Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Eye In The Sky: The Eleventh Circuit Allows Warrantless Surveillance Of The Home Via Pole Cameras In United States V. Gregory, John T. Roberts

Mercer Law Review

What does “search” mean? Defining the word seems simple enough, yet, courts have struggled to provide a consistent answer under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This difficulty has only been exacerbated by rapidly advancing technological innovations in the field of surveillance. Specifically, courts across the country are split on whether long-term surveillance of an individual’s home via a pole camera is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.

In United States v. Gregory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed this issue head on, holding that surveillance of this kind is not considered a search under the Fourth …

Criminal Law, Thomas D. Church, Reid M. Koski

Mercer Law Review

This Article provides a tour of the most important criminal law opinions published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2025. Rather than engage in an exhaustive review of the facts and laws in each case, we focus on the key holdings from the most noteworthy, published decisions. Section I of this Article addresses rulings specific to substantive offenses such as fraud, drug trafficking, and sex crimes, while Section II covers issues arising under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section III deals with the Federal …

Delusions Of Judicial Grandeur: State V. Wierson And The Return To Statutory Sanity, Max Jordan Katz

Mercer Law Review

Georgia’s insanity defenses have long reflected tension between accountability and mental illness. The State’s statutory framework, which preserves both a “mental incapacity” and “delusional compulsion” defense, reflects this tension. Yet for decades, the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Bailey v. State imposed a judicial limitation: a defendant who “brought about” her own delusion through voluntary acts or omissions could not claim insanity. The court’s recent decision in State v. Wierson marks a turning point. In Wierson, the court considered whether noncompliance with psychiatric medication preempts the defendant from invoking statutory insanity defenses. Rejecting Bailey, the court reasserted the primacy …

Deliberately Silenced, Rachel Kincaid

Mercer Law Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act is celebrating its 30^th birthday this year. It was designed to make it harder for incarcerated people to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement and to restrict their remedies even when they do so successfully. It has been wildly effective at achieving those objectives. It has also propped up mass incarceration and facilitated the persistence of dismal conditions of confinement in carceral facilities in the United States.

The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement—arguably its most damaging provision—silences carceral voices without regard for the merit of their complaints. It does so by mandating …

Marked For Prosecution: The Use Of Tattoo Recognition Technology In Criminal Trials And The Case For Evidentiary Limits, Marc Consalo

Mercer Law Review

In recent years, tattoos have taken on a new and largely overlooked role in our criminal trial system. Once viewed primarily as personal or cultural expression, tattoos are now treated by law enforcement as biometric data which can be analyzed, codified, and then searched by artificial intelligence (“AI”). Police departments and prosecutorial offices have begun using tattoo recognition software to identify suspects, assume gang membership, and establish guilt based on imagery or symbols. Yet, despite the rapid growth of this technology, its use in the courtroom has received almost no scholarly attention and even less judicial scrutiny.

This Article seeks …

Catching Up With The Constitution? Georgia Fixes Its Fatal Burden Of Proof For Findings Of Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Meagan R. Hurley

Mercer Law Review

In 1988, Georgia became the first state to prohibit the execution of individuals with intellectual disability—a landmark reform spurred by the execution of Jerome Bowden, a Black man with an IQ of 59. Yet, due to a drafting error, the statute imposed an insurmountable burden: requiring defendants to prove their intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt. For nearly four decades, that fatal flaw rendered Georgia’s protection illusory. Not a single capital defendant facing intentional murder charges prevailed. While nearly every other jurisdiction adopted the far more workable “preponderance of the evidence” standard, Georgia stood alone, out of step with both …

Beyond Gary V. State: Paragraph Xiii And The Future Of Georgia’S Exclusionary Rule, Joshua R. Wright

Mercer Law Review

While lawyers across Georgia routinely file motions to suppress evidence in the state’s superior courts, many may never stop to consider what actually affords their clients that right. Practitioners preparing these motions quickly discover one of the most significant recent developments in modern Georgia criminal law: the debate over the scope of a criminal defendant’s constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and, more importantly, when courts must suppress evidence obtained in violation of those rights. Will the Georgia Supreme Court overturn Gary v. State in full and adopt a good-faith exception? If so, can criminal defense attorneys look to …

Rico V. United States, Meagan R. Hurley

Articles

Isabel Rico was serving a term of supervised release when she absconded from federal supervision. Years later, the government sought to revoke her release, arguing that her fugitive status “tolled” her supervised-release term. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Other circuits, however, have rejected the fugitive-tolling doctrine in the supervised-release context. The Supreme Court will now decide whether federal courts may judicially adopt fugitive tolling, or whether Congress’s silence in the supervised-release statute forecloses it.

