Criminal Procedure Commons^™

2015 Survey Of Rhode Island Law: Cases And Public Laws Of Note, Roger Williams University Law Review Staff

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment Time Machines (And What They Might Say About Police Body Cameras), Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

When it comes to criminal investigation, time travel is increasingly possible. Despite longstanding roots in traditional investigation, science is today providing something fundamentally different in the form of remarkably complete digital records. And those big data records not only store our past, but thanks to data mining they are in many circumstances eerily good at predicting our future. So, now that we stand on the threshold of investigatory time travel, how should the Fourth Amendment and legislation respond? How should we approach bulk government capture, such as by a solar-powered drone employing wide-area persistent stare technology? Is it meaningfully different …

The Death Penalty And The Fifth Amendment, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Can the Supreme Court find unconstitutional something that the text of the Constitution “contemplates”? If the Bill of Rights mentions a punishment, does that make it a “permissible legislative choice” immune to independent constitutional challenges?

Recent developments have given new hope to those seeking constitutional abolition of the death penalty. But some supporters of the death penalty continue to argue, as they have since Furman v. Georgia, that the death penalty must be constitutional because the Fifth Amendment explicitly contemplates it. The appeal of this argument is obvious, but its strength is largely superficial, and is also mostly irrelevant …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Darryl K. Brown, Robert P. Burns, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar, Jessica L. West

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

You've Got Legal Mail: Applying Constitutional Protections To Attorney-Inmate E-Mail Communications, Gregory R. Steele

Georgia Law Review

Several U.S. Attorney's offices have begun to read e-mails between defense attorneys and their inmate-clients sent through the Bureau of Prisons TRULINCS system. District courts have been split on how they address the issue. This Note argues that the practice of reading attorney-inmate e- mails violates the Sixth Amendment. It specifically argues that the legal mail doctrine should be applied to invalidate this practice. It then argues the Bureau of Prisons should promulgate new regulations for legal e-mail that ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements of the newly applied legal e-mail doctrine.

Brief For Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Robert P. Burns, Sherman J. Clark, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Under School Colors: Private University Police As State Actors Under § 1983, Leigh J. Jahnig

Northwestern University Law Review

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individuals may sue those who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. The Supreme Court has held that private actors may act under color of state law, and may be sued under § 1983 in some circumstances. However, courts have not been consistent in determining whether private university police forces act under color of state law. Private universities often maintain police forces that are given extensive police powers by state statutes but are controlled by private entities. Some courts have looked directly to the state statutes that delegate police power, but …

Taxing Legalized Marijuana: How Courts Should Treat Drug Tax Statutes In Light Of The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause And Executive Non-Enforcement Of The Controlled Substances Act, Joseph A. Goldstein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Have The Right To Be Confused! Understanding Miranda After 50 Years, Bryan Taylor

Pace Law Review

Part I of this article briefly explores the background and historical context that ultimately led to the Miranda decision. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said, “you have to know the past to understand the present.” Understanding the circumstances and cases leading up to Miranda helps in the overall application of Miranda to cases of today. Part II addresses whether a statement should be allowed into evidence and provides a practical working approach to conduct a Miranda analysis. This innovative approach provides a step-by-step process in determining the admissibility of statements pursuant to Miranda and its progeny. This process …

Evading Miller, Robert S. Chang, David A. Perez, Luke M. Rona, Christopher M. Schafbuch

Seattle University Law Review

Miller v. Alabama appeared to strengthen constitutional protections for juvenile sentencing that the United States Supreme Court recognized in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida. In Roper, the Court held that executing a person for a crime committed as a juvenile is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In Graham, the Court held that sentencing a person to life without parole for a nonhomicide offense committed as a juvenile is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In Miller, the Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a homicide offense committed by a juvenile is also unconstitutional under …

A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

I am indebted to Professor William Pizzi for remembering—and praising—the “Gatehouses and Mansions” essay I wrote fifty years ago. A great many articles and books have been written about Miranda. So it is nice to be remembered for an article published a year before that famous case was ever decided.

For Whom The Data Tolls: A Reunified Theory Of Fourth And Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence, Bryan H. Choi

Cardozo Law Review

Data privacy demands a reunified theory of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Data technologies allow personal information to be disembodied from physical bodies and "possessed" simultaneously by both first persons and third parties. As a result, the government has been able to use a divide-and-conquer strategy to obtain incriminating evidence alternately from the data intermediary or from the suspect.

