Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Unconventional Methods For A Traditional Setting: The Use Of Virtual Reality To Reduce Implicit Racial Bias In The Courtroom, Natalie Salmanowitz

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial lie at the core of the United States justice system. While existing rules and practices serve to uphold these principles, the administration of justice is significantly compromised by a covert but influential factor: namely, implicit racial biases. These biases can lead to automatic associations between race and guilt, as well as impact the way in which judges and jurors interpret information throughout a trial. Despite the well-documented presence of implicit racial biases, few steps have been taken to ameliorate the problem in the courtroom setting. This Article discusses the …

When Empathy Bites Back: Cautionary Tales From Neuroscience For Capital Sentencing, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Amelia Courtney Hritz, Caisa Elizabeth Royer, John H. Blume

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The neuroscience of empathy provides one more reason to believe that the decision to sentence another human being to death is inevitably an arbitrary one, and one that cannot be divorced from either race or caprice. While we can tinker with aspects of capital trials that exacerbate caprice and discrimination stemming from empathy, we cannot alter basic neural responses to the pain of others and therefore cannot rationalize (in either sense of the word) empathic responses.

Young Adulthood As A Transitional Legal Category: Science, Social Change, And Justice Policy, Elizabeth S. Scott, Richard J. Bonnie, Laurence Steinberg

Fordham Law Review

This Article seeks to advance discussions about the potential implications for justice policy of recent neuroscientific, psychological, and sociological research on young adults. In doing so, we emphasize the importance of not exaggerating either the empirical findings or their policy relevance. The available research does not indicate that individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty are indistinguishable from younger adolescents in attributes relevant to criminal offending and punishment. Thus, we are skeptical on both scientific and pragmatic grounds about the merits of the proposal by some advocates that juvenile court jurisdiction should be categorically extended to age twenty-one. But …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

Law Student Publications

This article surveys recent decisions of Virginia appellate courts in the field of criminal law and procedure. The article also outlines some of the most significant changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2016 Virginia General Assembly.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Innocent Suffering: The Unavailability Of Post-Conviction Relief In Virginia Courts, Kaitlyn Potter

University of Richmond Law Review

This comment examines actual innocence in Virginia: the progress it has made, the problems it still faces, and the possibilities for reform. Part I addresses past reform to the system, spurred by the shocking tales of Thomas Haynesworth and others. Part II identifies three of the most prevalent systemic challenges marring Virginia's justice system: (1) flawed scientific evidence; (2) the premature destruction of evidence; and (3) false confessions and guilty pleas. Part III suggests ways in which Virginia can, and should, address these challenges to ensure that the justice system is actually serving justice.

Neuroscience And Criminal Law: Have We Been Getting It Wrong For Centuries And Where Do We Go From Here?, Elizabeth Bennett

Fordham Law Review

Moral responsibility is the foundation of criminal law. Will the rapid developments in neuroscience and brain imaging crack that foundation—or, perhaps, shatter it completely? Although many scholars have opined on the subject, as far as I have discovered, few come from a front-line perspective.

When Empathy Bites Back: Cautionary Tales From Neuroscience For Capital Sentencing, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Amelia Courtney Hritz, Caisa Elizabeth Royer, John H. Blume

Fordham Law Review

This Article examines the implications of emerging neuroscientific findings regarding empathy for capital trials. We have approached this task with caution because neuroscientists’ understanding of the human brain is still evolving. As with any new field, if neuroscience is completely trusted before it is thoroughly tested, there is a risk of embracing the new phrenology. Given the state of the research, our advice to defense lawyers is quite modest, but we believe that there are some important lessons for lawyers, judges, legislators, and other stakeholders in the capital punishment system.

Foreword, Deborah W. Denno

Fordham Law Review

This Foreword provides an overview of Criminal Behavior and the Brain: When Law and Neuroscience Collide, a symposium hosted by the Fordham Law Review and cosponsored by the Fordham Law School Neuroscience and Law Center. While the field of neuroscience is vast—generally constituting “the branch of the life sciences that studies the brain and nervous system”— this symposium focused on the cutting-edge ties between neuroscience evidence and the different facets of criminal law. Such an intersection invited commentary from an expert group on a wide span of topics, ranging from the historical underpinnings between law and neuroscience to the …

Correctional Change Through Neuroscience, Arielle R. Baskin-Sommers, Karelle Fonteneau

Fordham Law Review

Currently, the U.S. criminal justice system is under intense scrutiny. High- profile cases question the appropriateness of specific types of evidence, decision making in sentencing, and the treatment of convicted offenders. Clearly, these issues are not new. And, as has been historically the case, the justice system looks toward science for assistance in addressing and redressing problems with the delivery of justice.

