Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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.

Law Professor's Sabbatical In District Attorney's Office, Bobby Marzine Harges

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Johnson, Donna A. Napolitano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Buie, Deborah A. Monastero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Matter Of Baim V. Eidens, Evan M. Zuckerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Boone, Diane Somberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Always Hurt Me: Why California Should Expand The Admissibility Of Prior Acts Of Child Abuse, Lindsay Gochnour

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment seeks to explore the effect that the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence would have on child maltreatment cases and the benefits that would be afforded to child abuse victims if they were provided the same legal protections as victims of other crimes. This Comment argues that expanding the California Evidence Code to allow the admission of prior acts of psychological and emotional child maltreatment would make great progress for the protection of child abuse victims and the prosecution of their (often losing) cases.

Video: Adding To Your Case: Examining And Cross Examining Expert Witnesses, Michael J. Dale, Kathryn Webber, Valerie B. Barnhart Esq., Jack L. Harari M.D., J.D., F.A.A.E.M.

NSU Law Seminar Series

Learn skills for using expert witness testimony at trial: Developing strategy for selecting topics and order of presentation Using proper form of questioning on direct and cross Understanding rules of evidence, procedure, and ethics Two role play demonstrations help you learn techniques

Fixing Bail, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

A large portion of the jail population consists of criminal defendants whose guilt has yet to be established. A growing number of states have attempted to reduce jail populations in light of budget concerns, and many federal and state statutes already direct judges to detain defendants only if alternative conditions will not protect society or prevent pretrial flight. Despite these legislative directives, judges continue to jail too many defendants pretrial. Indeed, although statutes often direct judges not to impose financial conditions leading to detention, many pretrial detainees are in jail because they could not afford the bond set by a …

The Riddle Of Harmless Error Revisited, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

Half a century ago, in Chapman v. California, the Supreme Court imposed on appellate courts an obligation to vacate or reverse criminal judgments marred by constitutional error unless the government demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court did not explain the juridical status of this obligation or its relation to the federal harmless-error statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2111. In the intervening years, commentators have struggled to make sense of Chapman. Some see it as a constitutional mandate. Others view it as an example of constitutional common law. In THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR, written …

The Prosecutor's Turn, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Birchfield V. North Dakota:Why The United States Supreme Court Should Rely On Riley V. California To Hold That Criminalizing A Suspect’S Refusal To Consent To A Warrantless Blood Test Violates The Fourth Amendment, Adam Lamparello, Cynthia Swann

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Humane Proposals For Swift And Painless Death, Bryce Buchmann

Law Student Publications

This comment will provide reasons why lethal injection is not the appropriate method of execution in the United States, discuss factors that should be considered in selecting a method of execution and conclude that several alternative methods of punishment are preferable to lethal injection. Part I of this comment will detail the history of lethal injection in the United States and the issues associated with the practice. Part II examines how the government determines which method of execution is appropriate. Finally, Part III provides proposals for more humane punishment and concludes the comment.

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

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

There is near-universal agreement that the engine of the modern American criminal justice system is plea bargaining.'Given the ubiquity of plea bargaining, the Supreme Court and the rest of the legal community have begun setting their sights on how the practice might be better regulated. At the same time, many hold the view that the grand jury has outlived its usefulness in the administration of criminal justice and is a relic of a time gone by. Even before recent calls for the abolition of the grand jury in the wake of high-profile cases that seemed to cast the institution in …

Plea Bargain Negotiations: Defining Competence Beyond Lafler And Frye, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

In the companion cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. However, the Court defined effective assistance of counsel in only one narrow phase of plea bargaining: the client counseling phase. The Court said it would not look more broadly at the negotiation process itself as "[b]argaining is, by its nature, defined to a substantial degree by personal style.” This statement indicates that the Court does not fully understanding developments in the field of negotiation over the last thirty years. Negotiation …

Search And Seizures As Applied To Changing Digital Technologies: A Look At Pole Camera Surveillance, Tiffany M. Russo

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Rippo’s claim, that the ineffective assistance of the counsel who represented him in the first post conviction hearing excused the procedural bars to claims raised in the second petition, was rejected. The Court provided guidance on two issues related to whether an ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim has been raised in a timely fashion: (1) when does a postconviction-counsel claim reasonably become available, and (2) what is a reasonable time thereafter in which the claim must be asserted. They held on (1) that the factual basis for such a claim is not reasonably available until the conclusion of postconviction proceedings in which the …

Panel 2: Misdemeanor Offense Representation, David A. Singleton, Phyllis Mann, Gerry Weber, Alex Scherr

Working in the Public Interest Conferences

Panel on misdemeanor office representation moderated by Alex Scherr