Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Expert In The Box: Keeping The Lid On Unchallenged Testimony, Derek L. Busch

Georgia Criminal Law Review

A juror with specialized knowledge carries the potential to infringe upon the trial rights of the accused, provided to them by the Sixth Amendment and incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. These rights include the right to an impartial jury and the right of confrontation, recognized since the founding of the first colonies. When a juror possesses relevant professional expertise or background information regarding evidence adduced at trial, there is a risk in how the juror will use this personal knowledge in deliberations. Particularly, there is a concern the juror will use their knowledge to add information, rather …

Robbing The Cradle: Georgia's Battle To Enact "Raise The Age" Legislation Through Hb 462, Elizabeth Hammond

Georgia Criminal Law Review

In the state of Georgia, seventeen-year-olds are not old enough under the law to vote or consume alcohol and tobacco products. Despite this, they are old enough to be criminally tried as adults. Georgia is one of three states that continues to process seventeen-year-old juvenile offenders through the criminal justice system instead of juvenile court. In September 2023, forty-five juveniles were prosecuted as adults and incarcerated in Georgia prisons. This is significant because juvenile offenders experience better outcomes when they are processed through the juvenile court system because juvenile courts account for a youth’s “naturally high capacity for change and …

The Shadow Pandemic: The Response To Domestic Violence In The Wake Of Covid-19 And What We Can Carry Forward, Presley Sneed

Georgia Criminal Law Review

When the COVID-19 virus brought the pandemic to the United States in March of 2020, the legal system was not prepared for the increase in domestic and intimate partner violence that would follow. The United Nations (UN) later identified this social phenomenon as a second pandemic, a “shadow pandemic” that resulted from an increase in stay-at-home orders and a decrease in support services for victims. By the end of 2021, forty-five percent of women globally reported either they themselves or a woman they know had experienced some form of domestic or intimate partner violence since the emergence of COVID-19. One …

Time To Put Down Iq Testing: Analyzing The Unreliability Of Iq Testing In Capital Offenses, Nik Giyanani

Georgia Criminal Law Review

Georgia sentences individuals with intellectual disability (“ID”) to death at an alarming rate. As a result, Georgia has likely executed individuals with ID in violation of the United States Constitution already. These unjust executions are a result of the impossibly high “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof that capital defendants in only Georgia must meet to prove they are intellectually disabled. One large hurdle for defendants attempting to meet this standard is the unreliability of IQ testing. IQ testing, a soft science, provides inconsistent results due to ever-changing variables in the testing process. Additionally, the generally accepted threshold IQ …

The Confined Life: Restrictions On Post-Conviction Sex Offenders Meets Habeas Corpus's "In Custody" Requirement, Christian Futch

Georgia Criminal Law Review

Clements v. Florida is a recent Eleventh Circuit decision holding that the court could not hear the habeas petition of a post-conviction sex offender in Florida since he failed to meet the “in custody” requirement for filing a habeas petition. However, the Eleventh Circuit did not consider the land restrictions in place against the petitioner and other sex offenders in Florida. This decision may leave sex offenders without an avenue to challenge the restrictions in place against them. Such restrictions have led to homelessness and poverty leaving sex offenders with no place to work or live, in poverty, as outcasts …

Directing Unconstitutional Verdicts: When Judges Become Jurors On Self-Defense, Anjali Pathmanathan

Georgia Criminal Law Review

The right to self-defense is one of the oldest and most universal concepts in Anglo-American criminal law and criminal procedure. Under this defense, an accused person, who honestly believed that using force was necessary to protect themself from imminent danger, did nothing criminal even if another person was harmed as a result. To assert self-defense at trial, however, the accused must admit to intentionally committing the forceful acts alleged to explain how they only used such force to save themself from immediate harm. Once an accused has made such a grave admission, the jury must consider whether the force was …

Confession And Confrontation, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The constitutional law of confessions has a critical blind spot. In theory, the law serves two interests. First, it protects the autonomy of suspects by stipulating that they can be questioned while in custody only with their consent. Second, it restrains official misconduct by forbidding interrogation methods that overbear a suspect's will. Even if the law adequately safeguards those interests, something is missing: reliability. As false confessions emerge as a major source of wrongful convictions and as social scientists expose how standard interrogation tactics prompt innocent people to confess, the Supreme Court and conventional wisdom insist that the reliability of …

