Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Conceptualizations Of Legalese In The Course Of Due Process, From Arrest To Plea Bargain: The Perspectives Of Disadvantaged Offenders, Shiv Narayan Persaud

Journal Publications

"Equal protection" and "due process of law" are constitutional guarantees tenaciously embraced by all Americans.' While numerous studies focused on how these guarantees play out in the lives of offenders, few sought to examine these guarantees from the standpoint of offenders, particularly those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause makes clear, in part, that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due …

Deconstructing The Bill Of Rights In Administrative Adjudication--Enfranchising Constitutional Principles In The Process, Shiv Narayan Persaud

Journal Publications

With the increased tendency toward governmental oversight in modern society, Congress deemed it fit to delegate some of its lawmaking authority to the other branches of government. While this action has effectuated the promulgation of regulations and resolution of disputes through adjudicatory proceedings, the area of administrative law continues to be challenging, especially where it poses concerns regarding an individual’s basic rights. This Article will focus discussion on some fundamental issues relating to the administrative process and explore the ramifications on the individual.

A Case For A Constitutional Right To Counsel In Habeas Corpus, Emily Garcia Uhrig

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Procedural Obstacles To Reviewing Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claims In State And Federal Postconviction Proceedings., Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal postconviction petitions. This is hardly surprising given reports of trial attorneys who refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the day of trial, and fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence offered at trial. Unfortunately, the current structure of indigent defense funding makes it impossible for many public defenders to provide effective representation to their clients.

Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …

Commentary: Was The Bill Of Rights Irrelevant To Nineteenth-Century State Criminal Procedure?, Carolyn B. Ramsey

Publications

No abstract provided.

Colorado V. Connelly: What Really Happened, William T. Pizzi

Publications

In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Colorado v. Connelly, a landmark case in due process and fifth amendment law. The case began when Francis Barry Connelly approached a police officer on the street in downtown Denver to confess to having killed a young woman several months earlier in southwest Denver. Because Connelly was suffering from acute schizophrenia and was hearing auditory hallucinations commanding him to confess, state courts suppressed his statements to the police on the grounds (1) that his statements before arrest were involuntary and inadmissible under the due process clause and (2) those statements post-arrest could not …

The Undiscovered Country: Execution Competency & Comprehending Death, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Administrative Detention Of Terrorists: Why Detain, And Detain Whom?, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

This article aims to reframe the administrative detention debate, not to resolve it. In doing so, however, it aspires to advance the discussion by highlighting the critical substantive choices embedded in calls for legal procedural reform and by pointing the way toward appropriately tailored legislative options. It argues that the current debate’s focus on procedural and institutional questions of how to detain suspected terrorists has been allowed to overshadow the questions of why administratively detain, and whom to detain. Not only are the answers to these questions at least as important as the procedural rules in safeguarding and balancing liberty …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Torture, Necessity, And Supreme Emergency: Law And Morality At The End Of Law, Zachary R. Calo

Scholarly Works

This paper employs Michael Walzer's concept of "Supreme Emergency" to address the permissibility of torture under conditions of necessity. It proposes moving beyond both utilitarian and deontological approaches to legal authority in order to understood necessity as a moral category. A full account of right action under conditions of necessity therefore demands taking account of the distinct yet cooperative function provided by legal and moral norms. A political official might therefore possess moral but not legal warrant to act in contravention of binding legal norms. Preserving the validity of law is essential to the economy of social reconstitution in the …

Eighth Amendment Gaps: Can Conditions Of Confinement Litigation Benefit From Proportionality Theory, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

The article explores the potential benefits of integrating proportionality theory, traditionally used in sentencing, into litigation challenging harsh prison conditions under the Eighth Amendment. It argues that this approach could offer new avenues for addressing the limitations of current conditions of confinement jurisprudence by reimagining how courts evaluate the constitutionality of prison conditions.

The Sixth Amendment And Criminal Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas, Susan Klein

Cardozo Law Review

This symposium essay explores the impact of Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough on state and federal sentencing and plea bargaining systems. The Court continues to try to explain how the Sixth Amendment jury trial right limits legislative and judicial control of criminal sentencing. Equally important, the opposing sides in this debate have begun to form a stable consensus. These decisions inject more uncertainty in the process and free trial judges to counterbalance prosecutors. Thus, we predict, these decisions will move the balance of plea bargaining power back toward criminal defendants.

The Right To Silence Helps The Innocent: A Response To Critics, Alex Stein

Cardozo Law Review

This Article responds to the numerous critics of Daniel J Seidmann & Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege, 114 HARV. L. REV. 430 (2000). Under Seidmann and Stein's theory, the right to silence protects innocents who find themselves unable to corroborate their self-exonerating accounts by verifiable evidence. Absent the right, guilty criminals would pool with innocents by making false self-exonerating statements. Factfinders would consequently discount the probative value of all uncorroborated exculpatory statements, at the expense of those innocents who cannot corroborate their true accounts. The right to …

Self-Incrimination And The Epistemology Of Testimony, Michael S. Pardo

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court's limitation of the privilege against self-incrimination to evidence of a testimonial nature has been controversial. The doctrinal reliance on a distinction between physical and testimonial evidence has proven difficult to apply in practice, and it has been criticized as being descriptively inaccurate, analytically incoherent, and normatively indefensible. This article offers a defense of the distinction on epistemological grounds. The philosophical focus on testimony as a source of knowledge provides some insight into what makes testimony distinct as an epistemic source. These considerations are used to provide a coherent and principled way to distinguish what evidence to treat …

Rights Without Remedy: The Myth Of State Court Accessibility After The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Alison Brill

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Danforth, Retroactivity, And Federalism, J. Thomas Sullivan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Court-Martialing Civilian Contractors In Iraq, Margaret Prystowsky

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the legal implications of outsourcing military functions to private contractors, focusing on the accountability gap under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It argues that recent amendments to the UCMJ, particularly the expansion of court-martial jurisdiction over civilian contractors during declared wars and contingency operations, address this gap. The analysis concludes that these changes are constitutionally sound, given Congress's authority under Article I, Section 8, and align with legal precedent. However, the article also highlights practical challenges, such as prosecutorial discretion and limited penalties, which may undermine the effectiveness of these reforms.

