Criminal Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Robert Calvin Brown, Iii V. State Of Maryland, No. 08-118, Brenda Bratton Blom

Court Briefs

Amici brief filed by the University of Maryland School of Law’s Clinical Program and members of the Baltimore legal community including legal educators, lawyers, student attorneys, service providers, government administrators, community based organizations, and nationally recognized individuals from community justice initiatives and organizations on Respondent’s behalf. The individuals and organizations represented in the brief have all collaborated together to build and support what are colloquially known as “problem solving dockets”: courts that are specialized, alternative sentencing dockets that offer diversionary programs to qualified offenders. The dockets are run out of Maryland’s district and circuit courts, but not separate, freestanding judicial …

Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Sheri Johnson, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Race matters in the criminal justice system. Black defendants appear to fare worse than similarly situated white defendants. Why? Implicit bias is one possibility. Researchers, using a well-known measure called the implicit association test, have found that most white Americans harbor implicit bias toward Black Americans. Do judges, who are professionally committed to egalitarian norms, hold these same implicit biases? And if so, do these biases account for racially disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system? We explored these two research questions in a multi-part study involving a large sample of trial judges drawn from around the country. Our results …

Why Is Torture "Different" And How "Different" Is It?, Sherry F. Colb

Cardozo Law Review

Almost every serious commentator to address the moral and legal question of torture has taken for granted the proposition that the infliction of torture is a sufficiently grave evil to require a distinctly demanding moral scrutiny, one that categorically sets torture apart from other terrible things (including killing) that human beings do to one another. To borrow from the Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence, most people agree that torture is "different."

Under the Eighth Amendment, the fact that death is different does not rule out its application; it simply alters the relevant procedural and substantive standards. By contrast, many scholars …

Summary Of Savage V. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, Moorea Katz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Consolidated petitions for writs of mandamus that challenged district court failures to consider applications pursuant to NRS 484.37941 on their merits.

Summary Of Stromberg V. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 1, Brandon Johansson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s decision to deny petitioner’s request to apply for treatment.

Book Review, Victor Peskin, International Justice In Rwanda And The Balkans: Virtual Trials And The Struggle For State Cooperation (2008), Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

Implementation of the law requires strategic cooperation. No surprise there: It does so even in the most taut domestic polity. Law is intrinsically contingent. And political. But what does the particularly acute dependency of international criminal law on political cooperation teach us about its pertinence? Its promise? Its limits? It is one thing to assess the functionality of international criminal law. It is another to gauge the value of international criminal law, when actuated through adversarial trials, in reconstituting shattered communities; and its effectiveness as a tool of transitional justice. At its core, Virtual Trials is an analysis about functionality. …

Discrimination, Coercion, And The Bail Reform Act Of 1984: The Loss Of The Core Constitutional Protections Of The Excessive Bail Clause, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Orwell’S Vision: Video And The Future Of Civil Rights Enforcement, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

How To Improve Empirical Desert, Adam Kolber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus Writ Of Liberty, Boumediene And Beyond, Scott J. Shackelford

Cleveland State Law Review

This book review focuses on Robert Walker's Habeas Corpus Writ of Liberty: English and American Origins and Development.

In Defense Of Victim Impact Statements, Paul Cassell

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper provides a comprehensive justification of "victim impact statements" in criminal sentencing, explaining how such statements are important to crime victims and how the critics of such statements fail to grapple with the need for these statements to victims.

Prosecuting Core Crimes In The United States: Recent Changes And Prospects For 2010, Naomi Roht-Arriaza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Drug Law Reform--Retreating From An Incarceration Addiction, Robert G. Lawson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Eyewitness Conundrum: How Courts, Police And Attorneys Can Reduce Mistakes By Eyewitnesses, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Reducing the incidence of wrongful convictions based on eyewitness mistakes poses a difficult challenge to the criminal justice system. There is near-unanimity among courts and commentators that eyewitness mistakes account for more erroneous convictions than any other type of proof. It is therefore incumbent on every key participant in the criminal justice system - judge, prosecutor, police, and defense counsel - to use every available tool to protect an accused from being mistakenly identified by an eyewitness. For the judge, protecting the accused requires a willingness to give the jury special instructions on eyewitness identification and a willingness to allow …

The Subjective Experience Of Punishment, Adam Kolber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Torture, Necessity, And Supreme Emergency: Law And Morality At The End Of Law, Zachary R. Calo

Scholarly Works

This paper employs Michael Walzer's concept of "Supreme Emergency" to address the permissibility of torture under conditions of necessity. It proposes moving beyond both utilitarian and deontological approaches to legal authority in order to understood necessity as a moral category. A full account of right action under conditions of necessity therefore demands taking account of the distinct yet cooperative function provided by legal and moral norms. A political official might therefore possess moral but not legal warrant to act in contravention of binding legal norms. Preserving the validity of law is essential to the economy of social reconstitution in the …

Stripped Of Justification: The Eleventh Circuit's Abolition Of The Reasonable Suspicion Requirement For Booking Strip Searches In Prisons, Andrew A. Crampton

Cleveland State Law Review

Part II of this Note will provide an historical judicial background of the decisions leading up to the Powell v. Barrett decision. This section will first take a brief look at the history of the prison strip search before conducting an in-depth analysis at the Bell v. Wolfish decision, including the facts, rationale, and ambiguities of the decision. Next, this Note will examine the subsequent use of the Bell v. Wolfish decision by the federal courts in the context of strip searches conducted pursuant to facilities' booking policies, focusing on the rise of the “reasonable suspicion” standard. Part III of …

Developing A State Constitutional Law Strategy In New Mexico Criminal Prosecutions, J. Thomas Sullivan

