Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the evolving role of punitive damages in U.S. jurisprudence, highlighting their transformation from a compensatory tool for intangible harms to a primarily punitive and deterrent measure. This shift has blurred the lines between tort and criminal law, leading to constitutional challenges and difficulties in managing these damages through Supreme Court-established guideposts. The analysis concludes that the integration of punitive damages into private law creates inherent tensions and suggests that their abolition might be necessary to maintain legal clarity and justice.

Shoot To Kill: A Critical Look At Stand Your Ground Laws, Tamara Rice Lave

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shtanger V. Speaker Of The Knesset, Asher Grunis, Hanan Melcer, Elyakim Rubinstein

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

A petition which focuses on the question of the legality of two arrangements in the Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers – Detention) Law, 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the "Detention Law") which were added to the Detention Law, in the framework of Amendment no. 8 to the Law, which was legislated by the Knesset on March 14. 2011. The first arrangement amends Section 53 of the Detention Law. …

Gideon’S Law-Protective Function, Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Gideon v. Wainwright dramatically affects the rights of indigent defendants by entitling them to representation. But Gideon has another systemic consequence as well. In addition to protecting the rights of individual defendants in particular trials, Gideon also protects the integrity of the development of the law by ensuring that the legal principles courts articulate are the product of a legitimate adversarial process. While law protection was not a central rationale for the outcome in Gideon, the decision’s reasoning and the surrounding historical context resonate with the concern for the integrity of judicial lawmaking. And an examination of subsequent cases reveals …

Protecting Juveniles' Right To Remain Silent: Dangers Of The Thompkins Rule And Recommendations For Reform, Lauren Gottesman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sharpening The Tools Of An Adequate Defense: Providing For The Appointment Of Experts For Indigent Defendants In Child Death Cases Under Ake V. Oklahoma, Laurel Gilbert

San Diego Law Review

This Comment proposes that because of ongoing concerns regarding the reliability and validity of forensic science in the United States, the Due Process Clause constitutionally mandates the appointment of forensic experts for indigent defendants in criminal cases arising out of a child’s death if the prosecution relies on forensic evidence. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the current law governing the admissibility of forensic expert testimony in criminal cases and explains why these admissibility standards create a need for the appointment of defense forensic experts to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Part III then discusses Due …

Virginia’S Redefinition Of The “Future Dangerousness” Aggravating Factor: Unprecedented, Unfounded, And Unconstitutional , Lara D. Gass

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enforcing Effective Assistance After Martinez, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Essay argues that the Court’s effort to expand habeas review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Martinez v. Ryan will make little difference in either the enforcement of the right to the effective assistance of counsel or the provision of competent representation in state criminal cases. Drawing upon statistics about habeas litigation and emerging case law, the Essay first explains why Martinez is not likely to lead to more federal habeas grants of relief. It then presents new empirical information about state postconviction review (cases filed, counsel, hearings, and relief rates), post-Martinez decisions, and anecdotal reports from the …

A Model For Fixing Identification Evidence After Perry V. New Hampshire, Robert Couch

Michigan Law Review

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In 1977, a time when the problems with eyewitness identifications had been acknowledged but were not yet completely understood, the Supreme Court announced a test designed to exclude unreliable eyewitness evidence. This standard has proven inadequate to protect against mistaken identifications. Despite voluminous scientific studies on the failings of eyewitness identification evidence and the growing number of DNA exonerations, the Supreme Court's outdated reliability test remains in place today. In 2012, in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court commented on its standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence for the first …

Wrongful Death And Survival Actions For Torts In Violation Of International Law, Alastair J. Agcaoili

San Diego Law Review

This Article aims to make sense of this neglected area of ATS law. I contend that the salient issue in these deceased-victim cases is not whether the nonvictim plaintiffs have standing to sue but rather whether they have a viable cause of action in the first place. Standing and cause of action concepts have an uneasy relationship in law. Although the distinction between constitutional standing and cause of action inquiries is well established, the division is less clear where, as here, standing doctrine is used to define a plaintiff’s eligibility to bring suit. Indeed, reliance on standing terminology in this …