Death By A Thousand Cases: After Booker, Rita, And Gall, The Guidelines Still Violate The Sixth Amendment, David C. Holman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Quinton Richmond, Et Al., V. The District Court Of Maryland, Et Al., No. 08-54, Brenda Bratton Blom, Robert Rubinson, Phillip J. Closius

Court Briefs

Amici curiae brief filed by 78 faculty members from the University of Maryland School of Law and the University of Baltimore School of Law, on behalf of Appellants Quinton Richmond, et al. Amicus members felt the need to comment on the application and implications of the statutory right to counsel under Maryland law for indigent criminal defendants. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Court’s previous holding in McCarter v. State, 363 Md. 705 (2001), that the plain language of the Maryland Public Defender Act created a right to counsel during all stages of a criminal …

Straddling The Civil-Criminal Divide: A Bifurcated Approach To Understanding The Nature Of Immigration Removal Proceedings, Peter L. Markowitz

Articles

The article advocates for reclassifying immigration removal proceedings, distinguishing between exclusion and expulsion. It argues that while exclusion should remain a civil process, expulsion, particularly for lawful permanent residents, should be treated as a criminal matter due to its punitive nature and severe consequences. This bifurcated approach aims to align legal procedures with the reality of the impact on individuals and ensure constitutional protections.

``No One Does That Anymore": On Tushnet, Constitutions, And Others, Penelope J. Pether

Working Paper Series

In this contribution to the Quinnipiac Law Review’s annual symposium edition, this year devoted to the work of Mark Tushnet, I read his antijuridification scholarship “against the grain,” concluding both that Tushnet’s later scholarship is neo-Realist rather than critical in its orientation, and that both his early scholarship on slavery and his post-9/11 constitutional work reveal an ambivalence about the claim that we learn from history to circumscribe our excesses, which anchors his popular constitutionalist rhetoric.

The likeness of Tushnet’s scholarship to the work of the Realists lies in this: while the Realists’ search for a science that would satisfy …

Rethinking Child Advocacy After Roper V. Simmons: "Kids Are Just Different" And "Kids Are Like Adults" Advocacy Strategies, Elisa Poncz

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the tension between two competing arguments in juvenile law: "kids are just different" and "kids are like adults." It critiques the binary approach often used in child advocacy and proposes a more nuanced, patchwork strategy that combines both perspectives to better serve the diverse needs of juveniles. The analysis focuses on key legal contexts, including the death penalty, life without parole, and minors' rights in medical decision-making, education, and internet access. The author argues that a balanced approach is essential to address the complexities of juvenile rights and responsibilities.

The Politicization Of The Designation Of Foreign Terrorist Organizations: The Effect On The Separation Of Powers, Julie B. Shapiro

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article critiques the U.S. process for designating foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and subsequent amendments, arguing that the concentration of power in the Executive Branch undermines the separation of powers and risks politicization. The process, while intended to deter terrorism, often lacks transparency, adequate oversight, and judicial scrutiny, leading to potential misuse and unintended consequences, such as radicalizing targeted groups. The author advocates for reforms to restore constitutional principles and ensure the process remains effective and legitimate.

The Insanity Of The Mens Rea Model: Due Process And The Abolition Of The Insanity Defense, Jean K. Gilles Phillips, Rebecca E. Woodman

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Completely Unguided Discretion: Admitting Non-Statutory Aggravating And Non-Statutory Mitigating Evidence In Capital Sentencing Trials, Sharon Turlington

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “As an attorney practicing exclusively in the area of death penalty defense at the trial level for the last ten years, my perspective on the problems inherent in the system seems vastly different from that presented in academic research and even in case law. While most of the recent changes in death penalty law have focused on the right of the defendant to have sentencing enhancing elements of an offense proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, much of the evidence presented in an actual death penalty jury trial is non-statutory aggravation and non-statutory mitigation. Generally, non-statutory aggravating …

Death Is Unconstitutional: How Capital Punishment Became Illegal In America—A Future History, Jur. Eric Engle Ph.D.

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “A constitution is an organic fact of every state: it is a part of the being of the state. People, like the state, also have a constitution—a character. Just as people change over time, so do states. But just as there are natural limits on what people can or cannot become, so there are natural limits on what the state can and cannot fairly do. No man, nor any group of men, ex ante may justly take the life of another person, though perhaps their killing may be excused (or forgiven) ex post.”

"The death of Death would surely …

Are Journalists Privileged?: Panel Discussion, Anthony Lewis, Max Frankel, Victor Kovner

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Although there is no recipe for defining Fourth Amendment reasonableness, the Supreme Court produces its most anomalous Fourth Amendment outcomes when it decides "mixed" questions of reasonableness, assessing issues that turn on how ordinary, prudent citizens think and behave. The Court treats these mixed issues, combinations of fact and law, as if they raise purely legal questions. But mixed issues are more complex and require someone to determine historical facts, apply those facts to principles of Fourth Amendment law, and consider the totality of the circumstances, including taking into account community and cultural influences. The Supreme Court will take its …

Presumptions, Inferences, And Strict Liability In Illinois Criminal Law: Preempting The Presumption Of Innocence?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2008), Theodore A. Gottfried, Peter G. Baroni

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.