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article includes a review of the process by which the New Mexico courts have developed an independent state constitutional jurisprudence reflecting more expansive protections of individual rights than those afforded by the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It addresses the existing body of state constitutional law and suggests possibilities for further developments, including both the substantive aspects of state constitutional topics and the procedural requirements for asserting state constitutional protections as alternative sources for protection of individual rights. It documents how far New Mexico has come in developing a state constitutional …

Big Bill Haywood's Revenge: The Original Intent Of The Exclusionary Rule, Milton Hirsch

St. Thomas Law Review

We have been given fair warning. In two recent cases, Hudson v. Michigan and Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court made clear its desire to phase out the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule - that century-old ornament of constitutional jurisprudence pursuant to which evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure will not be received in court. Justice Scalia, writing for a bare majority in Hudson, argued that the utility, if any, of the exclusionary rule has run its course; and that the rule itself is better supplanted by alternative means of …

Place Mattters (Most): An Empirical Study Of Prosecutorial Decision-Making In Death-Eligible Cases, Katherine Y. Barnes, David L. Sloss, Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

This article investigates prosecutorial discretion in death penalty prosecution in Missouri. Based upon an empirical analysis of all intentional-homicide cases from 1997-2001, this article concludes that Missouri law gives prosecutors unconstitutionally broad discretion in charging these cases. This article also finds that prosecutors exercise this broad discretion differently, leading to geographic and racial disparities in sentencing, and concludes with proposals for statutory reform.

The Precarious Situation Of Human Rights In The United States In Normal Times And After September 11, 2001 (La Situación Precaria De Los Derechos Humanos En Estados Unidos En Tiempos Normales Y Después Del 11 De Septiembre De 2001) (Spanish), Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

The paper criticizes the impact of U. S. American criminal law and procedure on the human rights of U. S. citizens in normal times and the changes that have occurred since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It deals with racial profiling, the death penalty, Draconian prison sentences in normal times, and the use of unlimited detention, torture and expanded powers of wiretapping and evidence gathering since the attacks of 9-11.

Note: downloadable document is in Spanish

Interrogation And Silence: A Comparative Study, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article examines interrogation practices in detail in three systems: the American, the English (and Welsh), and the Canadian while also discussing rules from various other countries. It considers when the Miranda-type warnings (required in all three systems) must be given and when suspects will be deemed to have waived their rights. This article further discusses how reliability and voluntariness of confession is assured. Finally, a particular emphasis is placed on the issue of when a suspect's silence during interrogation may be used against him in court. The article concludes that American courts have not done enough to ensure reliability …

Judges Judging Judicial Candidates: Should Currently Serving Judges Participate In Commissions To Screen And Recommend Article Iii Candidates Below The Supreme Court Level?, Mary Clark

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, the American Bar Association (ABA), among others, called upon the next president to reform the federal judicial selection process by using bipartisan commissions to screen and recommend Article III candidates for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation below the Supreme Court level. This proposal may well find support in the Obama administration, given the new president’s emphasis on bipartisan consensus-building and transparency of government operations. This Article addresses one question that the ABA and others have not: Should currently serving judges participate in bi-partisan commissions to screen and recommend Article III candidates below …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

A Response To The Sounds Of Silence, Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

In his article, The Sound of Silence: Holding Batterers Accountable for Silencing Their Victims, Tom Lininger attempts to "facilitate the effective prosecution of domestic violence cases, particularly domestic homicide, while complying with the new requirements announced [for forfeiture by wrongdoing] by the Supreme Court in Giles [v. California]."' In doing so, Lininger tackles a wide array of topics, including analyzing the "theoretical underpinnings" of forfeiture by wrongdoing; explicating the Giles decision, criticizing Justice Scalia's originalist approach for its "selective historical research . . . conflation of evidentiary and constitutional forfeiture theories, and . . . vacillation between objective and subjective …

Revisiting The Un Protocol On Human Trafficking: Striking Balances For More Effective Legislation, Kalen Fredette

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

Human trafficking is a growing global criminal concern. This paper assesses several national and multi-national efforts to combat human trafficking, focusing particularly on the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Protocol). Ultimately, the rise in trafficking offenses compared to the sparse number of convictions strongly suggests the inadequacy of the national and multinational efforts currently in play. This paper will take a fresh look at key provisions of the recent Protocol in light of newly published data on trafficking, and will explore possible modifications to the instrument which may increase its effectiveness. …

Did The Court Kill The Treason Charge?: Reassessing Cramer V. United States And Its Significance, Paul T. Crane

Law Faculty Publications

This Article has two main objectives. First, I will analyze the Court's decision in Cramer v. United States. Based on internal court documents, such as draft opinions and private memoranda, it is clear that the Justices had more on their minds than the specific legal question at hand. Second, I will reassess the relationship between Cramer and the lack of treason charges after 1954 and offer an explanation for the disappearance of treason prosecutions until the indictment of Gadahn in 2006. Specifically, I will highlight the significance of a traditionally underappreciated portion of the Cramer decision: the Court's statement that …

The Gaelic Goetz: A Case Of Self-Defense In Ireland, Stacy Caplow

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

For two years, the name Padraig Nally was a household word in Ireland. Nally killed an intruder on his farm in a rural community by shooting him in the back as he was running away, already injured from a brutal beating. The intruder was a Traveller, a minority group in Ireland that is mistrusted and ostracized. The killing was so far from the paradigmatic self-defense claim that the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on a full justification defense. Indicted for murder, Nally was convicted of manslaughter under a doctrine in Ireland called 'excessive force.' After the appeals court …