Criminal Law Commons^™

Unintended Consequences: The Impact Of The Court's Recent Cases On Structural Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims, Lauren D. Sudeall

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Advocates seeking indigent defense reform have often relied on civil litigation to prospectively enforce the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and to attack structural deficiencies of indigent defense systems-such as under- funding-that are likely to lead to system-wide ineffective assistance. Although the United States Supreme Court has addressed myriad aspects of postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claims made in the criminal context, particularly in the last decade or so,' many of these cases have had little direct bearing on the way in which advocates have attempted to enforce the Sixth Amendment in the civil context. The Supreme Court has never …

Law Enforcement And Criminal Law Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Testimonial Statements: The Death Of Dying Declarations? - People V. Clay, Sarah R. Gitomer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Decline Of The Confrontation Clause In New York - People V. Encarnacion, Anthony Fasano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Unappealing Decision For New York Dwi Defendants - People V. Pealer, Christopher Gavin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Assessing Divisibility In The Armed Career Criminal Act, Ted Koehler

Michigan Law Review

When courts analyze whether a defendant's prior conviction qualifies as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act's "residual clause," they use a "categorical approach," looking only to the statutory language of the prior offense, rather than the facts disclosed by the record of conviction. But when a defendant is convicted under a "divisible" statute, which encompasses a broader range of conduct, only some of which would qualify as a predicate offense, courts may employ the "modified categorical approach." This approach allows courts to view additional documents to determine whether the jury convicted the defendant of the Armed Career …

A Criminal Quartet: The Supreme Court's Resolution Of Four Critical Issues In The Criminal Justice System, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Frye And Lafler: No Big Deal, Gerard E. Lynch

Faculty Scholarship

The only surprise about the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper is that there were four dissents. The decisions are straightforward recognitions that the defendants in those cases received unquestionably derelict representation, to their considerable prejudice. The decisions do not represent a novelty in the law, but rather continue the longstanding recognition by the courts that “plea bargaining” is an integral part of our criminal justice system – indeed, I have argued at length that it is our criminal justice system – and that minimal competence of defense lawyers in dealing with that process …

I Want My (Immigration) Lawyer! The Necessity Of Court-Appointed Immigration Counsel In Criminal Prosecutions After Padilla V. Kentucky, Scott R. Grubman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan

Faculty Scholarship

A significant and growing portion of the U.S. population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. The …

Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A significant and growing portion of the United States population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. …

Does The Lawyer Make A Difference? Public Defender V. Appointed Counsel, Peter A. Joy, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Scholarship@WashULaw

A recent study found that poor criminal defendants in Philadelphia who were represented by court-appointed private lawyers were more often found guilty and sentenced to more time in prison than similarly situated defendants represented by public defenders. In this column, we review the details of the study, its findings, and its ethical and constitutional implications.

Penalty And Proportionality In Deportation For Crimes, Maureen A. Sweeney, Hillary Scholten

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …

Prolegomenon On The Status Of The Hopey, Changey Thing In American Criminal Justice, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This is an introductory essay to Volume 23, Number 2, of the FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER, which considers the state of American criminal justice policy in 2010, two years after the "Change" election of 2008. Part I of the essay paints a statistical picture of trends in federal criminal practice and sentencing over the last half-decade or so, with particular emphasis on sentence severity and the degree of regional and inter-judge sentencing disparity. The statistics suggest that the expectation that the 2005 Booker decision would produce a substantial increase in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and a progressive abandonment of …

Gideon'S Ghost: Providing The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel In Times Of Budgetary Crisis, Heather P. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses how the budget crisis, caused by the recent economic downturn, has created a constitutional crisis with regard to the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. The landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright required states, under the Sixth Amendment, to provide free counsel to indigent criminal defendants. However, as a result of the current financial crisis, many of those who represent the indigent have found their funding cut dramatically. Consequently, Gideon survives, if at all, only as a ghostly shadow prowling the halls of criminal justice throughout the country.

This Article analyzes specific budget cuts from various states and …

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Misplaced Trust In Mechanical Justice, Evangeline A. Zimmerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984 the Sentencing Reform Act was passed, ending fully discretionary sentencing by judges and allowing for the creation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("FSG" or "Guidelines"). This Note proposes that the Guidelines failed not only because they ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court in 2005, but also because they lacked a clear underlying purpose, had a misplaced trust in uniformity, and were born of political compromise. Moreover, the effect of the FSG was to blindly shunt discretionary decisions from judges, who are supposed to be neutral parties, to prosecutors, who are necessarily partisan. …

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

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Part One of this article addressed the Fifth Amendment issues to be considered when analyzing the admissibility of a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements. Part Two discusses the Sixth Amendment, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and impeachment issues.

