Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Summary Of Ford V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 55, Alan R. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a district court judgment of conviction, by way of a jury verdict, for pandering of prostitution.

Summary Of Adam V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54, Matthew Vantusko

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, for trafficking in a controlled substance.

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Appellants, Paul Dewolfe, Jr., Et Al. V. Quinton Richmond, Et Al., 2011 No. 34, A.J. Bellido De Luna, Michael Pinard

Court Briefs

In this case the appellants sought to overturn a decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that held criminal defendants have a right to representation by an attorney at an initial bail hearing. Due to their concern about the quality of justice given to criminal defendants in the state’s criminal justice process, law professors at both the University of Baltimore and the University of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the Maryland Court of Appeals in support of the appellees.

The amici presented one issue: Did a Court of Appeals decision in 2001 holding that the Maryland Public Defender …

J.D.B. V. North Carolina And The Reasonable Person, Christopher Jackson

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

This Term, the Supreme Court was presented with a prime opportunity to provide some much-needed clarification on a "backdrop" issue of law-one of many topics that arises in a variety of legal contexts, but is rarely analyzed on its own terms. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court considered whether age was a relevant factor in determining if a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes, and thus must have her rights read to her before being questioned by the police. Miranda, like dozens of other areas of law, employs a reasonable person test on the custodial question: it asks …

Collateral Review Of Career Offender Sentences: The Case For Coram Nobis, Douglas J. Bench Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Occasionally, criminals correctly interpret the law while courts err. Litigation pursuant to the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) includes numerous examples. The ACCA imposes harsher sentences upon felons in possession of firearms with prior "violent felony" convictions. Over time, courts defined "violent" so contrary to its common meaning that it eventually came to encompass driving under the influence, unwanted touching, and the failure to report to correctional facilities. However, in a series of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of violent in the context of the ACCA and, in the process, excluded such offenses. …

The Consequences Of Criminal Convictions For Misdemeanor Or Felony Offenses, David P. Baugh

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Where Do We Go From Here: Plea Colloquy Warnings And Immigration Consequences Post-Padilla, Vivian Chang

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues for the passage of criminal procedure rules that would require judges to warn criminal defendants about immigration consequences at plea colloquy. Part I addresses the overlap of criminal and immigration law, arguing that the increased use of the criminal justice system to police federal immigration laws calls for greater protection of non-citizen defendants at plea colloquy. Part II then addresses the legal duties imposed on both defense counsel and trial courts in relation to plea colloquy. Padilla merely addressed the duty of defense counsel to provide constitutionally effective assistance before plea colloquy and did not reach the …

Public Wrongs And The ‘Criminal Law’S Business’: When Victims Won’T Share, Michelle Madden Dempsey

Working Paper Series

Amongst the many valuable contributions that Professor Antony Duff has made to criminal law theory is his account of what it means for a wrong to be public in character. In this chapter, I sketch an alternative way of thinking about criminalization, one which attempts to remain true to the important insights that illuminate Duff’s account, while providing (it is hoped) a more satisfying explanation of cases involving victims who reject the criminal law’s intervention.

"Introduction" (Chapter 1) Of Stories About Science In Law: Literary And Historical Images Of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate 2011), David S. Caudill

Working Paper Series

This is the introductory chapter of Stories About Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise (Ashgate, 2011), explaining that the book presents examples of how literary accounts can provide a supplement to our understanding of science in law. Challenging the view that law and science are completely different, I focus on stories that explore the relationship between law and science, and identify cultural images of science that prevail in legal contexts. In contrast to other studies on the transfer and construction of expertise in legal settings, the book considers the intersection of three interdisciplinary projects-- law and …

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

Working Paper Series

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 …

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 …

Overcriminalization: Is There A Problem To Solve?, Roger Fairfax

Presentations

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Cortes V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 44, Sean W. Mcdonald

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell.

Summary Of Rose V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 43, Michael Li

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal of a second-degree murder conviction by jury verdict.

Executions In America: How Constitutional Interpretation Has Restricted Capital Punishment, Andrea Paone

Pell Scholars and Senior Theses

In upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has utilized a strict construction interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which has led the opponents of capital punishment to abandon the Due Process approach and look to the Eighth Amendment, for which the justices utilize a loose construction interpretation.