Currently, Fourth Amendment doctrine and Fifth Amendment doctrine work at cross-purposes. The privacy community has already sounded the alarm on the "third-party doctrine," which allows the government to sidestep the Fourth Amendment when demanding evidence from third parties. But few have …

Beyond The Visiting Room: A Defense Counsel Challenge To Conditions In Pretrial Confinement, Amber Baylor

Faculty Scholarship

Defense attorneys are well acquainted with the ill-considered and extreme use of solitary confinement in local jails. Isolation is one of many problems clients face while locked up in jail awaiting trial. Other common conditions of pretrial confinement include lack of mental health treatment, inadequate medical care, violence from corrections staff, and lack of protection from the violence of others. "Owing time", a recently dismantled practice, is just one example of jails' frivolous use of extreme isolation practices. At times, youth in the juvenile facility at Rikers were placed in solitary so often that there was a waitlist at the …

Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht

Michigan Law Review

Cullen v. Pinholster foreclosed federal courts from considering new evidence when reviewing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) petitions for claims previously adjudicated on the merits in state court. This decision has a particularly adverse effect on petitioners whose state habeas counsel left an incomplete or undeveloped record. This Note discusses strategies for victims of ineffective state habeas counsel to avoid the hostile mandate of Pinholster. It argues that, in light of Martinez v. Ryan’s recognition of the importance of counsel in initialreview collateral proceedings, courts should be wary of dismissing claims left un- or underdeveloped by ineffective state habeas counsel. It …

Testimony On Oklahoma Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about Senate Bill 838 and the reform of Oklahoma’s civil asset forfeiture. I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma, where my teaching and research focus on criminal law and procedure. I have experience achieving consensus solutions in contested areas of law, most notably in the six years I spent drafting a new set of ABA Criminal Justice Standards, and I know that change is rarely easy. No matter the topic and whatever the status quo, there is sure to be someone who feels it is …

Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt

Akron Law Review

After the decisions in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), which revealed the Supreme Court's solicitude of the constitutional rights of adults, it seemed improbable that the lower courts would long be permitted to continue ignoring the constitutional rights of juveniles. Thus the decision in the principal case, which represents a breakthrough in the assurance of a fair hearing to minors, comes as no surprise. The case holds that under the Fourteenth Amendment a juvenile has a right to notice of …

Rights Of State Prisoners - Federal Court Intervention In State Prison Administration; Jones V. Wittenberg, Ronald L. Collins

Akron Law Review

The path to federal court intervention into state prison administration has been a tortuous and rocky one.... Jones v. Wittenberg carries federal court intervention into state prison administration to new lengths. Until more basic and lasting changes are made on the part of society and the states, such intervention seems to be the best chance for ameliorating conditions in our state penal systems.

Search And Seizure - Warrantless Search- Allowable Extent Incident To Arrest; United States V. Robinson, John Nelson Childs

Akron Law Review

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Metropolitan Policeman Richard Jencks, on April 19, 1968, halted Willie Robinson for a "routine spot check."' While examining Robinson's driver's license, motor vehicle registration, and selective service card, Officer Jencks noticed an 11-year discrepancy between the two birthdates listed on his driver's license and his draft card. Upon a later check of police traffic records, Officer Jencks discovered that an operator's permit issued to "Willie Robinson, Jr.," born in 1927, had been revoked and that a temporary license had been issued to a "Willie Robinson," born in 1938. Four days later, the same officer observed Robinson operating …

Searches And Seizures - Banks And Banking - Witnesses - Right To Privacy; California Bankers Association V. Schultz, David F. Dybvig

Akron Law Review

FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, Congress enacted what has become known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. In California Bankers Association v. Schultz, certain parts of the Act were subjected to constitutional attack by various plaintiffs, including individual bank customers, a national bank, a bankers association, and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing itself and its bank customer members. The plaintiffs' challenges rested on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

Fools Rush In Where Lawyers Would Better Tread: The Right To Self-Representation And Related Standards Of Competency, Julia M. Capie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Danger, James Dawson

Cardozo Law Review

This Article provides the first account of the term "public danger," which appears in the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Drawing on historical records from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Article argues that the proper reading of "public danger" is a broad one. On this theory, "public danger" includes not just impending enemy invasions, but also a host of less serious threats (such as plagues, financial panics, jailbreaks, and natural disasters). This broad reading is supported by constitutional history. In 1789, the first Congress rejected a proposal that would have replaced the phrase "public danger" in the …

Holding The Line: Customs And Border Protection's Expansion Of The Border Search Exception And The Ensuing Destruction Of Interior Fourth Amendment Rights, Hannah Robbins

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review Of State Criminal Prosecutions, Kevin C. Walsh

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article challenges the unquestioned assumption of all contemporary scholars of federal jurisdiction that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. This Article resurrects Charles Hammond’s arguments and contends that he was right: the best interpretation of section 25 is that it did not encompass Supreme Court appellate review of state criminal prosecutions. Others may reasonably disagree with this Article’s ultimate interpretive conclusion about section 25’s limited reach even while acknowledging the strength of the various supporting arguments. Accordingly, this Article’s basic claim comes in both a strong version and …

Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance, Kayla Robinson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti

Akron Law Review

"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …

Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst

Akron Law Review

“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”

Newsroom: Waters '98 On Tempest Verdict Reversal, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company: Pre-Empting Prejudice, Andrea K. Huston

Akron Law Review

In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether parties in a civil case may use their peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury.

This Note will discuss the various limitations that courts have placed on the use of peremptory challenges, and the position of the Supreme Court. This Note will also discuss the Court's expansion of the state action doctrine, and the impact Edmonson will have on future cases.