Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Order, Technology And The Constitutional Meanings Of Criminal Procedure, Thomas P. Crocker

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Physician Participation In Executions, The Morality Of Capital Punishment, And The Practical Implications Of Their Relationship, Paul J. Litton

Faculty Publications

Evidence that some executed prisoners suffered excruciating pain has reinvigorated the ethical debate about physician participation in lethal injections. In widely publicized litigation, death row inmates argue that the participation of anesthesiologists in their execution is constitutionally required to minimize the risk of unnecessary suffering. For many years, commentators supported the ethical ban on physician participation reflected in codes of professional medical organizations. However, a recent wave of scholarship concurs with inmate advocates, urging the law to require or at least permit physician participation.

Judges Talking To Jurors In Criminal Cases: Why U.S. Judges Do It So Differently From Just About Everyone Else, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Screws Up The Science: There Is No Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome “Scientific” Controversy, Joelle A. Moreno, Brian Holmgren

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Blanket Retroactive Amelioration: A Remedy For Disproportionate Punishments, S. David Mitchell

Faculty Publications

While statutes determine the conditions under which an individual is to be held accountable for their actions and identifies the punishment that shall attach to that conduct, they are not engraved in stone. Laws can and are changed. Legislatures will revisit whether a penalty is too harsh (or too lenient), and amend an existing statute to reflect the legislature’s evaluation of what is contemporaneously appropriate. This re-evaluation of a statutory punishment is ongoing assessment to determine whether the punishment is proportional to the conduct. Blanket retroactive amelioration allows society to correct overly harsh, overreactions and to restore the balance between …

Anchors Away: Why The Anchoring Effect Suggests That Judges Should Be Able To Participate In Plea Discussions, Colin Miller

Faculty Publications

The “anchoring effect” is a cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point – an anchor – and adjusting up or down from that anchor. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than 90% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all …

Reflections Of A First-Time Expert Witness, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

On January 2, 2013, I testified as an expert witness at a sentencing hearing in federal district court. It was my first time being qualified as an expert, and my only time testifying in court in any capacity. A couple of months earlier, I had been contacted by an Assistant Federal Public Defender (AFPD) who asked if I’d be interested in being retained as an expert. She was handling the sentencing of a man convicted of child pornography possession, receipt, and transportation, and had read my work criticizing the development of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provisions for these offenses. …

Freeing Morgan Freeman: Expanding Back-End Release Authority In American Prisons, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This article, written for a symposium hosted by the Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy on “Finality in Sentencing,” makes four arguments, three general and one specific. First, the United States incarcerates too many people for too long, and mechanisms for making prison sentences less “final” will allow the U.S. to make those sentences shorter, thus reducing the prison population surplus. Second, even if one is agnostic about the overall size of the American prison population, it is difficult to deny that least some appreciable fraction of current inmates are serving more time than can reasonably be justified on …

The Incredible Shrinking Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Sharp turns in the Supreme Court’s recent Confrontation Clause jurisprudence have left scholars reeling from conflicting emotions: exhilaration, despair, denial, and soon, perhaps, cynical acceptance. While most commentators celebrated the demise of the incoherent Ohio v. Roberts framework, their excitement largely faded as the Court’s decisions in Davis v. Washington and Bryant v. Michigan revealed nascent flaws in the evolving doctrine and sharply curtailed the newly revitalized confrontation right.

