Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Tip-Based Warrantless Searches And Seizures Under The Rubric Of The Investigativedetention Exception To The Warrant Requirement: What Law Enforcementpersonnel Must Understand About Exclusion And Training, Brian Decker

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Useful, Dangerous Fiction Of Grand Jury Independence, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Loose Not The Floodgates, Benjamin J. Cooper

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, arguing that while the ruling was necessary, it raises concerns about the broader regulation of sexual conduct outside marriage. The author contends that such laws, despite rare enforcement, serve societal functions, including protecting marriage and providing moral boundaries that deter harmful behavior, particularly among young people.

Lawrence V. Texas: When "Profound And Deep Convictions" Collide With Liberty Interests, Nancy J. Knauer

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and invalidated a Texas sodomy law criminalizing same-sex intimacy. The author argues that Lawrence not only advanced individual liberty interests but also marked a significant shift in the legal and cultural recognition of homosexuality, moving beyond earlier frameworks that criminalized or marginalized gay individuals. The decision reflects broader societal changes in understanding same-sex relationships and challenges the use of moral disapproval as a basis for legal restrictions on consensual adult conduct.

The Shag-A-Delic Supreme Court: "Anal Sex," "Mystery," "Destiny," And The "Transcendent" In Lawrence V. Texas, Richard D. Mohr

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article critiques Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas for its lack of clarity and robust constitutional framework. While the decision overturned Texas's sodomy law, the author argues that Kennedy's reasoning conflated liberty and equality rights, relied on vague language, and failed to establish a clear legal standard, undermining its potential to provide strong protection for LGBTQ+ rights.

Challenging Dissent: The Ontology And Logic Of Lawrence V. Texas, Jami Weinstein, Tobyn Demarco

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated a Texas antisodomy statute criminalizing homosexual conduct. The Court held that the statute failed rational basis review and rejected the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality as a legitimate state interest. The decision reflects a broader recognition of the fundamental right to make autonomous, private, consensual, adult sexual choices. The analysis critiques Justice Scalia's dissent, arguing that his fears about the end of morals legislation are unfounded and that laws based solely on moral disapproval lack a rational basis.

Victims' Rights Amendment…Who Is The Real Victim?, Alexis Reed

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Missed-Conduct, Patti Sudendorf

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

A Death Sentence For Justice: The Feeney Amendment Frustrates Federal Sentencing, Patrice Stappert

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Righting Victim Wrongs: Responding To Philosophical Criticisms Of The Nonspecific Victim Liability Defense, Aya Gruber

Publications

Modern criminal law is intensely one-sided in its treatment of victims and defendants. Crime victims and criminal defendants do not enter the trial process on an equal moral footing. Rather, from the beginning victims are assumed blameless, truthful, and even beyond doubt, while defendants are guilty, not worthy of credence, and immoral. This one-sided view of victims, however, is a fiction. As any other people, victims differ in their characterizations. Some are indeed trustworthy, truthful, blameless and ultimately innocent. Others, however, are bad actors themselves, have memory failures, falsely identify, provoke, and even lie. Some victims are in fact, and …

No Provincial Or Transient Notion: The Need For A Mistake Of Age Defense In Child Rape Prosecutions, Jarrod F. Reich

Articles

No abstract provided.

Drug-Detection Dogs, Traffic Stops, And The Fourth Amendment, Michael J. Fields

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preface, Tanina Rostain, Donald H. Zeigler

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Material Witness Statute Post September 11: Why It Should Not Include Grand Jury Witnesses, Robert Boyle

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Langford, Amy Garzon

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tip-Based Warrantless Searches And Seizures Under The Rubric Of The Investigativedetention Exception To The Warrant Requirement: What Law Enforcementpersonnel Must Understand About Exclusion And Training, Brian Decker

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

America's War On Drugs And Guns: The Detriments Of The Possessionstandard In The Context Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Christan C. Rhoton

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

America's "War on Drugs" has resulted in federal legislation and sentencing guidelines that provide harsh penalties for crimes involving both drugs and guns. In particular, Title 18, Section 924(c)(1)(A) of the United States Code, which applies specifically to guns in the context of drug-related offenses, establishes mandatory punishments, ranging from five years to ten years imprisonment, depending upon the defendant's use or possession of the firearm. Congress amended Section 924 to include the term "possession" several years after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States. The United States Supreme Court interpreted the "use" requirement of Section …

The Burdens Of Representing The Accused In An Age Of Harsh Punishment, Abbe Smith

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The crimes are not any worse than they used to be. They run, as crimes do, from the banal to the barbarous. But punishment seems to have taken on a life of its own.