Rivers V. Guerrero, Meagan R. Hurley

Articles

Danny Rivers sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. Rivers’s petition was denied, but while his initial habeas appeal was pending, he initiated a second filing to include new information that his prior counsel failed to utilize in an exculpatory report supporting his innocence. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), the district court determined it was “without jurisdiction to entertain” the new evidence because Rivers’s filing was a “second or successive” petition. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals agreed.

Criminal Law, K. David Cooke Jr., Andrew M. Healy

Mercer Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to review a selection of recent opinions from appellate courts that affect the practice of criminal law in a few important categories. This Article seeks to give guidance to both prosecutors and the defense bar in these areas, with an eye towards highlighting statements in opinions, concurrences, and dissents that display the Justices’ concerns of the current state and application of the law or projections of where the law can and should be.

It Takes A Village: Why And How Georgia Should Afford Greater Protection To Juveniles During Police Interrogations, Lillie Tate Andrews

Mercer Law Review

On June 27, 1998, Lori Duniver discovered that her five-year-old daughter, Devan, was missing from her home in New Philadelphia, Ohio. The following day, Devan’s body was found in a wooded area near her home. The Duniver family’s twelve-year-old neighbor, Anthony Harris, was ultimately convicted of Devan’s murder and sentenced to a term of incarceration to last until his twenty-first birthday. However, on June 7, 2000, the Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed his conviction on the ground that the juvenile court had improperly denied a motion to suppress his confession, which was coerced in violation of his Fifth Amendment …

Two Bites, Different Apples: The Georgia Supreme Court Revolutionizes Forty-Year Precedent On First-Offender Appeals In Howard V. State, Joshua R. Wright

Mercer Law Review

Since 1968, Georgia’s First Offender Act has provided for an alternative sentencing procedure for criminal defendants who have not previously been convicted of a felony. The Act allows trial courts to place a defendant on probation or sentence them to a term of confinement before a conviction and without entering a judgment. The significance of this procedure is that, if a defendant successfully completes the terms of their first-offender status, they are exonerated and the prosecution’s case is discharged by law. The former defendant receives no criminal conviction and their civil rights and liberties are preserved.

Survey Of Capital Cases In Georgia, Jessica L. Heywood

Mercer Law Review

This Article examines five cases decided during the Survey period: two decisions by the Supreme Court of Georgia and three decisions by federal courts involving Georgia defendants. The Georgia Supreme Court cases are a direct appeal and a habeas appeal. All three federal cases are habeas petitions by Georgia state prisoners. We included federal cases because they involve significant points of law and illustrate the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s continued lax oversight of habeas claims, decades after the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) by Congress. The small number of cases …

Tackling Terry: Georgians’ State Constitutional Protections On Searches, Seizures, And Privacy, Hunter J. Rodgers

Mercer Law Review

Currently found in Paragraph XIII of our state Bill of Rights, Georgia has had a search and seizure provision in its Constitution for over 160 years. For the last sixty, our courts interpreted it in lockstep with the Fourth Amendment. Countless cases treat our state provision as an afterthought, only worth mention as an aside to the Fourth Amendment, or in acknowledgment that the court was not reviewing on state grounds, or both. Even where the Georgia Supreme Court issues opinions enhancing search and seizure protections, or at least arguing for it, it shunts Paragraph XIII into a corner to …

Can Too Much Clarity Cause Confusion? A Case Study Of Mccalop V. State, Sutton M. Eggena

Mercer Law Review

In criminal trials, few elements wield as much influence over the outcome as expert testimony. Expert testimony serves as the bridge between complex subject matter and the understanding of lay jurors, often occupying a pivotal position in the pursuit of justice. Indeed, expert testimony can be the lynchpin on which a jury’s verdict turns. Picture a courtroom filled with jurors, each presumed to lack a deep understanding of the intricate dynamics of domestic abuse and the profound effects of battered person syndrome on individuals trapped in violent relationships. In pursuit of justice, these jurors lean on a singular source—an expert …

Proprietors Beware: Recent Changes In Negligent Security Cases Involving Third-Party Criminal Acts And The State Of The Law Moving Forward After The Supreme Court Of Georgia’S Most Recent Decision In Georgia Cvs V. Carmichael, Blake Williamson

Mercer Law Review

The burgeoning surge in criminal activity within the United States has precipitated a corresponding increase in legal actions aimed at ascertaining the liability of business proprietors for crimes that transpire on their premises. Although the legal and factual questions surrounding the attribution of liability for the criminal acts of third parties often prove intricate, the crux of the matter remains consistent with that encountered in other premises liability actions—namely, did the proprietor possess superior knowledge of the danger that injured the plaintiff?

