Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Criminalization In Shades Of Color: Prosecuting Pregnant Drugaddicted Women, Carla-Michelle Adams

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article argues that criminalizing pregnant women for drug use is both unconstitutional and ineffective. It contends that such prosecutions infringe upon fundamental rights, disproportionately affect minority women, and fail to address the root causes of addiction. The author advocates for a public health approach, emphasizing treatment over punishment to protect both the mother and the fetus.

Gideon At Guantánamo, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The right to counsel maintains an uneasy relationship with the demands of trials for war crimes. Drawing on the author’s personal experiences from defending a Guantánamo detainee, the Author explains how Gideon set a baseline for the right to counsel at Guantánamo. Whether constitutionally required or not, Gideon ultimately framed the way defense lawyers represented their clients. Against the expectations of political and military leaders, both civilian and military lawyers vigorously challenged the legality of the military trial system. At the same time, tensions arose because lawyers devoted to a particular cause (such as attacking the Guantánamo trial system) were …

Military Commissions And The Paradigm Of Prevention, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Why military commissions? Given the United States’s track record of success in trying terrorists in civilian criminal courts, and the availability of courts-martial to try war crimes, why has the United States government, under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations alike, insisted on proceeding through untested military commissions instead? In May 2009, President Obama defended military commissions with the following claims:

Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for …

After United States V. Jones, After The Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the proposition that the Government can surreptitiously electronically track vehicle location for an entire month without Fourth Amendment restraint. While the Court's three opinions leave much uncertain, in one perspective they fit nicely within a long string of cases in which the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine. This Article develops that perspective and provides a cautiously optimistic view of where search and seizure protections may be headed.

More detail:

United States v. Jones, in which the …

Gideon’S Amici, Why Do Prosecutors So Rarely Defend The Rights Of The Accused?, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In Gideon v. Wainwright, twenty-three state attorneys general, led by Walter F. Mondale and Edward McCormack, joined an amicus brief on the side of the criminal accused, urging the Supreme Court to recognize indigent defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel in felony cases. This was a unique occurrence. Although amicus filings by public entities have increased significantly since then, including in criminal cases, government lawyers rarely submit amicus briefs in the Supreme Court supporting criminal defendants’ procedural rights, and never en masse as in Gideon. The states’ public support for Gideon’s position points up the special nature of the …

Finding The Proper Measure For Conditions Of Pretrial Confinement, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Comment in response to Catherine T. Struve, The Conditions of Pretrial Detention, 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1009 (2013).

Miller V. Alabama And The (Past And) Future Of Juvenile Crime Regulation, Elizabeth S. Scott

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was the keynote address for a symposium on Miller v Alabama, the 2012 Supreme Court opinion holding unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment a statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide. The essay argues that Miller embodies a way of thinking about juvenile crime that has taken hold in the early 21st century – an approach that emphasizes the importance for legal policy of developmental differences between juveniles and adults. This emerging trend contrasts sharply with the regulatory approach of the 1990s when moral panics over juvenile crime fueled punitive law reforms …

Qualified Immunity Developments: Not Much Hope Left For Plaintiffs, Karen Blum, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Plea Bargain With Competent Counsel After Cooper And Frye: Is The Supreme Court Making The Ordinary Criminal Process Too Long, Too Expensive, And Unpredictable In Pursuit Of Perfect Justice, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of criminal defendants who were deprived of a favorable plea offer because of their lawyers’ professional lapses. In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that “[t]he ordinary criminal process has become too long, too expensive, and unpredictable,” because of the Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence; that plea bargaining is “the alternative in which...defendants have sought relief,” and that the two new decisions on the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in plea bargaining would add to the burden on the criminal process. This essay examines several aspects of …

Federalism And The Eighth Amendment, Youngjae Lee

Faculty Scholarship

How many “cruel and unusual punishments” clauses are there? Michael Mannheimer, in his article, Cruel and Unusual Federal Punishments, argues that there are two—one for the federal government and one for state governments.1 Mannheimer contends that courts have been unduly neglecting the former and mistakenly applying the latter to the federal government without adequate reflection.2 Mannheimer further argues that the Eighth Amendment is primarily a device to promote state sovereignty and that we should accordingly read it as requiring that federal punishments be no more severe than state punishments for equivalent crimes.3 I cannot do justice in this brief Response …

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Umali, Andrew J. Vansingel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department - People V. Martinez, Jean K. Delisle

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - In Re Suarez, Malaika Makembe

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. White, Rosalinde Casalini

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department - People V. Boyd, Joseph M. D'Amico

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Leon, Madeline Katz, Madeline Klotz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department - People V. Williams, Brian E. Peterson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Waive Competent Counsel: Extending The Faretta Waiver, Augustine Gerard Yee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Possession Of Child Pornography: Should You Be Convicted When The Computer Cache Does The Saving For You?, Giannina Marin

Florida Law Review

This Note examines the concept of electronic possession in the field of child pornography, with the aim of reconciling the basic intuition behind possession with the reality of electronic data. Part II briefly discusses the case and statutory history that placed child pornography outside the bounds of the First Amendment and led to constitutionally valid prohibitions on the possession of child pornography. Part III sets forth the various ways in which individuals can access electronic child pornography, with a focus on the user’s level of interaction. Part IV discusses factors that the courts have considered in defining what constitutes possession …

Substantive Due Process: Sex Toys After Lawrence, Michael J. Hooi

Florida Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Overturning Williams V. Florida And The Six-Person Jury: History, Law, And Empirical Evidence, Alisa Smith, Michael J. Saks

Florida Law Review

After 700 years of common-law history and nearly 200 years of constitutional history, the Supreme Court concluded that the constitutionally permissible minimum jury size could not be inferred from the language or the history of the Constitution. The answer, said the Court in Williams v. Florida, could be found only through a “functional analysis” of the performance of smaller juries (that is, empirical examination of the behavior of different-sized juries). The Court implicitly abandoned that analysis in Ballew v. Georgia, when it held that juries with fewer than six members were unconstitutional—a decision based on nothing more than …

Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Alvarez-Machain: Kidnapping In The "War On Drugs" - A Matter Of Executive Discretion Or Lawlessness?, Michael G. Mckinnon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Punishment Need Not Fit The Crime: Harmelin V. Michigan And The Eigth Amendment, Scott K. Petersen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Psychotherapist And Patient In The California Supreme Court: Ground Lost And Ground Regained, Stanley Mosk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Victim Harm, Retributivism And Capital Punishment: A Philosophy Critique Of Payne V. Tennessee , R. P. Peerenboom

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Death Of An Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies In Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, And Abortion Cases, Murphy S. Klasing

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Goes Around Comes Around-Nichols V. United States: Validating The Collateral Use Of Uncounseled Misdemeanor Convictions For The Purpose Of Sentence Enhancement, Andrea E. Joseph

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Davis V. United States: "Maybe I Should Talk To A Lawyer" Means Maybe Miranda Is Unraveling, Tom Chen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cruel But Not So Unusual: Farmer V. Brennan And The Devolving Standards Of Decency, Stacy Lancaster Cozad

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.