Criminal Law Commons^™

When The Federal Death Penalty Is "Cruel And Unusual", Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

ExpressO

Recent changes to the way the U.S. Department of Justice decides whether to pursue capital charges have made it more likely that the federal death penalty will be sought in cases in which the criminal conduct occurred within States that do not authorize capital punishment for any crime. As a result, since 2002, five people have been sentenced to death in federal court for conduct that occurred in States that do not authorize the death penalty. This state of affairs is in serious tension with the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against “cruel and unusual punishments.” A complete understanding of the Bill …

Reconceptualizing Due Process In Criminal Justice: Contributions From Law And Social Science, Christopher Slobogin

ExpressO

This article challenges the accepted wisdom, at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in Gault, that procedures in juvenile delinquency court should mimic the adult criminal process. The legal basis for this challenge is Gault itself, as well as the other Supreme Court cases that triggered the juvenile justice revolution of the past decades, for all of these cases relied on the due process clause, not the provisions of the Constitution that form the foundation for adult criminal procedure. That means that the central goal in juvenile justice is fundamental fairness, which does not have to be congruent with the …

The Reasonableness Of Probable Cause, Craig S. Lerner

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

Probable cause is generally cast in judicial opinions and the scholarly literature as a fixed probability of criminal activity. In the weeks before the September 11 attacks, FBI headquarters, applying such an unbending standard, rejected a warrant application to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop computer. This article, which begins with an analysis of the Moussaoui episode, argues that the probable cause standard should be calibrated to the gravity of the investigated offense and the intrusiveness of a proposed search. Tracing the evolution of probable cause from the common law through its American development, the article argues that the Supreme Court’s current …

Deterring Roper’S Juveniles: Why Immature Criminal Youth Require The Death Penalty More Than Adults – A Law & Economics Approach, Moin A. Yahya

ExpressO

In Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court declared the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional. It relied on three reasons, one of which concerns this article, namely the theory that juveniles are less culpable and deterrable than adults. The Court relied on the American Medical Association’s amicus brief which purported to show scientifically that juveniles had less developed brains than adults. The Court characterized juveniles as being risk-lovers who highly preferred the present over the future, who loved gains no matter how risky but did not care for losses, and who could not engage in proper cost-benefit analysis, because …

Shifts In Policy And Power: Calculating The Consequences Of Increased Prosecutorial Power And Reduced Judicial Authority In Post 9/11 America, Chris Mcneil

ExpressO

Among many responses to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the states have shifted to the executive branch certain powers once held by the judicial branch. This article considers the impact of transferring judicial powers to prosecutorial officers, and compares the consequent increased powers of the prosecutor with those powers traditionally held by prosecutors in Japanese criminal courts. It considers the impact of removing from public view and judicial oversight many prosecutorial functions, drawing comparisons between the largely opaque Japanese prosecutorial roles and those roles now assumed in immigration and anti-terrorism laws, noting the need for safeguards not …

Negotiating Sex, Michelle J. Anderson

Working Paper Series

“Negotiating Sex” is a response to the two major proposals for rape law reform in legal scholarship today, as well as a proposal for a third way. Susan Estrich and Donald Dripps argue that sexual penetration should be legal unless the victim expresses her non-consent, a proposal I call the “No Model.” Stephen Schulhofer argues that sexual penetration should be illegal unless the defendant obtains affirmative consent for penetration through the victim’s words or conduct, a proposal I call the “Yes Model.” Under this model, according to Schulhofer, if a woman does not say “no,” and “her silence is combined …

Summary Of Hosier V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, Robert Henriksen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case is an original proper person petition for extraordinary relief, challenging the validity of Hosier’s 1990 judgment for conviction citing to Article 6, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution.

Summary Of Bellon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, 117 P.3d 176, Wayne Klomp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Gordon V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, Bryce C. Loveland

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In this case, the Court considered two issues related to DUI charges against appellant. First, whether a jury may return a general guilty verdict based upon several legally sufficient theories of driving under the influence if at least one theory had sufficient evidentiary support. Second, whether the appellant was prejudiced by the State’s failure to gather evidence during its investigation. After a review of the evidence presented at trial, the Court concluded that a jury may return a general guilty verdict even when only one of several theories had sufficient support, and that the appellant here was not prejudiced by …

Home As A Legal Concept, Benjamin Barros

ExpressO

This article, which is the first comprehensive discussion of the American legal concept of home, makes two major contributions. First, the article systematically examines how homes are treated more favorably than other types of property in a wide range of legal contexts, including criminal law and procedure, torts, privacy, landlord-tenant, debtor-creditor, family law, and income taxation. Second, the article considers the normative issue of whether this favorable treatment is justified. The article draws from material on the psychological concept of home and the cultural history of home throughout this analysis, providing insight into the interests at stake in various legal …

Mental Disorders And The Law, Richard Redding

Working Paper Series

This chapter provides an introduction to the major classes of mental disorder and the ways in which they are salient to selected aspects of American criminal and civil law, focusing particularly on criminal law issues.