Just Me, Myself, And I: Georgia Trial Courts May Consider Pro Se Motions Filed By Represented Criminal Defendants, Mckayla A. Doss

Mercer Law Review

For decades, Georgia’s trial courts have applied the absolute rule that pro se motions filed by represented (or presumably represented) criminal defendants were a legal nullity. In essence, hybrid representation was not permitted—legal representation precluded criminal defendants from acting as “co-counsel” or filing their own pro se motions.The application of this absolute rule substantially affected the time-sensitive period that follows a criminal conviction, as defendants in Georgia have a limited period of time to file a notice of appeal or a motion for new trial before the window of direct appeal closes. Failure to file these motions results in the …

Victor Hugo Was Right All Along: Les Misérables, The Tragedy Of A Punitive Parole System, And A Modern Path Forward, Sarah Gerwig

Mercer Law Review

Les Misérables, Victor Hugo’s tragic novel, was published over 160 years ago and yet it continues to capture imaginations and sympathies worldwide. It was made into an award-winning film over a decade ago. But before that, Les Misérables was one of the most popular Broadway musicals ever produced, having been viewed by over sixty million people, even beyond the viewership of other popular renditions in film and television. Despite (or perhaps because of) its heartbreaking themes, audiences sympathize with the main characters’ quest for redemption. How easy, in the story, to see the struggles and barriers Jean Valjean encounters—and …

Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Never Hurt Me. Or Will They? The Eleventh Circuit Expands The “Extreme Cruelty” Definition In 8 U.S.C. §1229b(B)(2) To Encompass Mental And Physical Abuse In Ruiz V. United States Attorney General, Sydnie N. Winter

Mercer Law Review

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), originally passed in 1994, was the first federal legislation acknowledging domestic violence as a crime. As part of this Act, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a rule that allows battered spouses (or children) who are not citizens or nationals of the United States of America to seek the discretionary cancellation of the government’s removal of them from the country. The VAWA special-rule was enacted as a way to enable abuse victims to obtain discretionary deportation relief, allowing them to leave their abusers without fear of deportation or other immigration-related consequences. ...

The United …

The Devil’S In The Details: Georgia Supreme Court Discharges And Acquits Defendant Because Jury Oath Was Never Administered, Lillie Tate Andrews

Mercer Law Review

Behind the bench of the Supreme Court of Georgia, there is a phrase inscribed on the wall: Fiat justitia ruat caelum, Latin for “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.” This motto serves as a daily reminder that justice must be served, regardless of the consequences. It is often said that the judiciary’s role is to apply the law as it exists. As such, judges must refrain from allowing their emotions to dictate their decisions—even when those decisions have unpleasant consequences. Because the legal profession is self-regulated, its rules and regulations are only as effective as the professionals …

Capital Punishment, Carlos Wood

Mercer Law Review

In Glossip v. Gross, a 2015 Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, Justice Breyer authored a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, in which he noted the declining use of the death penalty in the United States. Justice Breyer began his dissent by noting the downward trajectory of the number of convictions that resulted in capital sentences. The evidence he cited included the following: from 1986 to 1999, approximately 300 people on average were sentenced to death every year, but in 2000, this number began to decline rapidly. In 2014, …

The Battle Of The Narrative In Jones V. Mississippi: Consideration Of Youth “In Name Only”, Stevie Leahy

Mercer Law Review

Juvenile sentencing within the United States is but one illustration of how the legal system reinforces the marginalization of populations that have been historically underinvested and underrepresented. Throughout the past century, the macro-narrative on sentencing has fluctuated nationally, as well as within individual states, with the reasoning used to justify decisions sliding between the conflicting lenses of rehabilitation and punishment. This has necessarily impacted the micro-narrative—the way that an individual’s story is considered and weighed (or ignored) within sentencing. There are endless factors that affect outcomes in sentencing: class, race and or ethnicity, gender, and access to counsel are just …

Stories That Kill: Masculinity And Capital Prosecutors' Closing Arguments, Pamela A. Wilkins

Articles

The American death penalty is a punishment by, for, and about men: Both historically and today, most capital prosecutors are men, most capital defendants are men, and killing itself is strongly coded male. Yet despite—or perhaps because of—the overwhelming maleness of the institution of capital punishment, the subject of masculinity is largely absent from legal discourse about the death penalty. This Article addresses that gap in the legal discourse by applying the insights of masculinities theory, an offshoot of feminist theory, to capital prosecutors’ closing arguments. This Article hypothesizes that capital prosecutors’ masculinity is strongly influenced both by white Southern …

