Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Selected Words From The Collection: The Un Human Right To Adequate Housing, Public Interest Law Reporter

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Resource List, Public Interest Law Reporter

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Disbelief As Doctrine: People V. Addimando And Evidentiary Barriers To Justice In The Law Of Self-Defense, Rachel Still

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Public Right Vs. Private Interest: The Role Of Corporate Entities In Eroding Free Expression, Jack Henry

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Insulin: America’S Deadly Pharmaceutical Profiteering Crisis, Elizabeth Hernandez

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Did The Supreme Court Authorize Kidney Discrimination? An Analysis Of Marietta Memorial Hospital V. Davita Dialysis, Emily Miller

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Reopening The Path To Accountability: Applying Martin V. United States To Ice Misconduct In Illinois, Saylor Pershing

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Calculated Ignorance: The Trump Administration’S Indifference To The Climate Crisis, Payton Fallick

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Ten Years And Ten Miles: Reflecting On "Ferguson", Benjamin Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Essay serves as the introduction to a symposium on the ten-year anniversary of Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri and the subsequent protests and uprisings across the country. The authors look back on the past decade—their own experiences and our experiences as a nation—to consider the impacts of the Ferguson uprisings and the landscape of criminal justice and racial justice advocacy, scholarship, and teaching today. In this Essay, I provide a brief introduction to the Volume and essays that follow. In Part I, I situate the Ferguson uprisings in the broader context of activism responsive to racial injustice in …

Reframing Puerto Rican Advocacy: How The Emerging U.S.-China Rift Can Help Puerto Rico Realize Greater Autonomy, Michael Angelo Tabrizi

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The note advocates for reframing Puerto Rican decolonization efforts as a foreign policy issue rather than solely a domestic matter, leveraging the U.S.-China rivalry to gain international support and alignment with the United Nations' principles on self-governance.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professor Corinna Barrett Lain In Support Of Neither Party, Corinna Lain

Law Faculty Publications

“I don’t think it’s a secret that we inherited one of the worst, most incompetent and most ill-funded Department of Corrections in the country. . . [a]nd I don’t think it takes a leap to suggest that we should understand whether they are capable of carrying out the death penalty before we do it.” That is how Attorney General Kris Mayes described Arizona’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (“ADCRR”) less than two years ago. Ryan Thornell, director of the ADCRR, agreed, attesting in a declaration in 2023 that the ADCRR lacked “the necessary institutional knowledge and expertise to conduct …

Interrogating Miranda's Custody Requirement, Lauren E. Clatch

Law Faculty Publications

Interrogating officers need only issue Miranda warnings in “custodial” settings, and a significant degree of psychological coercion makes a setting custodial. This Article asks a question at the heart of Miranda caselaw: Have courts applied Miranda’s custody trigger consistent with people’s real experiences of police questioning? If not, courts are allowing, and justifying, the admission of unwarned self-incriminating statements by deeming those interrogations “noncustodial” even when there is a significant element of compulsion. To compare courts’ custody decisions to civilians’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations, I surveyed laypeople across two studies using forty interrogation scenarios from jurisdictionally diverse cases spanning …

No Knock? No Case: Prosecutorial Deterrence As A Countermeasure To No-Knock Warrants, Tamika Griffin Moses

Law Faculty Publications

The high-profile deaths of Amir Locke and Breonna Taylor ignited a national debate surrounding the legitimacy of no-knock warrants. Their deaths are part of a cycle of reaction and inaction that permeates this debate. As the impacted communities and segments of the populace respond by demanding that federal and state legislatures abolish or severely restrict the use of no-knock warrants, they are met with inaction. The legislative bodies have failed to pass laws banning the warrants and judges continue to sign them. This inaction continues to undermine the public’s trust in law enforcement and challenges the legitimacy of a democracy …

Younger And Older Abstention, Fred O. Smith Jr.

Michigan Law Review

When victims of systemic rights violations in state criminal proceedings seek federal court relief, governmental defendants often ask federal courts to abstain for reasons of federalism. These arguments frequently disregard the Supreme Court’s emphasis that abstention is a narrow exception to federal courts’ duty to exercise jurisdiction. Lower federal courts are increasingly employing a form of “free-floating federalism,” diverging from the Supreme Court’s careful balance between comity and individual rights. This has led to lower courts’ significant expansion of criminal abstention doctrine, leaving severe irreparable harm unaddressed in an increasingly broad range of settings, such as pretrial detention and child …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Confession And Confrontation, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The constitutional law of confessions has a critical blind spot. In theory, the law serves two interests. First, it protects the autonomy of suspects by stipulating that they can be questioned while in custody only with their consent. Second, it restrains official misconduct by forbidding interrogation methods that overbear a suspect's will. Even if the law adequately safeguards those interests, something is missing: reliability. As false confessions emerge as a major source of wrongful convictions and as social scientists expose how standard interrogation tactics prompt innocent people to confess, the Supreme Court and conventional wisdom insist that the reliability of …