Recent scholarship strives to reanimate the jurisprudence by expanding the doctrinal definition of “testimonial” statements – the sole form of evidence that the Court now recognizes as implicating the Confrontation Clause. …

Applying Crawford's Confrontation Right In A Digital Age, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Editor's Observations: It's Alive! The Federal Booker-Fix Debate Sirs, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

Seven years have passed since Justice Ginsburg do-si-doed from the merits majority to the remedial majority in Booker and transformed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines into an advisory system.' And despite the logical absurdity of the Scalian Sixth Amendment doctrine that produced this outcome,' and despite the expectation of folks like me that this marriage of fish and fowl could not long survive, it survives. What is more, a great many people whose opinion matters now claim to love it-or at least to like it well enough to want to keep it for the foreseeable future. Thus, the outburst of legislative …

Panel On Prosecutorial Immunity: Deconstructing Connick V. Thompson, Dane Ciolino, Gary Clements, Bennett L. Gershman, Adam M. Gershowitz, Kathleen Ridolfi, Samuel R. Wiseman, Stephen Singer

Faculty Publications

In November 2011, the Journal hosted a symposium on prosecutorial immunity at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. The symposium included an in-depth analysis of Connick v. Thompson. As part of the symposium, the Journal organized a Panel, the transcript of which follows. This transcript consists of the speakers' remarks along with audience participation and questions. The Journal has attempted to preserve the character and substance of the discussion. While this is not a traditional article, the Journal felt that it would be fitting to include it in its spring volume.

Nothing Is Not Enough: Fix The Absurd Post-Booker Federal Sentencing System, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This article is an elaboration of testimony I gave in February 2012 at a U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing considering whether the advisory guidelines system created by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker should be modified or replaced. I argue that it should.

Is Texas Tough On Crime But Soft On Criminal Procedure?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Although Texas is well known for imposing tough punishments on convicted defendants, it is surprisingly generous in affording criminal procedure protections. In a variety of areas, including search and seizure rules, confession requirements, the availability of bail, prosecutorial discovery obligations, and jury trial guarantees, Texas affords protections vastly in excess of what is required by the United States Constitution. Even more shocking, these criminal procedure guarantees come almost entirely from Texas statutes approved by the legislature, not activist rules imposed by judges. This Article explores Texas's reputation as a tough-on-crime state and the seeming inconsistency between Texas being tough on …

The Conscience And Culture Of Prosecution: An Introduction, Anna Offit

Faculty Publications

Introduction to a symposium issue: "an interdisciplinary conversation between a filmmaker, former prosecutors, law professors, defense attorneys, and graduate students. Several questions prompted this gathering: First, do prosecutors have a distinctive legal 'culture'? What are the shared assumptions that define it? And how do those assumptions synchronize or conflict with the behaviors we deem ethical?"

Rethinking Voir Dire, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Bargaining Inside The Black Box, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

When jurors are presented with a menu of criminal verdict options and they cannot reach a consensus among them, what should they do? Available evidence suggests they are prone to compromise—that is, jurors will negotiate with each other and settle on a verdict in the middle, often on a lesser-included offense. The suggestion that jurors compromise is not new; it is supported by empirical evidence, well-accepted by courts and commentators, and unsurprising given the pressure jurors feel to reach agreement and the different individual views they likely hold. There are, however, some who say intrajury negotiation represents a failure of …

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

Faculty Publications

My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys—and this is what the proponents of a duty to vet …

Simplifying Discovery And Production: Using Easy Frameworks To Evaluate The 2009 Term Of Cases, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Sentencing, Drugs, And Prisons: A Lesson From Ohio, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Prison overcrowding has become a familiar story. Current data shows that more than 1 in 100 adults in America—over 2 million people—are incarcerated, earning the United States the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. It should not be a surprise, therefore, that state and federal prisons are reaching and exceeding capacity. Nor should it be a shock that drug offenders take up many of the beds in those overcapacity prisons. Relative to other crimes, drug sentencing in the United States has been increasingly harsh since the 1970s, and the prison population is feeling the effects …

Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction In Kansas, John J. Francis, Stacy L. Leeds, Aliza Organick, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Federal Indian Law is frequently described as a jurisdictional quagmire. Depending on the unique history of a given tribe, the extent to which the tribe has retained a territorial boundary or contiguous land-base, and depending on a tribe’s geographic location, a different mix of exclusive or concurrent tribal, state, federal jurisdiction will result. Moreover, the practical realities on the ground often result in one sovereign entity exercising more or less power than the law on the books might otherwise suggest.

