Criminal Law Commons^™

The Institutions Of Innocence Review: A Comparative Sociological Perspective, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

The last three decades have seen the rise of an international innocence movement that has forced participants in diverse criminal justice systems to confront their systems’ fallibility, previously thought more theoretical than real. The public acknowledgment of that fallibility has led to the creation of new institutional mechanisms to re-examine old convictions. This short essay prepared for a symposium issue of the Rutgers University Law Review on the theory of criminal law reform compares the error correction institutions created in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, three English-speaking countries with common law roots and an adversarial structure, through …

Dignity Takings In The Criminal Law Of Seventeenth-Century England And The Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Felipe Acevedo

Chicago-Kent Law Review

When does a punishment for crime cross from being a legitimate goal of the state to a dignity taking? From the Norman Conquest until the middle of the eighteenth-century, the Common Law provided that in addition to execution, the property of convicted felons or traitors was forfeited to the crown and their blood corrupted so that their heirs could not inherit. I argue this is a clear instance of dignity takings. The colonists who traveled to Massachusetts Bay wanted a fresh start and so sought to create a model society based on Biblical law. Using around 6,000 criminal cases from …

Police Ignorance And Mistake Of Law Under The Fourth Amendment, Eang L. Ngov

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Kind Of Judge Is Brett Kavanaugh?, Elliott Ash, Daniel L. Chen

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This article reports the results of a series of data analyses of how recent Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh compares to other potential Supreme Court nominees and current Supreme Court Justices in his judging style. The analyses reveal a number of ways in which Judge Kavanaugh differs systematically from his colleagues. First, Kavanaugh dissents and is dissented against along partisan lines. More than other Judges and Justices, Kavanaugh dissents at a higher rate during the lead-up to elections, suggesting that he feels personally invested in national politics. Far more often than his colleagues, he justifies his decisions with conservative doctrines, …

Capital-Sentencing Law And The New Conservative Court, Scott W. Howe

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

With the Supreme Court now dominated by a solidly conservative majority, recent, well-grounded hopes for prompt judicial abolition of the death penalty have vanished. Furthermore, existing Eighth Amendment doctrines that limit the death penalty could be in jeopardy. Historically, many advocates for abolition have criticized these doctrines. They claim that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishments requires “consistency” in capital selection and that current capital-sentencing doctrines do not satisfy—and sometimes conflict with— this requirement. However, these advocates failed to anticipate the need to defend these doctrines should judicial abolition become an impossibility and the rolling-back of current …

The Necessity Of The Good Person Prosecutor, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

In a 2001 essay, Professor Abbe Smith asked the question whether a good person—i.e., a person who is committed to social justice—can be a good prosecutor. Although she acknowledged some hope that the answer to her question could be “yes,” Professor Smith concluded that the answer then was “no”—in part because she saw individual prosecutors generally as having very little discretion to “temper the harsh reality of the criminal justice system.” In this Online Symposium revisiting Professor Smith’s question seventeen years later, my answer to her question is “yes”—a good person can be a good prosecutor.

Toward A Science Of Torture?, Maxwell Gregg Bloche

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Does torture “work?” Proponents, including President Trump and the architects of CIA “Enhanced Interrogation” say it does, by breaking terrorists' resistance to revealing information that saves lives. Torture's foes typically dismiss this claim as false to the point of fraud--fortuitous coincidence with torture's unlawfulness. Neither view, I argue herein, rests firmly on evidence. Rival anecdotes, not data, have, so far, driven this debate. And a scientific answer is beyond our reach, since: (1) rigorous comparison between interrogation methods that do and don't involve torture isn't possible, and (2) studies of this sort would be transparently unethical. This hasn't stopped the …

A Lost Opportunity For Sentencing Reform: Plea Bargaining And Barriers To Effective Assistance, Margaret Etienne

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exploring The Parameters Of A Child's Right To Redemption: Some Thoughts, Katherine Hunt Federle

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flying Over The Cuckoo's Nest: How The Mentally Ill Landed Into An Unconstitutional Punishment In South Carolina, Elle Klein