Searching For Solutions To The Indigent Defense Crisis In The Broader Criminal Justice Reform Agenda, Roger Fairfax

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

As we mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, the nearly universal assessment is that our indigent defense system remains too under-resourced and overwhelmed to fulfill the promise of the landmark decision, and needs to be reformed. At the same time, fiscal necessity and moral outrage have prompted a historic reexamination of outdated policies that have led to an overreliance on incarceration and inefficiencies in the administration of criminal justice. This Essay argues that there are synergies between the indigent defense reform agenda and the broader criminal justice reform agenda, which places a premium on cost-effective, evidence-based, …

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein

Michigan Law Review

A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held …

The Plea-Bargain Crisis For Noncitizens In Misdemeanor Court, Jason A. Cade

Cardozo Law Review

This Article considers three factors contributing to a plea-bargain crisis for noncitizens charged with misdemeanors: 1) the expansion of deportation laws to include very minor offenses with little opportunity for discretionary relief from removal; 2) the integration of federal immigration enforcement programs with the criminal justice system; and 3) the institutional norms in non-federal lower criminal courts, where little attention is paid to evidence or individual equities and where bail and other process costs generally outweigh perceived incentives to fight charges. The Article contends that these factors increase the likelihood that a noncitizen's low-level conviction will not reliably indicate guilt …

Book Review: Errol Morris, “A Wilderness Of Error”: Provocative But Unpersuasive, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …

“Lonesome Road”: Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Seattle University Law Review

The protections of the Fourth Amendment on the streets and highways of America have been drastically curtailed. This Article traces the debasement of Fourth Amendment protections on the road and how the Fourth Amendment’s core value of preventing arbitrary police behavior has been marginalized. This Article contends that the existence of a traffic offense should not be the end of the inquiry but the first step, and that defendants should be able to challenge the reasonableness even when there is proof of a traffic offense.

State Recoupment Of The Costs Of Defense Of Indigent Criminal Defendants , Mark M. Horgan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right Of The Prosecutor To Advance Notice Of The Defendant's Alibi Defense , Thomas J. Hickey

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Re N, Juvenile Court Must Inform Minor Of His Right To Appeal , John H. Paulsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Constitution And Counsel At Pretrial Lineups: Disneyland Claims Or Deadly Serious Business? , John Moravek

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States Vs. Peltier - The Good Faith Belief Of The Police Officer, Ronald R. Talmo

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Superior Court - The Future Of The Grand Jury Indictment In California , Suzanne Haigh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Murguia V. Municipal Court - The Defense Of Discriminatory Prosecution, Jeffrey L. Garland

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right Of Self-Representation: Faretta And The “Assistance Of Counsel”, Joan W. Garrott

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Brisendine: Search And Seizure In California , Donald E. Buddenbaum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pre-Arraignment Lineup: Necessity Of A Magistrate, Harry M. Caldwell, Douglas S. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery By The Prosecution In Criminal Cases: Prudhomme Reconsidered , Jon R. Rolefson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Use Of Prior Felony Convictions To Impeach A Defendant - Witness In California Criminal Proceedings, Richard E. Boehm

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mens Rea, Due Process And The Burden Of Proving Sanity Or Insanity, Daniel K. Spradlin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: A Legislative Approach, Bruce A. Green

Mercer Law Review

Suppose that federal prosecutors have conducted an investigation culminating in an indictment. Although the prosecutors believe that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and are personally convinced that the defendant is guilty, some of the evidence they have collected is favorable to the defendant, because it tends to show that the defendant is innocent or that prosecution witnesses should not be believed. Must prosecutors disclose the favorable evidence to defense counsel to use in investigating, advising the defendant, plea negotiations, or trial? Under current federal law, the answer is generally "no." Unless favorable evidence falls within one of …