There are people serving more than twenty years for nonviolent drug offenses. There are people serving more than thirty years for car theft, burglary, and unarmed robbery--crimes for which a harsh sentence used to be ten years. One Oklahoma woman is serving a thirty-five year sentence for "till-tapping"--stealing money out of cash registers--when she was in the throes of a heroin addiction. It is impossible to …

Yale Kamisar: Collaborator, Colleague, And Friend, Jesse H. Choper

Michigan Law Review

Yale Kamisar was absent when I was first interviewed by a number of faculty members from the University of Minnesota Law School where he was then teaching. These sessions took place between Christmas and New Year's in 1959 (when I was a third-year student at Penn), at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, that year in St. Louis. Yale had planned to be there, I was told, but cancelled because he was behind schedule in completing an article. So while I didn't meet him on that occasion, I surely learned what would ring familiar many times …

Yale Kamisar: Warrior Scholar, Francis A. Allen

Michigan Law Review

My association with Yale Kamisar dates back to the 1950s. At that time I became aware of the interesting publications of a young faculty member at the University of Minnesota. The articles were well done, most of them dealing with the Supreme Court's notable expansion of constitutional doctrine relating to criminal procedure, then at full tide, a field in which I also was writing. In addition, Yale had published a remarkable article on the subject of euthanasia, impressive for the thoroughness of its research and the clarity and force of its argument. Fortunately, I decided to write to Yale and …

Yale Kamisar: The Enemy Of Injustice, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

In the summer of 1978, Duke Law School hosted a conference in which a variety of speakers offered perspectives on Constitutional Criminal Procedure. One of the speakers argued that the Warren Court's criminal-procedure revolution created a backlash that ultimately made things worse for criminal defendants. In order to dramatize his point, he suggested, "Yale Kamisar is the enemy." When that speaker had finished, the Conference Moderator began his response by stating, "First of all, Yale Kamisar is not the enemy of anything, except injustice."

Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

It is no exaggeration to say that Yale Kamisar was present at the creation of Miranda v. Arizona. To be sure, the seeds of Miranda had been sown in earlier cases, particularly Escobedo v. Illinois, but Escobedo was a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case. Professor Kamisar first saw the potential for extending the theory of Escob edo to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Escob edo theorized that a healthy criminal justice system requires that the accused know their rights and are encouraged to exercise them. The Escobedo Court read history to teach that no system …

Reluctant Participants In Restorative Justice? Youthful Offenders And Their Parents, David R. Karp Phd, Gordon Bazemore

School of Leadership and Education Sciences: Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines offender and parental involvement in the Vermont Juvenile Restorative Panels Program. In this program, juvenile offenders on probation appear before citizen-run boards to negotiate the terms of their probation, which may include apologies, community service, restitution, and competency development tasks. Victims and parents of the offender also participate. This study reports findings from a qualitative analysis of 22 cases, including observations of panel meetings and interviews with program coordinators, offenders, parents, and victims. We find that offenders vary in the level of participation as well as in their willingness to take responsibility. Parents do not understand the …

The Free Speech Coalition & Adult Entertainment: An Inside View Of The Adult Entertainment Industry, Its Leading Advocate & The First Amendment, Clay Calvert, Robert Richards

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Color/Identity/Justice: Chicano Trials (Book Review), Anthony V. Alfieri

Articles

No abstract provided.

Sattazahn V. Pennsylvania: Double Jeopardy And The Definition Of "Acquittal" In Capital-Sentencing Proceedings, Matthew G. Howells

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of American Sentencing: A National Roundtable On Blakely, Ronald J. Allen, Albert Alschuler, Douglas A. Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Frank O. Bowman Iii, Daniel P. Blank, Charles R. Breyer, Steven Chanenson, Michael R. Dreeben, Margareth Etienne, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Patrick Keenan, Joseph E. Kennedy, Nancy J. King, Susan J. Klein, Rory K. Little, Marc L. Miller, J. Bradley O'Connell, David Porter, Kevin R. Reitz, Daniel C. Richman, Kate Stith, Barbara Tombs, Richard B. Walker, Robert Weisberg, Robert F. Wright Jr., Jonathan Wroblewski, David N. Yellen

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the dramatic Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, Stanford Law School convened an assembly of the most eminent academic and professional sentencing experts in the country to jointly assess the meaning of the decision and its implications for federal and state sentencing reform. The event took place on October 8 and 9, just a few months after Blakely came down and the very week that the Supreme Court heard the arguments in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, the cases that will test Blakely's application to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Thus the …

Section 2254(D) Of The Federal Habeas Statute: Is It Beyond Reason?, Evan Tsen Lee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Federal Prosecutors Really Think: The Puzzle Of Statistical Race Disparity Versus Specific Guilt, And The Specter Of Timothy Mcveigh, Rory K. Little

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Double Due Process Denial: The Crime Of Providing Material Support Or Resources To Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.