Partial Ban On Plea Bargains, Oren Gazal

Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009

The influence of the plea bargaining system on innocent defendants is fiercely debated. Many scholars call for a ban on plea bargaining, arguing that the practice coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty. Proponents of plea bargaining respond that even an innocent defendant is better off when he choose to plea bargain in order to assure a lenient result, if he concludes that the risk of wrongful trial conviction is too high. They claim that since plea bargaining is only an option, it cannot harm the defendant whether he is guilty or innocent. This paper argues that the both supporters and …

Overenforcement, Richard A. Bierschbach, Alex Stein

Articles

Overenforcement of the law is widespread but underinvestigated. Overenforcement occurs when the total sanction, both legal and extralegal, suffered by the violator of a legal rule exceeds the amount optimal for deterrence. Overenforcement sometimes generates overdeterrence that cannot be remedied through the adjustment of substantive liability standards or penalties in light of operational and expressive constraints. When that happens, the legal system can counteract the effects of overenforcement by adjusting evidentiary or procedural rules to make liability less likely. This framework, which we call the overenforcement paradigm, illuminates previously unnoticed features of various evidentiary and procedural arrangements. It also provides …

Najar V. State Of Israel, Elyakim Rubinstein, Miriam Naor, Yonatan Adiel

Translated Opinions

Facts: The appellant, a Bedouin, stabbed his sister to death. Initially, he said that the reason why he did this was that his sister, who was unmarried, intended to travel alone to Egypt, and this would dishonour the family. At his trial, the appellant testified that in addition his sister had made a statement questioning his paternity of his children. The appellant claimed that the killing of his sister was the result of provocation, and therefore he should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. Inter alia he argued that the court should take into account the fact that in …

Summary Of Whisler V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 40, Jared R. Gibb

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The defendant, Douglas Whisler, appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of controlled substances or chemicals.

The Medieval Blood Sanction And The Divine Beneficence Of Pain: 1100 - 1450, Trisha Olson

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Discretion And Criminal Law: The Good, The Bad, And The Mundane, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Most academic papers condemn discretion in the enforcement and prosecution of crime. This essay argues that discretion should be understood to come in three varieties: good discretion, which is beneficial; bad discretion, which is typified by acts motivated by race, sex, or class considerations; and mundane discretion, which is value-neutral. The decision to pursue a drunken driver rather than a speeder, for example, is a good use of discretion while the decision to pursue one speeder rather than another based on race is bad discretion. Most motives that prompt acts of discretion, however, are value-neutral or what I call “mundane” …

Time Travel, Hovercrafts, And The Framers: James Madison Sees The Future And Rewrites The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

The Framers could not have contemplated the interpretational problems that cloud the Fourth Amendment because police, in the modern sense, were unknown to the Framers. Also unknown to the Framers, of course, were wiretaps, drug interdiction searches, thermal imagining, helicopters, and blood tests. We can infer from the history surrounding the Fourth Amendment what the Framers hoped it would accomplish in their time. What if the Framers could have seen the future and known the kind of police techniques that are being used today? What kind of Fourth Amendment would they have written with that knowledge? This article seeks to …

Broadening The Holistic Mindset: Incorporating Collateral Consequences And Reentry Into Criminal Defense Lawyering, Michael Pinard

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Michael Pinard highlights the holistic model of criminal defense representation, which seeks to address the myriad issues that often lead to the client’s involvement with the criminal justice system with the overarching goal of providing a comprehensive solution to those underlying factors. While lauding these developments, however, Professor Pinard argues that the holistic model has largely overlooked two facets of the criminal justice system that impact greatly the client’s life once the formal representation has concluded: the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry. Professor Pinard explores the emerging attention devoted to these two components, but …

The 'Abuse Excuse' In Capital Sentencing Trials: Is It Relevant To Responsibility, Punishment, Or Neither?, Paul J. Litton

