Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Prosecutors As Punishment Theorists: Seeking Sentencing Justice, Michael A. Simons

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

It is a truism that prosecutors are called not just to win, not just to zealously represent their clients, but rather to "seek justice." What this admonition means in practice, however, is notoriously slippery. Most obviously, it means that prosecutors should not convict (or charge) the innocent. It is also quite commonly understood to mean that prosecutors should "play by the rules" and should ensure that defendants are afforded a fair process. More fundamentally, it means that prosecutors should ensure that the power of the state is wielded judiciously. In other words, the prosecutor has an obligation not just …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Taking Strickland Claims Seriously, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

Every criminal defendant is promised the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Whether at trial or first appeal of right, due process is violated when attorney negligence undermines the fairness and reliability of judicial proceedings. That, at least, is the black-letter law articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984). In practice, however, the right to effective representation has meant surprisingly little over the last two decades. Under the standards that emerged from Strickland, scores of defendants have received prison or death sentences by virtue of serious unprofessional errors committed by their attorneys.

This Essay canvasses a line …

The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling In The Ice Criminal Alien Program, Trevor George Gardner, Aarti Kohli

Scholarship@WashULaw

The goal of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is to improve safety by promoting federal-local partnerships to target serious criminal offenders for deportation. Indeed, the U.S. Congress has made clear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “should have no greater immigration enforcement priority than to remove deportable aliens with serious criminal histories from the United States…” The Warren Institute’s analysis of arrest data pursuant to an ICE-local partnership in Irving, Texas demonstrates that ICE is not following Congress’ mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories.

This study also shows that immediately after Irving, Texas …

The Undiscovered Country: Execution Competency & Comprehending Death, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Case For A Constitutional Right To Counsel In Habeas Corpus, Emily Garcia Uhrig

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Performing Discretion Or Performing Discrimination: Race, Ritual, And Peremptory Challenges In Capital Jury Selection, Melynda J. Price

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Research shows the mere presence of Blacks on capital juries-- on the rare occasions they are seated--can mean the difference between life and death. Peremptory challenges are the primary method to remove these pivotal participants. Batson v. Kentucky developed hearings as an immediate remedy for the unconstitutional removal of jurors through racially motivated peremptory challenges. These proceedings have become rituals that sanction continued bias in the jury selection process and ultimately affect the outcome of capital trials. This Article deconstructs the role of the Batson ritual in legitimating the removal of African American jurors. These perfunctory hearings fail to meaningfully …

Policing, Place, And Race, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Proportional Mens Rea, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

This Essay makes the case for "proportional mens rea," a proportionality-based approach to mens rea selection. Proportional mens rea would provide proportionality safeguards that are otherwise entirely lacking in substantive criminal law and,as a practical matter, unavailable in constitutional law. Creating implied mens rea requirements, where necessary to ensure proportional punishment, is not a judicial usurpation of a legislative function. Rather, it is to take seriously the role that courts play, under both constitutional and substantive criminal law, to ensure that punishment "fits" the crime. Moreover, proportional mens rea would represent a needed counterweight to prosecutorial behavior whereas current doctrine …

Procedural Obstacles To Reviewing Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claims In State And Federal Postconviction Proceedings., Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal postconviction petitions. This is hardly surprising given reports of trial attorneys who refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the day of trial, and fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence offered at trial. Unfortunately, the current structure of indigent defense funding makes it impossible for many public defenders to provide effective representation to their clients.

Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …

Ensuring Defense Counsel Competence At International Criminal Tribunals, Sonja B. Starr

Articles

This article addresses the problem of incompetent representation by defense counsel in international criminal tribunals. According to the author, the ineffectiveness of a particular attorney may be attributable to a number offactors, including a lack of experience with international criminal law, unfamiliarity with the procedures of international criminal tribunals, and the simple failure to be fluent in the languages used by the court. Starr explains that the problem of incompetence persists because of obstacles to the recruitment, retention, and appointment of proficient defense lawyers, as well as the lack of administrative or judicial oversight concerning competence. The author points out …

Commentary: Was The Bill Of Rights Irrelevant To Nineteenth-Century State Criminal Procedure?, Carolyn B. Ramsey

Publications

No abstract provided.