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Have And To Hold: Factors To Consider Before Divorcing South Carolina From The Concealed Weapons Permit Requirement, Joseph D. Spate

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Miranda Good News Or Bad News For The Police: The Usefulness Of Empirical Evidence, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona created a culture in which police officers regularly warn arrestees that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed to them. These Miranda warnings have a number of possible effects. The warnings are meant to inform suspects about negative consequences associated with speaking to the police without the assistance of counsel. In this sense they …

Responsibly Irresponsible?: An Analysis Of The Medically Noncompliant Offender’S Federal Insanity Defense, Geoffrey Andreu

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note will argue that the federal judiciary should not consider a defendant’s failure to take prescription medication when evaluating that defendant’s insanity defense unless the legislature specifically amends the statute governing the insanity defense.

Zealous And Effective Advocacy: An Assessment Of The Constitutional Right To Counsel Within A Drug Court Proceeding, Sarah Kirschenheiter

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note will proceed in three parts. Part I will explain the drug court model by detailing the key components of drug courts in general and by providing an outline of the three predominant drug court models. Additionally, this Part will provide an overview of the right to counsel in traditional criminal proceedings, including probation revocation hearings. Part II will contemplate why the non-traditional stages of a drug court proceeding may constitutionally require counsel and why the defense attorney’s role within the context of drug court is problematic. Using the standards that govern traditional criminal proceedings, Part III will argue …

The Costs Of Trumped-Up Immigration Enforcement Measures, Kari Hong

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Currently, our country spends $18 billion each year on immigration enforcement, which is nearly $4 billion more than the combined budgets of the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, and ATF. President Trump hopes to substantially increase that annual number with his proposed heightened enforcement measures that result in more arrests, more ICE officers roaming our streets, airports, and courtrooms, more detentions, more deportations, and more wall. This essay begins by examining each of these measures that were outlined in the new executive orders and concludes that all are expensive, ineffective, unnecessary, and inhumane.

The Institutional Case For Partisan Gerrymandering Claims, G. Michael Parsons

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

For voters hoping the Supreme Court’s 2017 Term brings relief from partisan gerrymandering, the end of the 2016 Term was inauspicious. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority assumed the legitimacy of “partisan advantage” arguments while the dissent—including Justice Kennedy—warned about the “serious institutional and federalism implications” of judicial intervention in the redistricting process. If past is prologue, this concern for institutional and structural interests does not bode well.

Closing Impunity Gaps For The Crime Of Aggression, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

Articles

As stated at Nuremberg, the crime of aggression is the “supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” International instruments clearly and repeatedly have outlawed initiating wars of aggression and other illegal uses of armed force. States parties recently have defined and codified the crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and delineated the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression. Although the ICC is an important mechanism for accountability and justice, it is not certain when it will be able to adjudicate …

Informant Witnesses And The Risk Of Wrongful Convictions, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

Several studies in the last two decades have revealed that false criminal informant testimony is a leading factor in wrongful convictions, along with false confessions, eyewitness misidentification, and faulty forensic science. Although a great deal more remains to be done, many jurisdictions have implemented evidence-based reforms to these last three categories of evidence. Policy about criminal informants, however, seems to be stubbornly stagnant, and relevant social science is virtually nonexistent. This Article questions the relative lack of attention to informant testimony and suggests that the dangers posed by informant testimony are both greater and different than previously thought. Unlike much …

Sampling And Reliability In Class Action Litigation, Hillel J. Bavli

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

In this Article, I explain my conclusions in Aggregating for Accuracy in non-mathematical terms, and underscore certain implications with respect to class action litigation and considerations in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo. I begin by describing the building blocks of my analysis—the concepts of reliability and accuracy in the law.

Introduction: New Models For Prosecutorial Accountability, Russell Shapiro

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The criminal justice system in the United States was established on a simple notion: “that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” It is for this reason that a prosecutor’s burden at trial is so demanding, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, while a vast majority of prosecutors are committed to the highest ethical standards, with troubling frequency, some high profile exonerations shed light on systemic problems, most often involving failures by prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland.

