Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Section 7: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Trial Distortion And The End Of Innocence In Federal Criminal Justice, Ronald F. Wright

ExpressO

This article starts with a troubling and unnoticed development in federal criminal justice: acquittals have virtually disappeared from the system in the last 15 years, and for all the wrong reasons. It seems likely that prosecutors have increased the “trial penalty” so much that defendants with meaningful defenses feel compelled to plead guilty, undermining the truth-finding function of the criminal process.

The article examines these federal developments in light of a proposed “trial distortion theory.” The theory I develop here evaluates the quality of plea negotiation practices in a jurisdiction by asking whether the system produces outcomes (convictions, acquittals and …

Identity Crisis: United States V. Hiibel And The Continued Erosion Of Privacy Rights, Beth Rosenblum

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Conflicting Stories And Reasonable Doubt: Variations On W. (D.)'S Theme, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Whether the guilt of an accused has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is always a difficult issue, particularly so when the accused has testified. There is little difficulty when an accused's exculpatory testimony is accepted by the trial judge, since that of course leads unambiguously to an acquittal. More complex is the situation where a trial judge does not simply accept the accused's version of events — that is, most of the time. In those circumstances, trial judge must embark down the twisty road of deciding whether disbelieved testimony can nonetheless result in an acquittal, or alternatively whether an …

The Mandatory Death Penalty In The Commonwealth Caribbean And The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Evolution In The Development And Implementation Of International Human Rights Protections, Brian D. Tittemore

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Barking Up The Wrong Tree: The Misplaced Furor Over The Feeney Amendment As A Threat To Judicial Independence, David P. Mason

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Escaping A Rigid Analysis: The Shift To A Fact-Based Approach For Crime Of Violence Inquiries Involving Escape Offenses, Timothy W. Castor

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should Juvenile Adjudications Count As Prior Convictions For Apprendi Purposes?, Jeremy W. Hochberg

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guilty Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights Of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators routinely results in injury to reputations,lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office. Yet, because these individuals are not parties to a criminal trial, they have neither the right to present evidence nor the opportunity to clear their names. Thus, Professor Robbins argues that the practice violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” While prosecutors may offer many justifications to support the practice of naming unindicted co-conspirators, these reasons …

Section 6: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Bright Line: A Contemporary Right-To-Counsel Doctrine, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The current right-to-counsel doctrine was developed in the 1970's. It created a bright-line rule still in effect today. The right to counsel attaches only at "critical stages" of a criminal prosecution. Under this critical stage doctrine, the right to counsel only attaches after the initiation of formal adversary proceedings and only applies to confrontations between the accused and the prosecution or law enforcement. In the years following the Supreme Court's development of the critical stage doctrine, national trends of mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines revolutionized criminal procedure and dramatically altered the roles of the system's key players.

Now, defense counsel's …

International Decisions: Prosecutor V. Plavsic, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The White-Collar Police Force: "Duty To Report" Statutes In Criminal Law Theory, Sandra Guerra Thompson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Investigation And Prosecution Of White-Collar Crime: International Challenges And The Legal Tools Available To Address Them, Thomas G. Snow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Peoples Divided: The Application Of United States Constitutional Protections In International Criminal Law Enforcement, Ian R. Conner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In an age of globalization, criminal activity too has become internationalized. The response from the United States and other countries has been a growing number of treaties, international accords, and multinational law enforcement programs. This Note addresses the extent to which these international agreements have impacted the rights of the accused both in the United States and abroad

Section 8: Criminal Law & Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Lockyer V. Andrade, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure, Robin Jean Davis, Louis J. Palmer Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Retroactive Application Of "New Rules" And The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

For three decades, the application of United States Supreme Court criminal procedure decisions has confused the Court's habeas corpus jurisprudence. In 1999, the Court's decision in Williams v. Taylor might have resolved the ambiguous relationship between the pre-1996 habeas corpus retroactivity decisions - the most significant of which was Teague v. Lane - and the habeas corpus reform provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Unfortunately, the Williams decision has only engendered further confusion.

Two decades before Teague, the second Justice Harlan proposed an approach to retroactivity questions, arguing that a decision that announced …

Constitutional Theory For Criminal Procedure: Dickerson, Miranda, And The Continuing Quest For Broad-But-Shallow, Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Establishing Uniformity: The Need For A Per Se Rule Against The Grouping Of Money Laundering And Fraud Counts Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Eric C. Tew

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Problems In Domestic Violence: Should Victims Be Forced To Participate In The Prosecution Of Their Abusers?, Thomas L. Kirsch Ii

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Commercial Activity Exception Under The Fsia, Personhood Under The Fifth Amendment And Jurisdiction Over Foreign States: A Partial Roadmap For The Supreme Court In The New Millennium, Stephen J. Leacock

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Craft Of Due Process, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Israel's presentation "On the Costs of Uniformity and the Prospects of Dualism in Constitutional Criminal Procedure."

Allocution For Victims Of Economic Crimes, Jayne W. Barnard

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Don't Take His Eye, Don't Take His Tooth, And Don't Cast The First Stone: Limiting Religious Arguments In Capital Cases, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Professors John H. Blume and Sheri Lynn Johnson explore the occurrences of religious imagery and argument invoked by both prosecutors and defense attorneys in capital cases. Such invocation of religious imagery and argument by attorneys is not surprising, considering that the jurors who hear such arguments are making life and death decisions, and advocates, absent regulation, will resort to such emotionally compelling arguments. Also surveying judicial responses to such arguments in courts, Professors Blume and Johnson gauge the level of tolerance for such arguments in specific jurisdictions. Presenting proposed rules for prosecutors and defense counsel who wish to employ religious …

Section 6: Criminal Law & Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Power, Policy, And The Hyde Amendment: Ensuring Sound Judicial Interpretation Of The Criminal Attorney's Fees Law, Lawrence Judson Welle

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.