In The Sweat Box: A Historical Perspective On The Detention Of Material Witnesses, Carolyn B. Ramsey

Publications

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department detained scores of allegedly suspicious persons under a federal material witness statute--a tactic that provoked a great deal of controversy. Most critics assume that the abuse of material witness laws is a new development. Yet, rather than being transformed by the War on Terror, the detention of material witnesses is a coercive strategy that police officers across the nation have used since the nineteenth century to build cases against suspects. Fears of extraordinary violence or social breakdown played at most an indirect role in its advent and growth. Rather, it has …

Colorado V. Connelly: What Really Happened, William T. Pizzi

Publications

In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Colorado v. Connelly, a landmark case in due process and fifth amendment law. The case began when Francis Barry Connelly approached a police officer on the street in downtown Denver to confess to having killed a young woman several months earlier in southwest Denver. Because Connelly was suffering from acute schizophrenia and was hearing auditory hallucinations commanding him to confess, state courts suppressed his statements to the police on the grounds (1) that his statements before arrest were involuntary and inadmissible under the due process clause and (2) those statements post-arrest could not …

Clemency In California Capital Cases, Mary-Beth Moylan, Linda Carter

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Herring V. United States: Mapp's "Artless" Overruling?, Michael Vitiello

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Before The Verdict And Beyond The Verdict: The Csi Infection Within Modern Criminal Jury Trials, Tamara F. Lawson

Articles

In criminal law, the term “CSI Effect” commonly refers to the perceived impact the CSI television show has on juror expectation and unexpected jury verdicts. This article coins a new phrase, “CSI Infection,” by focusing on the significant legal impact that the fear of “CSI Infected Jurors” has made upon the criminal justice system. The CSI Infection is the ubiquitous “It” factor that scholars cannot conclusively prove nor effectively explain away; however, practitioners overwhelmingly confirm the CSI Effect’s impact on criminal jury trials. The CSI Effect’s existence, the CSI Effect’s true or perceived impact on acquittals and convictions, and how …

Administrative Detention Of Terrorists: Why Detain, And Detain Whom?, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

This article aims to reframe the administrative detention debate, not to resolve it. In doing so, however, it aspires to advance the discussion by highlighting the critical substantive choices embedded in calls for legal procedural reform and by pointing the way toward appropriately tailored legislative options. It argues that the current debate’s focus on procedural and institutional questions of how to detain suspected terrorists has been allowed to overshadow the questions of why administratively detain, and whom to detain. Not only are the answers to these questions at least as important as the procedural rules in safeguarding and balancing liberty …

A Safe Haven For Nixzmary Brown, Chantal L. Hamlin

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Penalizing Poverty: Making Criminal Defendants Pay For Their Court-Appointed Counsel Through Recoupment And Contribution, Helen A. Anderson

Articles

Over thirty years ago the United States Supreme Court upheld an Oregon statute that allowed sentencing courts, with a number of important procedural safeguards, to impose on indigent criminal defendants the obligation to repay the cost of their court appointed attorneys. The practice of ordering recoupment or contribution (application fees or co-pays) of public defender attorney's fees is widespread, although collection rates are unsurprisingly low.

Developments since the Court's decision in Fuller v. Oregon show that not only is recoupment not cost-effective, but it too easily becomes an aspect of punishment, rather than legitimate cost-recovery. In a number of jurisdictions, …

Rethinking The Federal Role In State Criminal Justice, Joseph L. Hoffmann, Nancy J. King

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Essay argues that federal habeas review of state criminal cases squanders resources the federal government should be using to help states reform their systems of defense representation. A 2007 empirical study reveals that federal habeas review is inaccessible to most state prisoners convicted of non-capital crimes, and offers no realistic hope of relief for those who reach federal court. As a means of correcting or deterring constitutional error in non-capital cases, habeas is failing and cannot be fixed. Drawing upon these findings as well as the Supreme Court's most recent decision applying the Suspension Clause, the authors propose that …

Neoliberal Penality: A Brief Genealogy, Bernard E. Harcourt

Faculty Scholarship

The turn of the twenty first century witnessed important shifts in punishment practices. The most shocking is mass incarceration – the exponential rise in prisoners in state and federal penitentiaries and in county jails beginning in 1973. It is tempting to view these developments as evidence of something new that emerged in the 1970s – of a new culture of control, a new penology, or a new turn to biopower. But it would be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the 1970s since most of the recent trends have antecedents and parallels in the early twentieth century. It …