Absolutely Unnecessary Immunity, Eileen R. Prescott

Scholarly Works

Prosecutors, like judges, cannot be sued for their professional misconduct in most jurisdictions. As long as their actions are sufficiently tied to their job duties, their actual malice does not matter, even if they had demonstrable malice-a prosecutor could bring baseless charges against an ex-spouse specifically to harass them, with absolute immunity from suit. This immunity allows prosecutors to abuse the power of their office without civil recourse. In theory, absolute immunity aims to protect the office by resolving cases simply and quickly, but in reality, courts get bogged down litigating whether a prosecutor's specific action was sufficiently tied to …

Survey Of Capital Cases In Georgia, Jessica Heywood

Scholarly Works

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 …

Crawford And Criminal Justice, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

This essay reflects on whether Crawford v. Washington, now in its third decade of life, matters to criminal justice. For all the talk of Crawford as “revolutionary,” that is, has it made any real difference to the world of crime and punishment? I’ve confronted the question before. In a 2021 essay, I argued that Crawford probably has modest real-world effects. Crawford articulated a right that criminal defendants can exercise only at trial. In an adjudicatory system bereft of trials, trial rights don’t count for much. They impact plea outcomes only when they confer bargaining power sufficient to offset prosecutors’ …

The Prosecution Bar, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The American legal profession needs a prosecution bar. Before lawyers are permitted to appear for the government in a criminal case, they should be licensed not just to practice law, but to practice prosecution. The two are not the same. Regulating them as if they were fosters injustice and fortifies the carceral state.

“Doing justice” is the orienting creed of prosecutorial ethics, in theory, while on the ground, American prosecutors routinely indulge in unjust practices. This Article argues that prosecutors’ membership in an undifferentiated legal profession is the key to understanding the contradiction. Lawyers’ training, socialization, and professional regulation fixate …

Lifting The Veil Of Mona Lisa: A Multifaceted Investigation Of The "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" Standard, Zhuhao Wang, Eric Zhi

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

For a long period of time, the golden standard in judicial fact-finding of criminal cases in the United States and many other countries has been the “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (BARD) standard – every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless, and until, his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The BARD standard’s undergirding principle is one of error distribution, where wrongful conviction of the innocent is a much greater wrong than failed conviction of the guilty. This concept was famously expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in 1760s: “It is better …

Facebook, Crime Prevention, And The Scope Of The Private Search Post-Carpenter, Connor M. Correll

Georgia Law Review

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The private search doctrine provides a notable exception to the Fourth Amendment, providing that the government may reconstruct a search previously performed by a private party without first obtaining a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court developed the private search doctrine prior to the advent of the internet; however, modern technology has changed the way that individuals live. What was once done entirely in private is now done alongside ever-present third parties, such as cell phones and virtual assistants.

Facebook and other social media sites complicate Fourth …

The Informed Jury, Daniel Epps, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The right to a criminal jury trial is a constitutional disappointment. Cases almost never make it to a jury because of plea bargaining. In the few cases that do, the jury is relegated to a narrow factfinding role that denies it normative voice or the ability to serve as a meaningful check on excessive punishment.

One simple change could situate the jury where it belongs, at the center of the criminal process. The most important thing juries do in criminal cases is authorize state punishment. But today, when a jury returns a guilty verdict, it authorizes punishment without any idea …

Suspicionless Policing, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

The tragic death of Elijah McClain—a twenty-three-year-old, slightly built, unarmed African American male who was walking home along a sidewalk when he was accosted by three Aurora, Colorado police officers—epitomizes the problems with policing that have become a prominent topic of national conversation. Embedded within far too many police organizations is a culture that promotes aggressive investigative behaviors and a disregard for individual liberties. Incentivized by a Supreme Court that has, over the course of several decades, empowered the police with expansive powers, law enforcement organizations have often tested—and crossed—the constitutional limits of their investigative authorities. And too often it …

Moving From Policies To Performance: Complexities And Evidence, Patrick J. Keenan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Making The Optimistic Case For Policing Reform: Police As Partners And Reform As True To Democratic Values And America's Vision Of Itself, Dr. Ihsan Alkhatib

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Safety Inside And Out: Why International Human Rights Standards Fail To Curb The Worst Excesses Of Police Policies And Practices, Dr. Mary O'Rawe

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

How Police Culture Shapes Use Of Lethal Force: A Response To Flores Et Al., Dr. Tara Lai Quinlan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Global Impunity: How Police Laws & Policies In The World's Wealthiest Countries Fail International Human Rights Standards, Claudia Flores, Brian Citro, Nino Guruli, Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, Chelsea Kehrer, Hannah Abrahams

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Confrontation In The Age Of Plea Bargaining, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

A defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him is a cornerstone of our adversarial system of criminal justice. Or is it? Under current law, defendants can invoke their confrontation right only by going to trial. But trials account for about five percent of criminal convictions. That means that the overwhelming majority of defendants convicted in the United States never get to exercise their constitutional right to confront the government’s witnesses. This Essay argues that the Supreme Court should align its Confrontation Clause jurisprudence with the reality of contemporary criminal justice. The Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right …

Speak Up, Or Not: Lack Of Freedom Of Speech Protection In Vietnam, Its Global Impact, And Proposed Solutions For Adequate Remedies, H. Grant Doan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

International Impact Of The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use Of Data (Cloud) Act And Suggested Amendments To Improve Foreign Relations, Jordan A. Klumpp

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Truth And Justice Vs. The Integrity Of The Family Unit: Family Members' Testimonies From A Comparative And Normative Viewpoint, Dr. Guy Ben-David

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

You Made Gideon A Promise, Eh?: Advocating For Mandated Publicly Appointed Counsel At Bail Hearings In The United States Through Domestic Comparisons With Canadian Practices And Legal Considerations, Lauren Elizabeth Lisauskas

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Defense Issues At The International Criminal Court, Megan A. Fairlie

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Confronting Memory Loss, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgia Law Review

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment grants
“the accused” in “all criminal prosecutions” a right “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him.” A particular
problem occurs when there is a gap in time between the
testimony that is offered and the cross-examination of it, as
where—pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption—
evidence of a current witness’s prior statement is offered and,
for some intervening reason, her current memory is impaired.
Does this fatally affect the opportunity to “confront” the
witness? The U.S. Supreme Court has, to date, left unclear the
extent to which a memory-impaired witness can …

Heating Up And Cooling Down: Modifying The Provocation Defense By Expanding Cooling Time, Ariel J. Pinsky

Georgia Law Review

This Note argues for expanding the provocation
defense for criminal defendants by broadening the
applicability and recognition of both cooling time and
rekindling. This expansion can be accomplished by
transforming cooling time and rekindling into subjective
standards that focus on the unique internal and external
qualities of the defendant. Doing so would not only be
consistent with the underlying purpose of the defense but
also appropriate considering our modern understanding
of the psychological effects of trauma and reactivity to
provoking stimuli. Accordingly, courts should practice
leniency with respect to cooling time and rekindling. The
best approach to provocation is one …

Pretrial Detention Of Indigents: A Standard Analysis Of Due Process And Equal Protection Claims, Robert William G. Wright

Georgia Law Review

Over the past several years, criminal justice activists
have sought to reform misdemeanor bail policies that
condition pretrial release on an arrestee’s ability to pay
a predetermined cash bond. Activists have challenged
such bail polices by filing lawsuits on behalf on indigent
persons who have been exposed to such policies. Often,
these lawsuits allege that bail policies violate both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. While due process and equal
protection analyses are generally well-defined, U.S.
Supreme Court precedent does not offer a clear analysis
for courts to apply to due process and equal protection …

The Meaning Of A Misdemeanor In A Post-Ferguson World: Evaluating The Reliability Of Prior Conviction Evidence, John D. King

Georgia Law Review

Despite evidence that America’s low-level courts are
overburdened, unreliable, and structurally biased,
sentencing judges continue to uncritically consider a
defendant’s criminal history in fashioning an
appropriate punishment. Misdemeanor courts lack
many of the procedural safeguards that are thought to
ensure accuracy and reliability. As with other stages of
the criminal justice system, people of color and poor
people are disproportionately burdened with the
inaccuracies of the misdemeanor system.
This Article examines instances in which sentencing
courts have looked behind the mere fact of a prior
conviction and assessed whether that prior conviction
offered any meaningful insight for the subsequent
sentence. …