Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Jury In The 21st Century: An Interdisciplinary Conference: Introduction, Susan Herman, Lawerence M. Solan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Convicting The Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Some Lessons About Jury Instructions From The Sheppard Case, Lawrence Solan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure: Tenth Circuit Erroneously Allows Officers' Intentions To Define Reasonable Searches: United States V. Carey, Jim Dowell

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, William J. Dinkin, Cullen D. Seltzer

University of Richmond Law Review

Because a large amount of the docket for the Court of Appeals of Virginia is comprised of criminal cases, and since the General Assembly regularly turns its attention to the questions of crime and punishment, in almost any year there are a great number of substantial developments in the criminal law. This past year was no exception. This article surveys developments in criminal law and procedure in Virginia from July 2000 to July 2001. Although this article is intended to survey significant developments over the past year, the reader is cautioned to bear in mind several important caveats.

It’S All About What You Know: The Specific Intent Standard Should Govern "Knowing" Violations Of The Clean Water Act, Randall S. Abate, Dayna E. Mancuso

Journal Publications

Part I of this Article examines the historical and conceptual foundations of the specific intent standard as applied both outside and within the environmental law context. Part II addresses the historical and conceptual foundations of the general intent standard, also outside and within the environmental law context. Part III reviews the history of the conflict between application of the specific intent and general intent standards in prosecutions for knowing violations of the Clean Water Act. Part IV presents arguments that support application of the specific intent standard to knowing violation cases under section 309(c)(2)(A) of the CWA. Part V analyzes …

Strickler V. Greene: Preventing Injustice By Preserving The Coherent "Reasonable Probability" Standard To Resolve Issues Of Prejudice In Brady Violation Cases, Corinne M. Nastro

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Burch V. State: Maintaining The Jury's Traditional Role As The Voice Of The Community In Capital Punishment Cases, Carrie A. Dannenfelser

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Future Dangerousness In Capital Cases: Always "At Issue", John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who, if not sentenced to death, will remain in prison with no chance of parole is constitutionally entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the fact, but only if the prosecution engages in conduct that places the defendant's future dangerousness "at issue." Based on data collected from interviews with South Carolina capital jurors, Professors Blume, Garvey and Johnson argue that future dangerousness is on the minds of most capital jurors, and is thus "at issue" in virtually all capital trials, regardless of the prosecution's conduct. Accordingly, the authors argue that …

The Deadly Paradox Of Capital Jurors, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We examine support for the death penalty among a unique group of respondents: one hundred and eighty-seven citizens who actually served as jurors on capital trials in South Carolina. Capital jurors support the death penalty as much as, if not more than, members of the general public. Yet capital jurors, like poll respondents, harbor doubts about the penalty's fairness. Moreover, jurors--black jurors and Southern Baptists in particular--are ready to abandon their support for the death penalty when the alternative to death is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, especially when combined with a requirement of restitution. Support for the …

Does Apprendi V. New Jersey Change The Standard Of Proof In Criminal Forfeiture Cases?, Stefan D. Cassella

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Informing Capital Juries About Parole: The Effect On Life Or Death Decisions, C. Lindsey Morrill

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sporting Approach To Harmless Error: The Supreme Court's "No Harm, No Foul" Debacle In Neder V. United States, Linda Carter

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

White House Anti-Drug Policy: Statutory And Constitutional Implications, Ariel Berschadsky

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Alan Isaacman And The First Amendment: A Candid Interview With Larry Flynt's Attorney, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dna Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, David H. Kaye, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Faculty Scholarship

DNA typing has had a major impact on the criminal justice system. There are hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases dealing with DNA evidence. Yet, at virtually every stage of the process, there are important issues that are just emerging or that have been neglected.

At the investigative stage, courts have barely begun to focus on the legal limitations on the power of the police to obtain samples directly from suspects and to use the data from DNA samples in various ways. Issues such as the propriety of "DNA dragnets" (in which large numbers of individuals in a geographic …

Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5

Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Over the years, Miranda v. Arizona1 has been criticized both for going too far2 and for not going far enough.3 Nevertheless, on the basis of talks with many criminal procedure professors in the sixteen months between the time a panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld a statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501) purporting to "overrule" Miranda and a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court overturned that ruling in the case of Dickerson v. United States,4 I am convinced that most criminal procedure professors wanted the Supreme Court to do what it did-"reaffirm" Miranda. This is not surprising. As Professor Grano once …

A Suggestion On Suggestion, Richard D. Friedman, Stephen J. Ceci

Articles

Part I of the full article briefly describes the history and current slate of research into children's suggestibility. In this part, we argue that, although psychological researchers disagree considerably over the degree to which he suggestibility of young children may lead to false allegations of sexual abuse, there is an overwhelming consensus that children are suggestible to a degree that, we believe, must be regarded as significant. In presenting this argument, we respond to the contentions of revisionist scholars, particularly those recently expressed by Professor Lyon. We show that there is good reason to believe the use of highly suggestive …

Jury Selection Errors On Appeal, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Allocution For Victims Of Economic Crimes, Jayne W. Barnard

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Tales Out Of School--Spillover Confessions And Against-Interest Statements Naming Others, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Law And The Limits Of Sovereignty: The Private Prison In Jurisprudential Perspective, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …

Fatal Attraction? The Uneasy Courtship Of Brady And Plea Bargaining, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article discusses the natural attraction between Brady-a rule requiring disclosure of evidence favorable to a defendant-and plea bargaining-a practice where such information is at a premium for defendants. Part II describes how an increasing number of courts have adapted Brady to fit in the world of a plea bargain, in the process changing Brady's point of reference from the jury's verdict to the defendant's tactical decision to plead guilty. Part ill argues that this change in focus narrows Brady's substantive coverage and renders the rule practically unenforceable following most guilty pleas. Part IV then assesses the …

Miranda In Comparative Law, Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

Not only have the Miranda warnings become a recognized procedure in police interrogations in the United States, but they have been adopted or strengthened over the years in formerly inquisitorial countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and most recently France, and are now recognized as having constitutional status. This article discusses the protections afforded to criminal suspects and defendants overseas when faced with interrogation by police, prosecutors, investigating magistrates or judges of the investigation. It compares the admonitions given to such suspects with those provided in the Miranda decision and discusses their constitutional, or statutory status. It further discusses when such …

Why A Federal Death Penalty Moratorium?, Rory K. Little

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mapp Goes Abroad, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Apprendi V. New Jersey: Back To The Future?, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Look Who's Extrapolating: A Reply To Hoffmann, Valerie West, Jeffery Fagan, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

In late March, a reporter called with news of a pirated copy of Professor Joseph Hoffinann's soon-to-be-published "attack" on our study, A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995. Did we care to comment? Obtaining our own copy revealed that Professor Hoffmann's fusillade missed its mark (he misstates what we did) and boomeranged (his mischaracterizations of our analysis accurately describe his own). We do care to comment, and Hoffmann and the Indiana Law Journal have graciously let us do so.

Hoffmann's main claim is that we "extrapolated" the 68% rate of reversible error we reported for capital verdicts …

An "Effective Death Penalty"? Aedpa And Error Detection In Capital Cases, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

On June 11, 2001, the United States of America executed Timothy McVeigh. Dwarfed among the many unspeakable evils that Mr. McVeigh wrought is a speakable one I will address here, namely, the so-called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA").

Abbreviated, AEDPA's political history is as follows: In November 1994, the "Gingrich Congress" was elected on its Contract with America platform. One of the planks of that platform – one of the few that actually ended up passing Congress – was the so-called "Effective Death Penalty Act." That proposal had little to do with the death penalty and, …