Post-Modern Meditations On Punishment: On The Limits Of Reason And The Virtues Of Randomization, Bernard E. Harcourt, Alon Harel, Ken Levy, Michael M. O'Hear, Alice Ristroph

Faculty Scholarship

In this Criminal Law Conversation (Robinson, Ferzan & Garvey, eds., Oxford 2009), the authors debate whether there is a role for randomization in the penal sphere - in the criminal law, in policing, and in punishment theory. In his Tanner lectures back in 1987, Jon Elster had argued that there was no role for chance in the criminal law: “I do not think there are any arguments for incorporating lotteries in present-day criminal law,” Elster declared. Bernard Harcourt takes a very different position and embraces chance in the penal sphere, arguing that randomization is often the only way to avoid …

The Continuity Of Justification Defenses, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

This Article presents a legal theory of legal justification. It examines the elements of offense definitions and justification defensesor, more accurately, the conjunctions and disjunctions between these elements-to resolve a longstanding issue in the theory of legal punishment. The unjustified actor who believes she is justified seems to deserve an acquittal, while the justified actor who does not know he is justified seems to deserve conviction. But we face a dilemma: we seem to have to acquit both or convict both. This Article shows a principled way to rule the mistakenly unjustified actor within, and the mistakenly justified actor out …

Honesty Is The Best Policy: A Case For The Limitation Of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices In The United States, Irina Khasin

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In the United States, police officers regularly employ deceptive interrogation tactics to extract confession evidence from suspects. Despite widespread recognition of the harm caused by police deception, courts in the United States have consistently condoned the practice, refusing to exclude confessions obtained through manipulative and deceitful means. The British Parliament has recognized that deceptive police practices yield false confessions and, thus, wrongful convictions. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 addresses this concern by establishing clear rules for the police to follow and by empowering courts to enforce those rules. In evaluating the need for reform in American police …

Truth Or Legality: The Limits On The Laundering Of Illegally Gathered Evidence In A State Under The Rule Of Law (Verdad O Legalidad: Los Límites Del Blanqueo De Pruebas Ilegalmente Recogidas En Un Estado De Derecho) (Spanish), Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses the tension between the constitutional rights to silence and to privacy and the important goal of criminal procedure to ascertain the truth. It traces exclusionary rules from the inquisitorial rules relating to nullities, to modern constitutional, statutory and jurisprudential rules for excluding illegally gathered evidence.

Note: downloadable document is in Spanish

Place Mattters (Most): An Empirical Study Of Prosecutorial Decision-Making In Death-Eligible Cases, Katherine Y. Barnes, David L. Sloss, Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

This article investigates prosecutorial discretion in death penalty prosecution in Missouri. Based upon an empirical analysis of all intentional-homicide cases from 1997-2001, this article concludes that Missouri law gives prosecutors unconstitutionally broad discretion in charging these cases. This article also finds that prosecutors exercise this broad discretion differently, leading to geographic and racial disparities in sentencing, and concludes with proposals for statutory reform.

The Precarious Situation Of Human Rights In The United States In Normal Times And After September 11, 2001 (La Situación Precaria De Los Derechos Humanos En Estados Unidos En Tiempos Normales Y Después Del 11 De Septiembre De 2001) (Spanish), Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

The paper criticizes the impact of U. S. American criminal law and procedure on the human rights of U. S. citizens in normal times and the changes that have occurred since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It deals with racial profiling, the death penalty, Draconian prison sentences in normal times, and the use of unlimited detention, torture and expanded powers of wiretapping and evidence gathering since the attacks of 9-11.

Note: downloadable document is in Spanish

Eighth Amendment Gaps: Can Conditions Of Confinement Litigation Benefit From Proportionality Theory, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

The article explores the potential benefits of integrating proportionality theory, traditionally used in sentencing, into litigation challenging harsh prison conditions under the Eighth Amendment. It argues that this approach could offer new avenues for addressing the limitations of current conditions of confinement jurisprudence by reimagining how courts evaluate the constitutionality of prison conditions.