Prisoners, Punitive Damages, And Precedent, Oh My! The Eleventh Circuit In Hoever Overrules Prior Interpretation Of The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Tatiana Dobretsova

Mercer Law Review

Imagine you are a prisoner at Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia. A squad of about thirty officers march into the prison one day, dressed in riot gear, chanting, “kill, kill, kill.” The officers begin cursing and ordering inmates to get out of their cells, even yanking some by their shirts if they are not moving quickly enough. As you and the other inmates rush out of your cells, you are subjected to body cavity searches—you are ordered to strip naked, squat and cough, turn around, and bend over, all in the presence of several officers. An officer hands you …

Ding Dong! The Count Is Dead, Or Is It?: Criminal Defendants May Not Directly Appeal Convictions If Unresolved Counts Are On The Dead Docket, Lilly B. Nickels

Mercer Law Review

A defendant is indicted on two criminal counts, is found guilty on one of those counts, and is sentenced to time in prison. However, the jury could not come to a decision on the other count, so the trial court judge places the count on the court’s dead docket where the count could remain for an indefinite period of time, deeming the defendant’s case pending in the trial court. Due to the defendant’s case being classified as pending, the defendant does not have the right to a direct appeal. The defendant must helplessly serve prison time without any idea as …

The Death Penalty Standard That Won’T Die: The Georgia Supreme Court Maintains The Highest Possible Standard Of Proof For The Mentally Disabled, Alyssa Ledoux

Mercer Law Review

Several serious issues arise when applying the death penalty to the mentally disabled. First, the social purposes served by the death penalty, retribution and deterrence, are questionable when it comes to the mentally disabled. Retribution by execution is reserved for those at the highest level of culpability or the highest level of conscious and depraved guilt. Likewise, execution is viewed as an effective deterrent on cold calculus that is not found in individuals with a mental disability.

Second, challenges the disabled face, such as the tendency to falsely confess, the lesser ability to present a persuasive showing of mitigating factors, …

Fostering Equity And Accountability In Georgia’S Criminal Legal System Through Conviction Integrity Reforms, E. Addison Gantt, Meagan R. Hurley

Mercer Law Review

An often-quoted excerpt from Berger v. United States sums up the role of a prosecutor in the criminal legal system. The context is the federal system, but it applies across the board. It begins by explaining the duty of a prosecutor: to represent the sovereign, “whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”2 Then, it turns to the real-world application of that role, instructing that prosecutors should present their cases with …

A Felicitous Meme: The Eleventh Circuit Solves The Preiser Puzzle?, Lisa N. Beckmann, Arthur O. Brown

Mercer Law Review

This Article is about a legal phenomenon known as the Preiser Puzzle. More precisely, the article concerns a possible solution to the Preiser Puzzle articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In part, this Article has a descriptive aim: The Authors will explain the Eleventh Circuit’s solution both in the abstract (this section, below), and by giving issue–specific examples in section three that may prove useful to practitioners. Important issues at present include: (a) challenges to parole procedures, (b) method of execution challenges, and (c) requests for release from administrative segregation. Yet this Article also …

Keeping Guns In The Hands Of Abusive Partners: Prosecutorial And Judicial Subversion Of Federal Firearms Laws, Bonnie Carlson

Articles

State actors are imbued with the power of the government to enforce and apply the law. When they use that power to instead inhibit a law’s enforcement, they are engaging in subversion. Subversion is problematic on its face: it frustrates legislative intent, creates confusion, and destabilizes the separation of powers foundational to our democracy. But subversion is particularly insidious when it is done to the detriment of vulnerable individuals. That is the case when state prosecutors and judges purposefully undermine federal law intended to keep firearms out of the hands of abusive partners. Guns and domestic violence can be a …

If The Mask Fits: The Unconstitutionality Of Face Masks In Criminal Trials During Covid-19, Nicole Morrison

Mercer Law Review

Society, and certainly the courts, did not have time to prepare and adapt to the unprecedented COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic before the effects of the pandemic swept through the nation. The first coronavirus case within the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. The coronavirus spread at an alarming rate, and by March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus a pandemic. Just two days later, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, declared a National Emergency. By January 10, 2021, the United States faced 21,761,186 cumulative cases and 365,886 total deaths from the coronavirus.

In …