Summary Of Winkle V. Warden, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 42, Tim Mott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to release her to the 305 program based on the language of NRS 209.427 and 209.429.

Summary Of Saletta V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 34, Erin Elliot

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a judgment of conviction by a criminal defendant convicted of indecent or obscene exposure.

Actual Innocence After Friedman V. Rehal: The Second Circuit Pursues A New Mechanism For Seeking Justice In Actual Innocence Cases, Jonathan M. Kirshbaum

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Jackson And The Explosion Of Liability For Felony Murder, Brian E. Brupbacher

Mercer Law Review

In The Discourses, Niccold Machiavelli wrote, "The dangers involved in conspiracies[] ... are considerable, and go on all the time, for in a conspiracy dangers crop up alike in forming the plot, in carrying it out, and as a result of its having been carried out."' Although by its context this remark refers to conspiracies to commit regicide and the problems these conspiracies pose to the conspirators, this remark well describes practical and legal problems that can result from conspiracies to commit felonies. In Georgia this is particularly true following the June 28, 2010 ruling in State v. Jackson …

United States V. Ubs Ag: Has The United States Successfully Cracked The Vault To Swiss Banking Secrecy?, Eric M. Victorson

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article examines the legal and diplomatic efforts of the United States to combat tax evasion by American citizens using Swiss bank accounts, focusing on the landmark case of United States v. UBS AG. It highlights how the U.S. successfully challenged Switzerland's banking secrecy laws through treaty revisions and legal actions, ultimately achieving greater transparency and setting a precedent for international tax enforcement.

The Kiyemba Paradox: Creating A Judicial Framework To Eradicate Indefinite, Unlawful Executive Detentions, Samuel Chow

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article examines the Supreme Court's evolving role in reviewing detentions related to national security, particularly focusing on the writ of habeas corpus. It argues that while the Court has expanded habeas protections, significant limitations remain, especially in ordering release into the United States. The author contends that for habeas to be meaningful, courts must have the authority to grant "functional release," balancing individual liberty against executive powers. The analysis highlights key cases like Boumediene v. Bush, Munaf v. Geren, and Kiyemba v. Obama, which reveal the challenges in preventing indefinite detentions and the need for clearer …

Changes To The Culture Of Adversarialness: Endorsing Candor, Cooperation And Civility In Relationships Between Prosecutors And Defense Counsel, Stacy Caplow, Lisa Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Shadow Bargainers, Ronald F. Wright, Jenny Roberts, Betina Cutaia Wilkinson

Cardozo Law Review

Plea bargaining happens in almost every criminal case, yet there is little empirical study about what actually happens when prosecutors and defense lawyers negotiate. This Article looks into the bargaining part of plea bargaining. It reports on the responses of over 500 public defenders who participated in our nationwide survey about their objectives and practices during plea negotiations.

The survey responses create a rare empirical test of a major tenet of negotiation theory, the claim that attorneys bargain in the “shadow of the trial.” This is a theory that some defenders embrace and others reject. Describing the factors they believe …

Clemency For Our Children, Anthony C. Thompson

Cardozo Law Review

This Article proposes the use of the executive's clemency power to pardon or commute the sentences of a class of petitioners: children sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The history of executive clemency reveals that the intent behind this unique power was to offer the executive branch a final check in the criminal justice system to redress errors or to enhance fairness. The clemency power - exercised through pardons or commutations - allows the executive branch either to absolve individuals of wrongdoing given an assessment of the circumstances or to redress the relative disparity or undue severity …

Mitigating The Prosecutor's Dilemma In Light Of Melendez-Diaz: Live Two-Way Videoconferencing For Analysit Testimony Regarding Chemical Analysis, Amy Ma

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Particularism, Telishment, And Three Strikes Laws, Michael S. Green

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Staring Down The Sights At Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago: Why The Second Amendment Deserves The Kevlar Protection Of Strict Scrutiny, James J. Williamson Ii

Legislation and Policy Brief

In June of 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring that a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of handguns in a private home for personal protection violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  Justice Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority, recognized that the protections provided by the Second Amendment apply to individuals—not just “militias”—and emphatically declared that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.  These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”  After four years of …

Summary Of Rogers V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 25, Sean W. Mcdonald

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from judgment of conviction, pursuant to jury verdict, of driving under the influence of a controlled substance on grounds certain evidence was inadmissible.