are required to apply a uniform standard of proof in all criminal cases. Experimental studies as well as real world examples indicate, however, that fact finders often adjust the evidentiary threshold for conviction in accordance with the severity of the applicable sanction. All things being equal, the higher the sanction, the higher the standard of proof that fact finders will apply in order to convict. Building on this insight, this Article introduces a new paradigm for criminal punishments-a paradigm that focuses on designing penalties that will reduce the risk of unsubstantiated …

Predators And Propensity: The Proper Approach For Determining The Admissibility Of Prior Bad Acts Evidence In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, Basyle Tchividjian

Faculty Publications and Presentations

PREDATORS AND PROPENSITY: THE PROPER APPROACH FOR DETERMINING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR BAD ACTS EVIDENCE IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PROSECUTIONS

Basyle J. Tchividjian†

Abstract

The admissibility of prior bad act evidence in child sexual abuse prosecutions oftentimes makes the difference between a guilty and not guilty verdict. Recently, jurisdictions have growingly embraced the admission of such evidence for the purpose of establishing the defendant’s propensity to sexually victimize children. Due to the potentially high prejudicial effect of admitting propensity evidence, it is more critical than ever that courts carefully apply the decisive evidentiary gatekeeper, the probative value balancing test …

Miranda’S Hidden Right, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

When the Court in Miranda v. Arizona applied the Fifth Amendment “right to remain silent” to the stationhouse, it also created an inherent contradiction that has bedeviled Miranda cases since. That is, the Court in Miranda said that a suspect can waive her right to remain silent but also that she must invoke it. Numerous courts have repeated this incantation, including most recently last summer in Berghuis v. Thompkins. But how can both be true about the same right? Either the suspect has the right and can waive it or does not yet enjoy it and must therefore invoke it. …

Can The Ceo Learn From The Condemned? The Application Of Capital Mitigation Strategies To White Collar Cases, Todd Haugh

All Faculty Scholarship

Ted Kaczynski and Bernie Madoff share much in common. Both are well-educated, extremely intelligent, charismatic figures. Both rose to the height of their chosen professions—mathematics and finance. And both will die in federal prison, Kaczynski for committing a twenty-year mail-bombing spree that killed three people and seriously injured dozens more, and Madoff for committing the largest Ponzi scheme in history, bilking thousands of people out of almost $65 billion. But that last similarity—Kaczynski’s and Madoff’s plight at sentencing—may not have had to be. While Kaczynski’s attorneys tirelessly investigated and argued every aspect of their client’s personal history, mental state, motivations, …

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 …

Veterans Court: Towards The Implementation Of A Collaborative Justice Model In San Luis Obispo County, Daniel Smee

Continuing Education (CAPSTONE)

Veterans’ treatment courts represent an emerging trend across the country of collaborative justice designed to deal with criminal justice issues stemming from problems linked to military service. This approach places the veteran in VA (Veterans Affairs) treatment programs as a diversion from incarceration. There are few such courts in California (nine) largely in non-rural counties. This study investigated two rural counties, Tulare and Santa Barbara with Veterans courts to develop a model for such a court in San Luis Obispo County. Early recidivism data at the one-year point for Tulare County showed a zero percent rate of criminal behavior (12 …

Gender And The Charles Taylor Case At The Special Court For Sierra Leone, Valerie Oosterveld

Law Publications

No abstract provided.

Democracy And Criminal Discovery Reform After Connick And Garcetti, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

A leading cause of wrongful conviction and wasteful litigation in criminal cases is the nondisclosure of information beneficial to the defense by prosecutors and law enforcement as required by Brady v. Maryland. In Connick v. Thompson and Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court weakened Brady’s enforceability by limiting the deterrent force of 42 U.S.C § 1983 liability. Connick highlights Garcetti’s implications as a criminal discovery case, which scholars have not fully analyzed. While Connick restricted § 1983 liability when prosecutors confess to suppressing exculpatory evidence, Garcetti restricted liability when prosecutors are disciplined for bringing Brady evidence to light. …

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 …

Professionalism And Advocacy At Trial – Real Jurors Speak In Detail About The Performance Of Their Advocates, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Film Review: Mississippi Innocence And The Prosecutor’S Guilt, Angela J. Davis

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Film review of Mississippi Innocence. A documentary film by Joe York. Media and Documentary Projects at the University of Mississippi (2011)

Redinocente: The Challenge Of Bringing Innocence Work To Latin America, Justin Brooks

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"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 …

Prosecutors And Bargaining In Weak Cases: A Comparative View, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

One of the most controversial uses of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining concerns cases involving weak evidence of guilt. When a prosecutor bargains about the charges or even the facts in a case with weak evidence, at least three problems may arise. First, if the charge bargain is generous, it may coerce an innocent defendant to plead guilty. Second, such a bargain may let a guilty defendant off too easily, thus disserving the public and victim’s interests. Third, if the parties bargain about the facts, the result may distort the truth of the case.

In this book chapter, I examine …

Africa And The International Criminal Court, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

No abstract provided.

Book Review, Samuel W. Buell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Sentencing Under The Advisory Guidelines And The Ex Post Facto Clause, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 435 (2012), Megan Preusker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting Tax Payers And Crime Victims: The Case For Restricting Utah's Preliminary Hearings To Felony Offenses, Paul G. Cassell, Thomas E. Goodwin

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Requiring preliminary hearings for Class A misdemeanors is undesirable for two simple reasons. First, the court’s decision will result in hundreds of additional preliminary hearings a year, thus imposing substantial costs on taxpayers and burdens on an already overwhelmed criminal justice system. Second, the decision will create substantial hardships for crime victims, who will now be twice subjected to cross-examination by defense attorneys—once at the preliminary hearing and again later at trial. And these costs will generate no significant benefit in return.

Nothing Is Not Enough: Fix The Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing considering whether the advisory guidelines system created by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker should be modified or replaced. I argue that it should.

Remedying Wrongful Execution, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The first legal determination of wrongful execution in the United States may very well be in the making in Texas. One of the state’s district courts is in the midst of investigating whether Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004, was actually innocent. The court’s investigation has been interrupted by objections from Texas prosecutors, but if the court proceeds, this may very well become a bona fide case of wrongful execution. Texas, just like other jurisdictions, is ill equipped to provide any relief for such an egregious wrong, however. This Article identifies the difficulties that the heirs, families, and …

New Law, Old Cases, Fair Outcomes: Why The Illinois Supreme Court Must Overrule People V Flowers, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 727 (2012), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Peacemaking & Provocation: A Response To Professor Tracey Jean Boisseau, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.