Shrines Of Discrimination: A Comparative Exploration Of American And Indian Approaches To Balancing Religious Freedom And Equal Rights, Sree Vedala

MC Law Review

Religious freedom and equality, foundational human rights, often clash in legal contexts, particularly when religious practices justify discriminatory actions. The U.S. judiciary has grappled with this tension, as exemplified in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance. These cases reflect opposing judicial tendencies: deference to religious beliefs versus prioritization of equality. However, neither case established a clear framework for balancing these rights. This article examines India’s "essentiality test," which assesses whether a religious practice is integral to a faith, as a potential model for resolving such conflicts. By comparing U.S. and Indian …

College Courts: Administrative Abuse Of Title Ix And Its Consequences, Noah Bloomberg

MC Law Review

This article examines the contentious application of Title IX in addressing campus sexual assault, tracing its evolution through recent presidential administrations. Initially designed to combat sex-based discrimination in education, Title IX has been expansively interpreted to regulate university adjudication of sexual violence cases. Policies introduced during the Obama administration mandated quasi-judicial procedures, sparking debates over fairness and due process, while Trump-era reforms shifted focus toward protecting the rights of accused students, prompting criticism from victims' advocates. The article argues that these approaches have overstepped Title IX's intended purpose, burdening universities and creating systemic challenges for survivors and the accused alike. …

Ecarrots: Prison Control And Profits From Correctional Tablets, Justin Iverson

Scholarly Works

In recent years, tablets have gained tremendous popularity behind bars for their ability to expand access to educational and rehabilitative services for people in prison. However, there are downsides to tablet implementation, including high costs at the expense of a captive population and shifting power dynamics resulting in possible volatility. This Article examines the use of correctional tablets in jails and prisons as mechanisms for administrative control and profit-making in an era of beleaguered correctional budgets. It also considers legal and policy implications related to the disproportionately negative impact of the introduction of tablets on people in poverty, increased dependency …

State V. Farnham: The Defendant's Exercise Of The Right To Stand Trial As Negative Character Evidence, Richard F. Buckley

Maine Law Review

A defendant in a criminal case may not receive a more severe sentence because he exercised his sixth amendment right to stand trial. However, determining when a court has more severely sentenced a defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial is a difficult task. Some argue that a defendant's choice to stand trial is relevant to the sentencing process as character evidence. The decision to stand trial, the argument goes, indicates a defendant's lack of remorse and an unwillingness to take the first step toward redemption by admitting his guilt. Others take the position that consideration in …

Egbert V. Boule And The Dwindling Bivens Doctrine, Luke Smith

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Northwestern University Law Review

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using “explicit,” “clear,” and “unambiguous” statements—or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using “legally magic” words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do …

Accommodating Incompetency In Immigration Court, Elizabeth Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

In criminal law, an individual must be deemed competent to stand trial, yet our immigration courts routinely order the deportation of incompetent noncitizens. A removal proceeding against a noncitizen—where an outcome of deportation often risks life-threatening harm—continues apace even if the noncitizen has been deemed incompetent by the immigration judge. In place of halting proceedings, the immigration judge imposes “safeguards” pursuant to a provision of the immigration code that neither defines nor explains the term. In practice, judges’ application of the term “safeguards” is often absurd. The implications of continuing a proceeding against a noncitizen with a disability affecting competency …

Rising Temperatures, The Prison Litigation Reform Act, And The Heat Death Of Human Dignity In Texas Prisons, Brianne Wylie

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note seeks to shed light on the life-threatening danger of extreme heat in un-air-conditioned Texas prisons. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) starkly limits the relief available to those suffering and dying in these prisons. This Note proposes an amendment to the legislation that could create a path toward lasting relief for incarcerated people. After analyzing the effects of increasing heat on the particularly vulnerable prison population, this Note analyzes how the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have handled claims alleging constitutionally violative prison conditions under the Eighth Amendment—in short, ineffectively, if at all. This Note then details …

A Feedback Loop Of Exclusion: The Treatment Of Bilingualism In The Courtroom, Simone Stover

Northwestern University Law Review

In the 1991 case Hernandez v. New York, the United States Supreme Court characterized bilingualism as a race-neutral trait that can be used to exclude individuals from jury service. This Note proceeds by demonstrating how the current state of the law undermines the interests of bilingual individuals and then proposes a solution. Focusing specifically on Hispanic bilingual Spanish speakers, this Note first employs Professor Jennifer Lackey’s multi-directional credibility model to show that bilingual Spanish speakers suffer injustice in the courtroom due to both credibility deficits and excesses. Following this analysis, it proposes a possible solution to this issue: an …