Criminal Procedure Commons^™

An Analysis Of Austin Lawyers Guild V. Securus Technologies, Inc.: The Constitutional And Ethical Implications Of Using Illegally Recorded Attorney–Client Telephone Conversations As Derivative Evidence, Christina Santos

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

For the justice system to operate effectively, privileged communications between an attorney and his or her client should be afforded the utmost and strictest protections. Intrusion by law enforcement upon these communications severely diminishes the confidence and candor needed in the attorney-client relationship. Although the United States Supreme Court recognizes prosecutorial immunity and generally leaves prosecutorial discipline to state bar authorities, the Court has long held that the attorney-client privilege is needed for attorneys to effectively advocate on behalf of their clients.

Austin Lawyers Guild v. Securus Technologies, Inc., a civil class-action lawsuit, is currently pending before the United …

Truth Or Doubt? An Empirical Test Of Criminal Jury Instructions, Michael D. Cicchini, Lawrence T. White

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this article briefly discusses the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, along with its importance to individuals and society generally. Part II surveys some of the truth-related language used in multiple state and federal jurisdictions. It also examines the constitutional problems created by this language and discusses courts' inadequate responses to these problems.

Part III explains our controlled experiment, including our hypotheses, study design, and empirical findings. Part IV discusses these findings and their significance and argues that courts should immediately terminate their use of truth-based jury instructions so that our constitutional guarantees are fulfilled. Finally, …

Prostitution Policy: Legalization, Decriminalization And The Nordic Model, Ane Mathieson, Easton Branam, Anya Noble

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Don’T Risk It; Wait Until She’S Sober, Patrick John White

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Talk About Sex: A Call For Guardianship Reform In Washington State, Sage Graves

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Living Under The Boot: Militarization And Peaceful Protest, Charlotte Guerra

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Invest In People, Not Prisons: How Washington State Should Address Its Ex-Offender Unemployment Rate, Sara Taboada

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

His Feminist Facade: The Neoliberal Co-Option Of The Feminist Movement, Anjilee Dodge, Myani Gilbert

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

In Her Words: Recognizing And Preventing Abusive Litigation Against Domestic Violence Survivors, David Ward

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Persistence And Resistance: Women’S Leadership And Ending Gender-Based Violence In Guatemala, Serena Cosgrove, Kristi Lee

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ohio V. Clark , Peter M. Torstensen Jr.

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The heart of the debate over the purpose of the Confrontation Clause is the manner in which confrontation was intended to secure a defendant’s rights—either through procedural fairness or ensuring evidentiary reliability. The eventual direction the Supreme Court takes will depend, in large part, on which of these visions of the Confrontation Clause ultimately prevails. Michigan v. Bryant marked a potential step in the direction of the Ohio v. Roberts vision, and Ohio v. Clark does not appear to have departed from the course set in Bryant. Thus, while Crawford v. Washington marked a sea change in the Court’s confrontation …

State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …

Ou Professor: Fourth Amendment At Heart Of Dispute Between Fbi, Apple, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

The dispute between the FBI and Apple Inc. over the unlocking of the iPhone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters is important to all Americans. And so it's good that it is getting a wide airing. But when it comes to issues that have complicated tradeoffs, it can be important not just that we have the conversation, but that we use the right words. And here the debate deserves very mixed reviews. . . .

Law Day Fifth District Court Of Appeal Oral Arguments At Florida Agricultural And Mechanical University College Of Law, 2016, Honorable James A. Edwards, Honorable Richard B. Orfinger, Honorable Vincent G. Torpy Jr.

Law Day Presentations

As part of FAMU College of Law's Law Day activities, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is holding a session in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. A three judge panel is hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing their clients in cases involving suppression of evidence, the exclusionary rule and other evidentiary questions, as well as the ineffective assistance of counsel in a case involving deportation issues. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.

Shakin' And Bakin': The Supreme Court's Remarkable Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1999 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court, Seneca County, In Re Kaufman, Edward Callaghan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Department, People V Robinson, Courtney Blakeslee

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Department, People V. Mason, Kathleen Byrne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Johnson, Donna A. Napolitano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Buie, Deborah A. Monastero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Matter Of Baim V. Eidens, Evan M. Zuckerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Boone, Diane Somberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Bail, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

A large portion of the jail population consists of criminal defendants whose guilt has yet to be established. A growing number of states have attempted to reduce jail populations in light of budget concerns, and many federal and state statutes already direct judges to detain defendants only if alternative conditions will not protect society or prevent pretrial flight. Despite these legislative directives, judges continue to jail too many defendants pretrial. Indeed, although statutes often direct judges not to impose financial conditions leading to detention, many pretrial detainees are in jail because they could not afford the bond set by a …

The Riddle Of Harmless Error Revisited, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

Half a century ago, in Chapman v. California, the Supreme Court imposed on appellate courts an obligation to vacate or reverse criminal judgments marred by constitutional error unless the government demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court did not explain the juridical status of this obligation or its relation to the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2111. In the intervening years, commentators have struggled to make sense of Chapman. Some see it as a constitutional mandate. Others view it as an example of constitutional common law. In THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR, written …

Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

In the companion cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. However, the Court defined effective assistance of counsel in only one narrow phase of plea bargaining: the client counseling phase. The Court said it would not look more broadly at the negotiation process itself as "[b]argaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style.” This statement indicates that the Court does not fully understanding developments in the field of negotiation over the last thirty years. Negotiation …

Padilla V. Kentucky: Sound And Fury, Or Transformative Impact, Steven Zeidman

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Realizing Padilla’S Promise: Ensuring Noncitizen Defendants Are Advised Of The Immigration Consequences Of A Criminal Conviction, Yolanda Vàzquez

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle, Steven I. Friedland

Duke Law & Technology Review

In Fourth Amendment decisions, different concepts, facts and assumptions about reality are often tethered together by vocabulary and fact, creating a ‘Stickiness Principle.’ In particular, form and function historically were considered indistinguishable, not as separate factors. For example, “containers” carried things, “watches” told time, and “phones” were used to make voice calls. Advancing technology, though, began to fracture this identity and the broader Stickiness Principle. In June 2014, Riley v. California and its companion case, United States v. Wurie, offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to begin untethering form and function and dismantling the Stickiness Principle. Riley presented the question …

Muscle Memory And The Local Concentration Of Capital Punishment, Lee B. Kovarsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.