Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches And Specialized Community Integration, Heather Cucolo, Michael L. Perlin

Articles & Chapters

The public’s panic about the fear of recidivism if adjudicated sex offenders are ever to be released to the community has not subsided, despite the growing amount of information and statistically-reliable data signifying a generally low risk of re-offense. The established case law upholding sex offender civil commitment and containment statutes has rejected challenges of unconstitutionality, and continues to be dominated by punitive undertones. We have come to learn that the tools used to assess offenders for risk and civil commitment are often inaccurate and that meaningful treatment for this population is often unavailable and ineffective. Yet, society continues to …

Reimagining Criminal Prosecution: Toward A Color-Conscious Professional Ethic For Prosecutors, Justin Murray

Articles & Chapters

Prosecutors, like mostAmericans, view the criminal-justice system asfundamentally race neutral. They are aware that blacks are stopped, searched, arrested, and locked up in numbers that are vastly out of proportion to their fraction of the overall population. Yet, they generally assume that this outcome is justified because it reflects the sad reality that blacks commit a disproportionate share of crime in America. They are unable to detect the ways in which their own discretionary choices-and those of other actors in the criminal-justice system, such as legislators, police officers, and jurors-contribute to the staggering and disproportionate incarceration of black Americans. In …

Citizen Participation In Japanese Criminal Trials: Reimagining The Right To Trial By Jury In The United States, Jon J. Lee

Faculty Articles

If the United States were to reform contemporary jury trials to match the Founders’ conception of the right to trial by jury, how might they look? In recent years, we have gained insight into how to answer that question from an unlikely source: Japan. This Article examines the introduction of citizen participation into the Japanese judicial system (the saiban-in seido) from a different perspective. Rather than focusing on the contemporary American jury system, this Article evaluates the Japanese reforms in light of the Founders’ conception of the right to trial by jury. It is this conception of the right to …

The Law And Economics Of Fluctuating Criminal Tendencies And Incapacitation, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

Economic analyses of criminal law are frequently and heavily criticized for being unable to explain many criminal law rules and doctrines that people find intuitively just. Existing economic models cannot properly explain, for instance, why criminal law distinguishes between (i) repeat offenders and first-time offenders, (ii) murder and voluntary manslaughter, and (iii) remorseful and non-remorseful offenders.

In this Article, I propose a new and richer economic theory of crime that captures the rationales behind these practices, and potentially behind many other important criminal law principles and doctrines. Unlike an overwhelming majority of previous economic analyses, my theory accounts not only …

Aedpa Mea Culpa, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, the author contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 [AEDPA] has frustrated both the enforcement of federal rights and legitimate state interests. He lays most of the blame on the Supreme Court's methodology for construing AEDPA's provisions. The Court insists that poorly conceived and drafted provisions must be taken literally, whatever the consequences, and that every provision must be read to change habeas corpus law in some way. This approach has produced unfair, wasteful, and even bizarre results that might have been avoided if the Court had assessed AEDPA more realistically.

Confrontation Control, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 (2004), face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser is the constitutionally normative mode of presentation for testimonial evidence. Yet, eight years into the Crawford revolution, courts routinely hold that counsel can waive a defendant's confrontation rights without even discussing the matter with the defendant. Why? Because counsel, not client, has the authority to decide whether to confront and cross-examine government witnesses.

This Essay, written as part of the Texas Tech Sixth Amendment Symposium, explores this peculiar and perplexing rule. If confrontation is essential to a constitutionally valid criminal trial, how can defense …

Prosecutors And Bargaining In Weak Cases: A Comparative View, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

One of the most controversial uses of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining concerns cases involving weak evidence of guilt. When a prosecutor bargains about the charges or even the facts in a case with weak evidence, at least three problems may arise. First, if the charge bargain is generous, it may coerce an innocent defendant to plead guilty. Second, such a bargain may let a guilty defendant off too easily, thus disserving the public and victim’s interests. Third, if the parties bargain about the facts, the result may distort the truth of the case.

In this book chapter, I examine …

Achieving Fundamental Fairness For Oklahoma's Juveniles: The Role For Competency In Juvenile Proceedings, Mary Sue Backus

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

The Loss Of Constitutional Faith: Mccleskey V. Kemp And The Dark Side Of Procedure, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Africa And The International Criminal Court, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

No abstract provided.