Faculty Publications

The violent criminal who was a victim of severe childhood abuse frequently appears in the responsibility literature because he presents a difficulty for theorists who maintain the compatibility of causal determinism and our practices of holding persons responsible. The challenge is based on the fact that learning about an offender's horrific childhood mitigates the indignation that many persons feel towards him, possibly indicating that they hold him less than fully responsible. Many capital defendants present evidence of suffering childhood abuse, and many jurors find this evidence to count against imposing death. The most obvious explanation for a response like this …

The Lessons Of People V. Moscat: Confronting Judicial Bias In Domestic Violence Cases Interpreting Crawford V. Washington, David Jaros

All Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington was a groundbreaking decision that radically redefined the scope of the Confrontation Clause. Nowhere has the impact of Crawford and the debate over its meaning been stronger than in the context of domestic violence prosecutions. The particular circumstances that surround domestic violence cases 911 calls that record cries for help and accusations, excited utterances made to responding police officers, and the persistent reluctance of complaining witnesses to cooperate with prosecutors -- combine to make the introduction of "out-of-comment statements" a critical component of many domestic violence prosecutions. Because domestic violence cases are subject to a unique set …

The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz

Indiana Law Journal

In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay's requestfor appointed counsel. ' Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …

Civil And Criminal Recidivists: Extraterritoriality In Tort And Crime, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Historically, punitive damage awards and criminal sentences have shared the common justifications of punishment and deterrence, with the culpability of tortfeasors and criminals alike being enhanced as a result of repeat misconduct. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell suggests, however, that the parallels now in effect stop at the state line. The extraterritorial misconduct of tortfeasors is permitted to play a very limited role, if any, in the assessment of punitive damage awards. Meanwhile, such misconduct continues to be used by courts to significantly enhance the sentences of criminal defendants, an asymmetry accentuated by California v. …

Reliability Matters: Reassociating Bagley Materality, Strickland Prejudice, And Cumulative Harmless Error, John H. Blume, Christopher W. Seeds

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most commonly invoked after conviction and direct appeal, when a defendant may claim that his lawyer was ineffective or that the government failed to disclose exculpatory information, the Brady doctrine, which governs the prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense, and the Strickland doctrine, which monitors defense counsel’s duty to represent the client effectively, have developed into the principal safeguards of fair trials, fundamental to the protection of defendants’ constitutional rights and arguably defendants’ strongest insurance of a reliable verdict. But the doctrines do not sufficiently protect these core values.

The doctrines, despite their common due process heritage …

Making Sense Of The Sense Of Justice, Markus Dirk Dubber

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jury Sentencing In Non-Capital Cases: Comparing Severity And Variance With Judicial Sentences In Two States, Nancy J. King, Rosevelt L. Noble

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Recently, commentators have championed sentencing byjury as more democratic and better suited to current theories of punishment than sentencing by judge alone. Yet discussions of noncapitaljury sentencing either fail to address empirical questions or rely on outdated and incomplete studies. This study is the first to present basic information on the comparative severity and variance of jury and judge sentencing as practiced in the 21st century. We use archival sentencing data from two of the six states that authorize jury sentencing-Arkansas and Virginia. In both states, voluntary sentencing guidelines govern judicial sentencing after bench trial or guilty plea, but juries …

Reclaiming Fundamental Principles Of Criminal Law In The Darfur Case, George P. Fletcher, Jens David Ohlin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

According to the authors, the Report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur and the Security Council referral of the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) bring to light two serious deficiencies of the ICC Statute and, more generally, international criminal law: (i) the systematic ambiguity between collective responsibility (i.e. the responsibility of the whole state) and criminal liability of individuals, on which current international criminal law is grounded, and (ii) the failure of the ICC Statute fully to comply with the principle of legality. The first deficiency is illustrated by highlighting the notions of genocide …

Plea Bargaining At The Hague, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

Plea bargaining has come to The Hague. For most of its existence, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) shunned plea bargains. However, under pressure from United Nations member states and the impending deadline for the resolution of its caseload, the ICTY has increasingly relied on plea bargains in recent months. This Article exposes the deficiencies in guilty plea procedures at The Hague, particularly those designed to assess whether a plea is fully informed and voluntary. In a series of case studies, the Article argues that judicial questioning techniques have exploited the vulnerable state of defendants appearing before …

Miranda And Reasonableness, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Last term's decisions in Yarborough v. Alvarado and Missouri v. Seibert shed important light on the state of the Miranda doctrine in the Supreme Court. In Yarborough, a slim majority held that a state appellate court's failure to consider a defendant's age and history of contact with law enforcement in its “custody” determination was not “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” clearly established Supreme Court case law. In Seibert, a fractured majority affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to exclude a defendant's confession where police officers strategically withheld a suspect's Miranda rights at the outset of a …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.