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.

Debacle: How The Supreme Court Has Mangled American Sentencing Law And How It Might Yet Be Mended, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with McMillan v. Pennsylvania in 1986, crescendoed in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker in 2004-2005, and continued in 2009 in cases such as Oregon v. Ice, has been a colossal judicial failure. First, the Court has failed to provide a logically coherent, constitutionally based answer to the fundamental question of what limits the Constitution places on the roles played by the institutional actors in the criminal justice system. It failed to recognize that defining, adjudicating and punishing crimes implicates both the …

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.

Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

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 …

Ensuring The Ethical Representation Of Clients In The Face Of Excessive Caseloads, Peter A. Joy

Scholarship@WashULaw

The right of one charged with [a] crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impar-tial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with [a] crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.

You can't give me too many cases, too many clients, …

Berghuis V. Smith: Brief For Social Scientists, Statisticians, And Law Professors, Jeffrey Fagan, Et Al., As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, Samuel R. Gross

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are leading social scientists, statisticians, and law professors actively engaged in social scientific research focused on the criminal justice system. Included among amici are authors of authoritative books and articles on statistics and the application of statistics in social science. Amici have written and conducted studies on a broad range of topics concerning the criminal justice and jury systems. Many amici are members and leaders of associations in their fields, including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the American Society of Criminology.

Amici curiae submit this brief to evaluate the various proposed methods for …

The Psychology Of Conflicts Of Interest In Criminal Cases, Tigran W. Eldred

Faculty Scholarship

This article demonstrates that current Sixth Amendment jurisprudence fails to account for how defense lawyers respond to conflicts of interest in criminal cases. Too often, the Supreme Court has made assumptions about the behavior of defense lawyers without empirical support. The result has been a confusing doctrinal landscape, which both relies upon and questions the ability of defense lawyers to address and resolve conflicts of interest.

This article fills the gap in existing literature by viewing conflicts of interest in criminal cases through the prism of behavioral economics. The research reveals that defense lawyers are subject to psychological biases that …

Padilla V. Kentucky: Brief For Legal Ethics, Criminal Procedure, And Criminal Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae legal ethics, criminal procedure, and criminal law professors are 37 law professors who teach, research, and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, or legal ethics, including their intersection. The names, titles, and institutional affiliations (for identification purposes only) of these amici are listed in Appendix A. Some amici work as clinical professors, in which capacity they regularly counsel and advise clients in criminal matters and train attorneys on how to effectively represent such clients. Amici have a professional interest in this Court's consideration of the doctrinal, historical, and policy issues involved in this Court's interpretation of the Sixth …

Bowen V. Oregon: Brief Of Jeffrey Abramson, Caroline L. Davidson, Shari S. Diamond, Theodore Eisenberg, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Samuel R. Gross, Valerie P. Hans, Stephen Kanter, Norbert L. Kerr, Stephan Landsman, Robert J. Maccoun, Susan F. Mandiberg, Margaret L. Paris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Mary R. Rose, Michael J. Saks, And Neil Vidmar As Amici Curae In Support Of Petitioner, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Appellate Briefs

Amici are university professors whose teaching and scholarship have addressed historical, behavioral, and constitutional questions about jury unanimity. Amici are identified in the Appendix.

In Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), and its companion case, Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972), a fractured Court concluded that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments did not mandate the traditional requirement of unanimity for criminal jury trials in state courts. The Court recognized that unanimity had been a requirement of common-law juries for hundreds of years, but a plurality considered that historical background unimportant. Instead, the plurality relied on a …

Judicial Nullification Of Juries: Use Of Acquitted Conduct At Sentencing, Eang L. Ngov

Faculty Scholarship

At trial, defendants are afforded a panoply of rights right to counsel, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to confront witnesses, and to exclude inadmissible evidence. However, these rights, except for the right to counsel, disappear at sentencing. In deciding a defendant’s sentence, a court may consider conduct that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and even conduct of which the jury has acquitted the defendant. Consideration of acquitted conduct has resulted in dramatic increases in the length of defendants’ sentences sometimes resulting in life imprisonment based merely on a judge’s finding that a defendant more likely than …