Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Mass Incarceration: An Annotated Bibliography, Nicole P. Dyszlewski, Lucinda Harrison-Cox, Raquel Ortiz

Law Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Creating (And Teaching) The "Bail-To-Jail" Course, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

Yale Kamisar has explained how events that occurred about fifty years ago led to the creation of a stand-alone criminal procedure course and, a few years later, led to the division of that stand-alone course into two courses. The second of those courses came to be called, almost from the outset, the "Jail-to-Bail" course. My focus today is on why that course was created and how it was shaped. Modern Criminal Procedure, as Yale has noted, was the first coursebook designed for a stand-alone course in criminal procedure. Modern was published in 1966. A year earlier, the first version …

Too Vast To Succeed, Miriam H. Baer

Michigan Law Review

If sunlight is, in Justice Brandeis’s words, “the best of disinfectants,” then Brandon Garrett’s latest book, Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations might best be conceptualized as a heroic attempt to apply judicious amounts of Lysol to the murky world of federal corporate prosecutions. “How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations” is the book’s neutral- sounding secondary title, but even casual readers will quickly realize that Garrett means that prosecutors compromise too much with corporations, in part because they fear the collateral consequences of a corporation’s criminal indictment. Through an innovation known as the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or DPA, …

State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …

Phong T. Vu V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. Of Nev., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 31, 2016), Chelsea Finnegan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Under NRS 433A.310(1)(b), a district court may issue an order of involuntary admittance to a mental health facility if there is clear and convincing evidence that the person is likely to harm himself or others. Here, the Court held that (1) a district court is not required to wait 30 days for a final order under NRS 433A.310(1)(b) before transmitting an involuntary admission to the proper agency, and (2) based on sufficient evidence, the district court properly concluded the petitioner should be admitted to a mental health facility.

Penanganan Konflik Sosial Dengan Pendekatan Keadilan Restoratif, - Sukardi

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Restorative Justice approach in conflict resolution is basically a new method of settling disputes, especially in the concept-criminal cases, but using traditional patterns whose values have no concept of local wisdom in each culture. Therefore, the application of restorative justice approach in conflict resolution, in fact is the use of traditional patterns with the values of the resolution of the existing conflicts in wisdom local culture, with a focus on fulfillment of justice victims, through the concept of equality, partnership, reconciliation and participation.

Like Snow To The Eskimos And Trump To The Republican Party: The Ali's Many Words For, And Shifting Pronouncements About, "Affirmative Consent", Kevin Cole

Faculty Scholarship

This short piece examines changes from prior drafts in the most recent draft (Preliminary Draft No. 6) of the American Law Institute's project on sexual assault law.

Ou Professor: Fourth Amendment At Heart Of Dispute Between Fbi, Apple, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

The dispute between the FBI and Apple Inc. over the unlocking of the iPhone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters is important to all Americans. And so it's good that it is getting a wide airing. But when it comes to issues that have complicated tradeoffs, it can be important not just that we have the conversation, but that we use the right words. And here the debate deserves very mixed reviews. . . .

Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response To Bennett Capers’S Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Christopher Slobogin

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Interrogation First, Miranda Warnings Afterward: A Critical Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Approach To Delayed Miranda Warnings, Joshua I. Rodriguez

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Bennett Capers

Fordham Urban Law Journal

We have become a surveillance state. Cameras—both those controlled by the state, and those installed by private entities—watch our every move, at least in public. For the most part, courts have deemed this public surveillance to be beyond the purview of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it goes largely unregulated—a cause for alarm for many civil libertarians. This Article challenges these views and suggests that we must listen to communities in thinking about cameras and other surveillance technologies. For many communities, public surveillance not only has the benefit of deterring crime and aiding in the apprehension of criminals. It can …

Law Day Fifth District Court Of Appeal Oral Arguments At Florida Agricultural And Mechanical University College Of Law, 2016, Honorable James A. Edwards, Honorable Richard B. Orfinger, Honorable Vincent G. Torpy Jr.

Law Day Presentations

As part of FAMU College of Law's Law Day activities, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is holding a session in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. A three judge panel is hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing their clients in cases involving suppression of evidence, the exclusionary rule and other evidentiary questions, as well as the ineffective assistance of counsel in a case involving deportation issues. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.

Plea Bargaining And Disclosure In Germany And The United States: Comparative Lessons, Jenia I. Turner

William & Mary Law Review

This Article analyzes recent trends in plea bargaining and disclosure of evidence in Germany and the United States. Over the last two decades, a number of U.S. jurisdictions have adopted rules requiring broader and earlier discovery in criminal cases. This development reflects a growing consensus that, in a system that resolves most of its cases through guilty pleas, early and extensive disclosure is necessary to ensure fair and informed outcomes.