How Prosecutors And Defense Attorneys Differ In Their Use Of Neuroscience Evidence, Deborah W. Denno

Fordham Law Review

Much of the public debate surrounding the intersection of neuroscience and criminal law is based on assumptions about how prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their use of neuroscience evidence. For example, according to some commentators, the defense’s use of neuroscience evidence will abdicate criminals of all responsibility for their offenses. In contrast, the prosecution’s use of that same evidence will unfairly punish the most vulnerable defendants as unfixable future dangers to society. This “double- edged sword” view of neuroscience evidence is important for flagging concerns about the law’s construction of criminal responsibility and punishment: it demonstrates that the same …

A Glimpse Inside The Brain’S Black Box: Understanding The Role Of Neuroscience In Criminal Sentencing, Bernice B. Donald, Erica Bakies

Fordham Law Review

This Article begins by discussing what neuroscience and the smaller associated field of study, neuropsychology, are and what they can tell us about an individual. It then recounts a brief history of sentencing in the United States. Additionally, it expounds on how the legal system currently utilizes neuroscience in the courts, noting specifically the ways in which neuroscience can be presented during the sentencing phase of trial. Finally, it discusses the use of neuroscience as a mitigating factor during sentencing and how judges can use neuroscience to combat their implicit biases.

Can Neuroscience Help Predict Future Antisocial Behavior?, Lyn M. Gaudet, Jason P. Kerkmans, Nathaniel E. Anderson, Kent A. Kiehl

Fordham Law Review

Part I of this Article reviews the tools currently available to predict antisocial behavior. Part II discusses legal precedent regarding the use of, and challenges to, various prediction methods. Part III introduces recent neuroscience work in this area and reviews two studies that have successfully used neuroimaging techniques to predict recidivism. Part IV discusses some criticisms that are commonly levied against the various prediction methods and highlights the disparity between the attitudes of the scientific and legal communities toward risk assessment generally and neuroscience specifically. Lastly, Part V explains why neuroscience methods will likely continue to help inform and, ideally, …

Neuroscience And Sentencing, Nancy Gertner

Fordham Law Review

This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career. As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposedwereunfair,unjust,anddisproportionate. EverythingthatIthought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by …

A Perspective On The Potential Role Of Neuroscience In The Court, Ruben C. Gur, Oren M. Gur, Arona E. Gur, Alon G. Gur

Fordham Law Review

This Article presents some lessons learned while offering expert testimony on neuroscience in courts. As a biomedical investigator participating in cutting-edge research with clinical and mentoring responsibilities, Dr. Ruben Gur, Ph.D., became involved in court proceedings rather late in his career. Based on the success of Dr. Gur and other research investigators of his generation, who developed and validated advanced methods for linking brain structure and function to behavior, neuroscience findings and procedures became relevant to multiple legal issues, especially related to culpability and mitigation. Dr. Gur found himself being asked to opine in cases where he could contribute expertise …

Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions To A Reconstruction Of Legal Insanity, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Fordham Law Review

Part I of this Article explains the insanity defense in the United States. Next, Part II discusses some of the brain-based research about mental illness, focusing on schizophrenia research. Then, Part III looks at traumatic brain injury and the relationship among injury, cognition, and behavior. Finally, Part IV explains how a new neuroscience-informed standard might better inform our moral decision making about legal insanity.

Neuroscience And The Civil/Criminal Daubert Divide, Erin Murphy

Fordham Law Review

This Article speculates on the course of neuroscience-as-proof with an eye toward the actual admissibility standards that will govern the acceptance of such evidence by courts, not just as a matter of formal law but also as a function of historical custom. Given the legal system’s spotty record with scientific evidence—which is to say, both the demonstrated willingness of the system to admit unproven “science” or to exclude evidence despite a seemingly adequate scientific foundation—the trajectory of neuroscience in the courts cannot be predicted simply by asking about its scientific legitimacy in the abstract. Rather, an observer must ponder whether …

The Overlooked History Of Neurolaw, Francis X. Shen

Fordham Law Review

In this Article, I argue that our field should more readily acknowledge that there is a history to law and neuroscience. A central challenge is whether, and how, we will learn from this history. I do not endeavor here to provide a comprehensive history of brain science and law but rather to highlight a series of four important, yet often overlooked, “moments.” These moments are (1) foundational medico-legal dialogue in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, (2) the introduction of electroencephalography evidence into the legal system in the mid- twentieth century, (3) the use of psychosurgery for violence prevention in …