In the criminal law context, tribal–state–federal jurisdiction generally rests on the three premises: (1) tribes retain inherent authority to …

What's Happening With Child Pornography Sentencing?, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

On August 26, 2011, the United States Sentencing Commission posted the letters received in response to its request for public comment on its proposed sentencing priorities. Numbered fifth on its list of ten proposed priorities is child pornography sentencing. Among the authors of the public comment letters are the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Public Defender, public defenders and other practitioners from the larger legal community, advocacy groups such as Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and non-attorney citizens. Depending on the particular author, the focus of concern regarding child pornography sentences ranged from questioning the severity of the punishment …

Communicating Substance, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Now that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has more responsibility than ever to convince sentencing judges of the legitimacy of the Guidelines’ advice. During their mandatory period, the Guidelines enjoyed a captive set of followers—district judges who had limited choices for departing from the applicable Guidelines ranges, even when those judges were unhappy with the sentencing options before them. However, given the freedom that comes with the Guidelines’ current advisory form, sentencing judges are increasingly departing from the applicable Guidelines ranges. Although district judges still are required to calculate and consider the Sentencing Guidelines …

An Overview Of The Capital Jury Project For Military Practitioners: Aggravation, Mitigation, And Admission Defenses, Eric R. Carpenter

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"Fact-Finding Without Facts": A Conversation With Nancy Combs, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Ethical Guidance For A Grander Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Publications

Section I of this Note explores the extent to which the American Bar Association (ABA) Practice Guide, and similar major ethical conventions and advisory opinions, present competing interpretations of the grand jury's role in the criminal justice system. The lack of prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence, grand jury secrecy, and the abundance of plea negotiations demonstrate how historicized visions of the grand jury are appropriated to serve distinct conceptions of the institution's proper role. Section II offers a historical narrative of the grand jury that places grand jurors' "local knowledge" and experience at the heart of an inherently interpretive and …

Deciding When To Decide: How Appellate Procedure Distributes The Costs Of Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Legal change is a fact of life, and the need to deal with it has spawned a number of complicated bodies of doctrine. Some aspects of the problem of legal change have been studied extensively, such as doctrines concerning the retroactivity of new law and the question whether inferior courts can anticipatorily overrule a moribund superior court precedent. How such questions are answered affects the size and the distribution of the costs of legal change. Less appreciated is the way that heretofore almost invisible matters of appellate procedure and case handling also allocate the costs of legal transitions. In particular, …

The State (Never) Rests: How Excessive Prosecutor Caseloads Harm Criminal Defendants, Adam M. Gershowitz, Laura R. Killinger

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Prolegomenon On The Status Of The Hopey, Changey Thing In American Criminal Justice, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This is an introductory essay to Volume 23, Number 2, of the FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER, which considers the state of American criminal justice policy in 2010, two years after the "Change" election of 2008. Part I of the essay paints a statistical picture of trends in federal criminal practice and sentencing over the last half-decade or so, with particular emphasis on sentence severity and the degree of regional and inter-judge sentencing disparity. The statistics suggest that the expectation that the 2005 Booker decision would produce a substantial increase in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and a progressive abandonment of …

Is Punishment Relevant After All? A Prescription For Informing Juries Of The Consequence Of Conviction, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

The American jury, once heralded as “the great corrective of law in its actual administration,” has suffered numerous setbacks in the modern era. As a result, jurors have largely become bystanders in a criminal justice system that relies on increasingly severe punishments to incarcerate tens of thousands of offenders each year. The overwhelming majority of cases are resolved short of trial and, even when trials occur, jurors are instructed to find only the facts necessary for legal guilt. Apart from this narrow task, jurors need not, in the eyes of the law, concern themselves with whether a conviction and subsequent …