The introduction of broader discovery in criminal cases in the United States aligns American rulesmore closely with longstanding German rules on access to the investigative file. At the same time, …

Designing Plea Bargaining From The Ground Up: Accuracy And Fairness Without Trials As Backstops, Stephanos Bibas

William & Mary Law Review

American criminal procedure developed on the assumption that grand juries and petit jury trials were the ultimate safeguards of fair procedures and accurate outcomes.But nowthat plea bargaining has all but supplanted juries, we need to think through what safeguards our plea-bargaining systemshould be built around. This Symposium Article sketches out principles for redesigning our plea-bargaining system from the ground up around safeguards. Part I explores the causes of factual, moral, and legal inaccuracies in guilty pleas. To prevent and remedy these inaccuracies, it proposes a combination of quasi-inquisitorial safeguards, more vigorous criminal defense, and better normative evaluation of charges, pleas, …

Plea Bargaining's Baselines, Josh Bowers

William & Mary Law Review

In this Symposium Article, I examine the Court’s unwillingness to take seriously the issue of coercion as it applies to plea bargaining practice. It is not so much that the Court has ignored coercion entirely. Rather, it has framed the inquiry in a legalisticmanner that has made immaterial the kinds of considerations we might think most relevant to the evaluation. The Court has refused to ask qualitative questions about felt pressure, prosecutorial motivation, or the risk or reality of excessive punishment. All that matters is legal permissibility. A prosecutor may compel a defendant to plead guilty as long as she …

Pleading Guilty Without Client Consent, Gabriel J. Chin

William & Mary Law Review

In some cases, lawyers are, and should be, permitted to conclude plea bargains to which their clients have not agreed. Because clients bear the consequences of a conviction, ordinarily, clients should choose between a plea and the possibility of acquittal at trial. Further, clients have the right to decide that even though conviction is practically certain, moral or political reasons warrant insistence on a trial. But some clients have the goal of minimizing incarceration, have been offered reasonable pleas, face substantially greater sentences if convicted after trial, have no plausible ground for acquittal —and nevertheless decline to plead guilty. They …

Judicial Power To Regulate Plea Bargaining, Darryl K. Brown

William & Mary Law Review

Plea bargaining in the United States is in critical respects unregulated, and a key reason is the marginal role to which judges have been relegated. In the wake of Santobello v. New York (1971), lower courts crafted Due Process doctrines through which they supervised the fairness of some aspects of the plea bargaining process. Within a decade, however, U.S. Supreme Court decisions began to shut down any constitutional basis for judicial supervision of plea negotiations or agreements. Those decisions rested primarily on two claims: separation of powers and the practical costs of regulating plea bargaining in busy criminal justice systems. …

Thinking Outside The Jury Box: Deploying The Grand Jury In The Guilty Plea Process, Roger A. Fairfax Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Plea Bargains Are Not Confessions, Brandon L. Garrett

William & Mary Law Review

Is a plea bargain a type of confession? Plea bargaining is often justified as, at its core, a process involving in-court confession. The U.S. Supreme Court’s early decisions approved plea bargains as something “more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts.” I argue in this Article that plea bargains are not confessions—they do not even typically involve detailed admissions of guilt. The defendant generally admits to acts satisfying elements of the crime—a legally sufficient admission to be sure, but often not under oath, and often not supported by any extensive factual record. Because plea bargains typically …

Training For Bargaining, Jenny Roberts, Ronald F. Wright

William & Mary Law Review

While plea bargaining dominates the practice of criminal law, preparation for trial remains central to defense attorneys’ training. Negotiation is still peripheral to that training. Defense lawyers enter practice with little exposure to negotiation techniques and strategies in the plea bargaining context, the most significant skills they will use every day.

Empirical research on plea negotiations has concentrated on outcomes of negotiations rather than the process itself. Our multiphase field study examines the negotiation techniques that attorneys use during plea bargaining as well as their preparation and training for negotiation. This Article explores the data on the training aspects of …

Plea Bargaining And The Substantive And Procedural Goals Of Criminal Justice: From Retribution And Adversarialism To Preventive Justice And Hybrid-Inquisitorialism, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Law Review

Plea bargaining and guilty pleas are intrinsically incompatible with themost commonly-accepted substantive and procedural premises of American criminal justice: Plea bargaining routinely results in punishment disproportionate to desert, and guilty pleas are an insult to procedural due process. This Article argues that the only way to align plea bargaining with our criminal justice premises is to change those premises. It imagines a system in which retribution is no longer the lodestar of punishment, and in which party-control of the process is no longer the desideratum of adjudication. If, instead, plea bargaining were seen as a mechanism for implementing a sentencing …

A Comparative Look At Plea Bargaining In Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, And The United States, Carol A. Brook, Bruno Fiannaca, David Harvey, Paul Marcus, Jenny Mcewan, Renee Pomerance

William & Mary Law Review

In a world where the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through some means other than the popularly depicted criminal trial, it is fundamental to a comprehensive understanding of comparative criminal procedure to study and appreciate the different mechanisms for criminal case resolution in different nations. This Article developed through a series of conversations (and ultimately a panel discussion) between six international criminal justice professionals - practicing attorneys, scholars, and judges - regarding the nature and effects of plea bargaining (and its comparative substitutes) in their respective countries. Providing a comparative look at different mechanisms for criminal case resolution, …

The Prosecutor's Turn, I. Bennett Capers

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guilt, Innocence, And Due Process Of Plea Bargaining, Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shakin' And Bakin': The Supreme Court's Remarkable Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1999 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Court, Seneca County, In Re Kaufman, Edward Callaghan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Department, People V Robinson, Courtney Blakeslee

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Department, People V. Mason, Kathleen Byrne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The ‘Hart’ Of The (Mr.) Big Problem, Adelina Iftene

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hart reviewed the application and evidentiary consequences of Mr. Big operation. For the majority, Moldaver J. changed the common law confessions rule so that it applies in Mr. Big scenarios based on a two-pronged test. Immediately after Hart, the SCC rendered a new decision in R v Mack where the two pronged test was leniently applied in favour of the Crown. In this article I argue that the SCC approach in Hart and its application in Mack failed to address to the core problems that Mr. Big operations pose. It …

The Uneven Playing Field: Ethical Disparities Between The Prosecution And Defense Functions In Criminal Cases, Thomas F. Liotti, Christopher Zeh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.