Too Sick To Be Executed: Shocking Punishment And The Brain, Joel Zivot

Fordham Law Review

Capital punishment, to be lawfully delivered, must occur without needless cruelty. Cruelty, defined in the setting of punishment, will naturally evolve with the maturation of civil society. Cruel punishment will always be a relative standard, and punishment cannot exceed what is morally shocking. In the setting of public executions, observers and victims share an aspect of the experience of punishment. The inmate has little opportunity to evaluate and report back on cruelty in the moments before death. Once dead, the inmate is necessarily silent on the matter. Empathy allows observers to evaluate punishment as cruel or not. Attempts by the …

Bowman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Oct. 27, 2016), Marco Luna

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A district court's failure to provide a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent research, investigations, or experiments in any criminal or civil case constitutes error. Though likely harmless, the resulting prejudice may constitute reversible error.

Cops On Trial: Did Fourth Amendment Case Law Help George Zimmerman’S Claim Of Self-Defense?, Josephine Ross

Seattle University Law Review

When police kill unarmed civilians, prosecutors and grand juries often decline to bring criminal charges. Even when police officers are indicted, they are seldom convicted at trial. There are many reasons why police are rarely convicted for violent acts. Commentators have criticized the inherent conflict of interest for prosecutors who decide whether to bring charges and the fact that police are investigating their own. However, this article considers another way that police may be treated differently than other people suspected of committing violent crimes. The Fourth Amendment, designed to protect civilians from overzealous officers, now helps insulate police suspected of …

The Right To Redemption: Juvenile Dispositions And Sentences, Katherine Hunt Federle

Louisiana Law Review

The article examines the laws concerning juvenile dispositions and sentences responsible for accountability, victim restoration, and retribution in the U.S. It reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of opinions emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment requires that the punishment of children must account for their lesser moral culpability, developmental immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation.

Incomplete Sentences: Hobby Lobby’S Corporate Religious Rights, The Criminally Culpable Corporate Soul, And The Case For Greater Alignment Of Organizational And Individual Sentencing, Kenya J.H. Smith

Louisiana Law Review

The article explores the history and policies that explain the disparate sentencing treatment of organizations and individuals under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and attendant sentencing guidelines. It reports the Supreme Court's recognition of a business corporation's religious rights in the case "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

The Lack Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil: Louisiana’S Ban On Bail Without Surety, Gabriel Loupe

Louisiana Law Review

The article presents a historical overview of bail and due process of law in Louisiana. Topics discussed include the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 334.4 imposes a ban on judges releasing defendants; constitutionality of Article 334.4; and laws aimed to prevent violation of procedural due process, equal protection, and the excessive bail clauses of the Louisiana.

Important Is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants For Sentencing Using The Important Interest Standard, Sarah Viebrock

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing.

Part …

Let The Judge Speak: Reconsidering The Role Of Rehabilitation In Federal Sentencing, Madeline W. Goralski

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note contends that the importance of rehabilitation as a valid and necessary principle of punishment is overlooked in § 3582(a) of the SRA and further argues that a judge should be permitted to consider rehabilitation when deciding to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment, so long as rehabilitation is not a dominant factor in coming to that decision. Part I outlines the principles of punishment and the rise and decline of the rehabilitative system of punishment in the United States. It also discusses the importance of rehabilitation and how society could benefit from a system that …

A “Second Magna Carta”: The English Habeas Corpus Act And The Statutory Origins Of The Habeas Privilege, Amanda L. Tyler

Notre Dame Law Review

In my own scholarship, Fallon and Meltzer’s work on habeas models prompted me to dig deeper into the historical backdrop that informed ratification of the Suspension Clause and think harder about the relevance of that history for questions of constitutional interpretation. This, in turn, has spurred work that has occupied me for many years since. In the spirit of engaging with my federal courts professor one more time, this Article tells the story of the statutory origins of the habeas privilege—what Blackstone called a “second magna carta”—and argues that any explication of the constitutional privilege and discussion of how …

Federalizing Retroactivity Rules: The Unrealized Promise Of Danforth V. Minnesota And The Unmet Obligation Of State Courts To Vindicate Federal Constitutional Rights, Ruthanne M. Deutsch

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …