Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Remarks, Richard W. Sonnenfeldt

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transitional Justice: Postwar Legacies, Ruti Teitel

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remarks, Eli M. Rosenbaum

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Nuremberg To Tokyo: Some Reflections On The Tokyo Trial (On The Sixtieth Anniversary Of The Nuremberg Trials), Zhang Wanhong

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Essay: The Romance Of Nuremberg And The Tease Of Moral Justice, Thane Rosenbaum

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Story Cuts The Gordian Knot Of Hung Jury Instructions, George C. Thomas Iii, Mark Greenbaum

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Constitutional law grows more complex over time. The complexity is due, in large part, to the rule of stare decisis. When faced with precedents that it does not wish to follow, the Court usually distinguishes the case before it. Thus, the constitutional landscape is littered with cases that do not fit well together. Navigating past these shoals is often difficult for courts following the Supreme Court’s lead. One example is the law governing instructions that a trial judge can give a deadlocked jury in a criminal case. The right to a jury trial entails the right to have the jury …

Summary Of Moore V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, Stephanie Hamrick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appellant Moore was convicted of fraudulent use of a credit card based on an incident that took place in a Las Vegas Wal-Mart. His suspicious behavior2 while shopping attracted the attention of a loss prevention specialist. The loss prevention specialist suspected Moore might attempt to purchase goods with a credit card, and instructed a cashier to contact management if Moore presented a credit card without proper identification. Moore brought over $300 worth of goods to the cashier’s register and presented a credit card. When Moore could not produce identification, the cashier summoned a manager who took the credit card to …

Is Capital Punishment Immoral Even If It Does Deter Murder?, Thomas Kleven

ExpressO

After years of inconclusive debate, recent studies purport to demonstrate that capital punishment does indeed deter murder, perhaps to the tune of multiple saved lives for each person executed. In response to these studies, Professors Sunstein and Vermeule have argued that since capital punishment leads to a net savings of innocent lives, it may be morally required on consequentialist grounds. I argue, even assuming the validity of the studies, that capital punishment cannot be justified in the United States in the current historical context for reasons of justice that trump consequentialist considerations. Mine is not an argument that capital punishment …

The Price Of Pretrial Release: Can We Afford To Keep Our Fourth Amendment Rights?, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The Fourth Amendment serves an important constitutional function. It protects the privacy of Americans from intrusions on their personal security. Few rights are held more sacred. When a person is arrested and faces the real likelihood of pretrial detention in jail, the person risks not only a reduction in his privacy rights, but also a loss of his liberty. In such circumstances, the arrested person should be able to bargain away some of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the additional freedoms associated with release to home.

Undoubtedly, defendants forced to choose between incarceration and Fourth Amendment rights will …

In Booker'S Shadow: Restitution Forces A Second Debate On Honesty In Sentencing, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court's January 2005 decision in Booker should induce Congress to enact legislation to remedy the constitutional invalidity of the MVRA and encourage the Department of Justice to revisit how restitution is charged, indicted, negotiated in plea agreements, proven at trial, and presented at sentencing hearings. The Booker decision is also a reminder to lower federal courts to adhere to the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Hughey v. United States, which limits the reach of orders of restitution. Congress, DOJ, and the federal courts should insist on candor in charging and sentencing to remedy the restitution …

The Reasonable Policeman: Police Intent In Criminal Procedure, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Blue Mourning: Postpartum Psychosis And The Criminal Insanity Defense, Waking To The Reality Of Women Who Kill Their Children, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 515 (2006), Jessica Butterfield

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Manson V. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding Of Eyewitness Identification, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 539 (2006), Ruth Yacona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudicated On The Merits?: Why The Aedpa Requires State Courts To Exhibit Their Reasoning, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 995 (2006), Ezra Spilke

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Second Chance For Justice: Reevaluation Of The United States Double Jeopardy Standard, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 371 (2006), Andrea Koklys

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aedpa Statute Of Limitations: Is It Tolled When The United States Supreme Court Is Asked To Review A Judgment From A State Post-Conviction Proceeding, Diane E. Courselle

Cleveland State Law Review

This thirty-seven word provision [the tolling provision in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] has been construed by the United States Supreme Court three times since 1996, and yet several questions remain unanswered. One such unanswered question is whether tolling occurs when a petitioner files a petition for writ of certiorari to the United State Supreme Court from the state court postconviction decision. In other words, does seeking the United States Supreme Court's review from a state court's final decision on an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" keep the state post-conviction application "pending?" That is the …

Booker And Our Brave New World: The Tension Among The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Judicial Discretion, And A Defendant's Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury, Kristina Walter

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the inherent conflict among the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, judicial discretion, and a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Part two of this Note will provide a historical overview of the Guidelines. Part three will discuss the application of the Guidelines and the role of juries and judges at sentencing hearings. Part four will highlight criticisms relating to how the Guidelines often usurp power from juries and judges. Part five will examine the milestone cases of Blakely v. Washington, United States v. Booker, and United States v. Fanfan (hereinafter "Booker" refers to the combined cases …

Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Hidden underneath the racy death penalty issues in Kansas v. Marsh lurks a seemingly dull procedural issue addressed only in separate opinions by Justices Stevens and Scalia: whether the Court should have heard the case in the first place. As he did in three cases from the Court’s 2005 term, Justice Stevens argued in Marsh that the Court has no legitimate interest in reviewing state court decisions that overprotect federal constitutional rights. Instead, the Supreme Court should exercise its certiorari power to tip the scales against states and in favor of individuals. Granting certiorari in Marsh, Stevens argued, was not …

The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

More than three decades ago, in Furman v. Georgia, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down all existing capital punishment schemes be-cause the results they generated were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasoned. No member of that Court remains on the Court today, and the Court has grown increasingly conservative ever since. Nevertheless, impor-tant questions concerning the administration of capital punishment continue to wrought deep divisions within the Court, for instance in determining whether racial bias influences the system, in determining the sufficiency of new evidence of innocence to justify review of a defaulted claim in habeas corpus proceedings, in determining a …

Putting The Guesswork Back Into Capital Sentencing, Sean D. O'Brien

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court deemed it “incon-testable” that a death sentence is cruel and unusual if inflicted “by reason of [the defendant’s] race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.” Arbitrary and discriminatory patterns in capital sentencing moved the Court to strike down death penalty statutes that required judges or juries to cast thumbs-up or thumbs-down verdicts against offenders found guilty of capi-tal crimes. The issue of innocence was barely a footnote in Furman; the Court’s concerns focused on …

The Revolution Enters The Court: The Constitutional Significance Of Wrongful Convictions In Contemporary Constitutional Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Jordan Steiker

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Over the last decade, the most important events in American death pen-alty law have occurred outside the courts. The discovery of numerous wrongfully convicted death-sentenced inmates in Illinois led to the most substantial reflection on the American death penalty system since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a Republi-can, first declared a moratorium on executions in 2000 and eventually commuted all 167 inmates on Illinois’s death row in 2003. The events in Illinois reverberated nationwide. Almost overnight, state legislative agendas shifted from expanding or maintaining the prevailing reach of the death penalty to studying its …

Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has sought to harmonize competing constitutional demands under Eighth Amendment rules regulat-ing the two-step eligibility and selection stages of the capital decision-making process. Furman’s demand for rationality and consistency requires that, at the eligibility stage, the sentencer’s discretion be limited and guided by clear and objective fact-based standards that rationally narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. The selection stage requires a determination of whether a specific death-eligible defendant actually deserves that punish-ment, as distinguished from other death-eligible defendants. Here, fundamental fairness and respect for the uniqueness of the individual are the cornerstones of …

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Sentencing Factors Applicable To All Offense Types, Model Sentencing Guidelines §3.1 - 3.6, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the ninth of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: A Simplified Economic Crimes Guideline, Model Sentencing Guidelines §2b1.1, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the third of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: A Simplified Sentencing Grid, Model Sentencing Guidelines §1.1, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the first of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled "'Tis a Gift to be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines", available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Determining The Sentencing Range And The Sentence Within Range, Model Sentencing Guidelines §1.2 - 1.8 , Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the second of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=927929.

Improving Criminal Jury Decision Making After The Blakely Revolution, J. J. Prescott, Sonja B. Starr

Articles

The shift in sentencing fact-finding responsibility triggered in many states by Blakely v. Washington may dramatically change the complexity and type of questions that juries will be required to answer. Among the most important challenges confronting legislatures now debating the future of their sentencing regimes is whether juries are prepared to handle this new responsibility effectively - and, if not, what can be done about it. Yet neither scholars addressing the impact of Blakely nor advocates of jury reform have seriously explored these questions. Nonetheless, a number of limitations on juror decision making seriously threaten the accuracy of verdicts in …

"True Threats" And The Issue Of Intent, Paul T. Crane

Law Faculty Publications

This Note will proceed in five Parts. Part I will serve as a short introduction to the category of true threats and its place within First Amendment jurisprudence. Part II will examine the history of true threats and intent leading up to Virginia v. Black, highlighting the foundational opinion of Watts v. United States and the various intent approaches that became available in its wake. Part III will discuss the potential interpretations of the language in Black, and Part IV will explain how lower courts have treated the Court's definition of true threats in Black. Finally, Part V will address …

The Paradox Of The Drug Elimination Program In New York City Public Housing, Jeffrey A. Fagan, Garth Davies, Jan Holland

Faculty Scholarship

In this study, we examine the effects of the DEP intervention at three levels of complementary theoretical and practical relevance: the public housing development itself, the neighborhood in which public housing is situated, and the police precinct where the tract is located. From surveys of residents, observations of program activities, and analyses of NYCHA's program records, we compiled detailed information on the components of DEP and the reactions of public housing residents to each type of intervention. We then analyzed panel data from 1985-1996 to estimate the effects of DEP on crime rates in and around the city's public housing …