To address …

Enforcing Compliance With Constitutionally-Required Disclosures: A Proposed Rule, Emmet G. Sullivan

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

To provide a striking example of the need for a federal disclosure rule, in Part I, I briefly summarize a report on the discovery abuses that occurred in the case of United States v. Theodore F. Stevens. In Part II, I describe efforts beginning in 2003 to amend Rule 16. In Part III, I provide an overview of the local district court disclosure rules and standing orders nationwide. Part III also provides the proposed rule now being considered for adoption by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Divisibility Of Crime, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

Near the end of the Supreme Court's 2012-2013 term, the Court decided Descamps v. United States, which concerned the application of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA is a recidivist statute that vastly increases the penalties for persons convicted of federal firearms offenses if they have previously been convicted of certain qualifying felonies. Descamps represents the Court's most recent word on the so-called categorical approach, which directs courts to consider the elements of a prior offense of conviction, rather than the underlying facts of the crime, in determining whether the prior conviction "counts" for purposes of applying …

Trade Secret Hacking, Online Data Breaches, And China’S Cyberthreats, Peter K. Yu

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Taking advantage of the forum provided by this timely Symposium, this Article closely examines the ongoing debate on China’s sustained effort in using online hacking and other intrusive techniques to steal trade secrets and proprietary data from U.S. businesses. Part I outlines the five common narratives that have thus far been advanced to recount this widely criticized effort. Sensing the narratives’ negative overtones, Part II offers five modest suggestions on how a more positive debate can be constructed to help identify ways to reduce online hacking and data breaches as well as to enhance the protection of trade secrets and …

Why Instrumentalism Matters, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

Alon Harel argues that the acts of a public official acting with "fidelity of deference," are "necessary," "non-contingent," "intrinsic," "constitutive," integrative," "expressive," or "inherent" features of legal punishment. Accordingly, he calls his argument "noninstrumental." This can be taken as an argument for logical necessity, definition, extension, or modest or immodest conceptual necessity. Only the last interpretation fits Harel's text, but such an argument fails because instrumentality is necessarily present in any event in the natural world, including punishment. Harel does not say which aspects of natural instrumentality he means to exclude from his argument, or how, or why.

Sharing Public Safety Helicopters, Henry H. Perritt Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Anomaly Of Entrapment, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

Now in our second decade after 9/11, we are firmly in the prevention era of law enforcement. Faced with the unacceptable consequences of identifying threats too late, government agents are moving aggressively to identify potential terrorists before they strike. Undercover agents and confidential informants necessarily play a large role in such efforts. As a result of such operations, we have seen a number of cases brought to trial in the federal courts in which defendants have asserted the entrapment defense. To date, the defense has not succeeded. However, as a consequence of these cases, the United States Supreme Court may …

The Time Has Come For A Restatement Of Child Sex Abuse, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

It's Complicated: Privacy And Domestic Violence, Kimberly D. Bailey

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article challenges the notion that there is no role for privacy in the domestic violence context. Privacy is a complicated concept that has both positive and negative aspects, and this Article examines the value that more privacy could provide for domestic violence victims. While privacy was historically used as a shield for batterers, more privacy for domestic violence victims could protect their personhood, ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect. In addition, current mandatory criminal justice policies have become so intrusive in many victims’ lives that limitations are needed to prevent the threat of state abuse. These …

Requiring Miranda Warnings For The Christmas Day Bomber And Other Terrorists, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.

Alternative Elements, Jessica A. Roth

Articles

The U.S. Constitution provides a criminal defendant with a right to trial by jury, and most states and the federal government require criminal juries to agree unanimously before a defendant may be convicted. But what exactly must a jury agree upon unanimously? Well-established doctrine, pursuant to In re Winship, provides that the jury must agree that the prosecution has proven every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet what the elements of any given offense are is not as clear as one might expect. Frequently, criminal statutes—especially federal statutes—describe an array of prohibited conduct, leaving ambiguous whether …