Possession And Knowledge In The Misuse Of Drugs Act: Nagaenthran A/L K Dharmalingam V. Public Prosecutor, Siyuan Chen, Nathaniel Poon-Ern Khng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

When the Court of Appeal rendered the decision of Tan Kiam Peng in 2008, it was unable to come to a conclusive determination of the correct interpretation of s. 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a provision pertaining to the presumption of an accused’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled drugs in his possession. This issue was presented to a differently constituted Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran, which seemingly ruled in favour of the narrow interpretation of s. 18(2) as opposed to the broader interpretation. Nagaenthran, however, did not address the questions raised by Tan Kiam Peng vis-à-vis …

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourteenth Amendment Originalism, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

In Baze v. Rees, the Supreme Court rejected a death-row inmate's claim that a state's use of a lethal injection protocol that carried risks of severe pain from improper administration violated the Constitution. Justice Thomas wrote a remarkable concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia, in which he argued that the plurality opinion announcing the governing standard for claims of this sort was wrong, and should have hewed more closely to the original understanding of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote that "the Framers intended to prohibit torturous modes of punishment akin to those that formed the historical backdrop of …

Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Had someone told you, on September 11, 2001, that the United States would not be able to do whatever it wanted in response to the terrorist attacks of that day, you might well have questioned their sanity. The United States was the most powerful country in the world, and had the world’s sympathy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Who would stop it? Al Qaeda had few friends beyond the Taliban. As a historical matter, Congress and the courts had virtually always deferred to the executive in such times of crisis. And the American polity was unlikely to object …

The U.S. Criminal-Immigration Convergence And Its Possible Undoing, Allegra M. Mcleod

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The intensifying convergence of U.S. criminal law and immigration law poses fundamental structural problems. This convergence--which manifests in the criminal prosecution of immigration law violators, in deportation of criminal law violators, and in a growing immigration enforcement and detention apparatus--distorts criminal law incentives and drains enforcement resources, misguides immigration regulation, and undermines efforts to implement alternative immigration regulatory frameworks. This article offers an account, informed by social psychological and literary theory, of why this convergence persists notwithstanding these problems, as well as how the convergence (and inherently associated problems) might be undone. The U.S. criminal-immigration convergence holds powerful sway, despite …

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Reliability, That Should Be The Question: The Constitutionality Of Using Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions In Subsequent Federal Trials After Ant, Cavanaugh, And Shavanaux, Samuel D. Newton

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Now The Time For Major Federal Sentencing Reform?, Sara Sun Beale

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review, Samuel W. Buell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Peacemaking & Provocation: A Response To Professor Tracey Jean Boisseau, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Prisoners' Property Dilemma: The Proper Approach To Determine Prisoners' Protected Property Interests After Sandin And Castle Rock, Corbin R. Kennelly

Georgia Law Review

The Proper approach to determine when prisoners have
property interests protected by the Due Process Clause is
currently uncertain. The Supreme Court addressed
prisoners' liberty interests in Sandin v. Conner, but lower
courts have split over whether to apply the Sandin test to
prisoners' property interests. Further complicating
matters, the Supreme Court recently addressed property
interests generally in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
There, the Court seemed to add additional hurdles to the
finding of protected property interests: A statute must
clearly indicate that it gives rise to an entitlement; the
entitlement must have an ascertainable monetary value;
and, …

The Micro And Macro Causes Of Prison Growth, John F. Pfaff

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Prosecutors And Professional Regulation, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

Prosecutors often express mistrust of professional regulators, their rules and their processes. This may have been more understandable twenty years ago, when prosecutors perceived that the organized bar had been captured by defense lawyers seeking to use professional regulation as a means of imposing limits on criminal investigative authority that the law did not otherwise recognize. Although that criticism no longer has much basis in reality, it has persisted in the rhetoric prosecutors employ in advocacy regarding their professional conduct. This article explores prosecutors’ public attitude toward professional regulation, beginning with a brief account of their responses two decades ago, …

Summary Of State V. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 84, Michelle Newman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s exclusion of blood alcohol test results obtained by retrograde extrapolation from the prosecution of defendant for driving under the influence.

Summary Of Rogers V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88, Amanda Ireland

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a district court denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with consideration of the scope and applicability of Graham v. Florida to a term-of-years sentence.

Summary Of Toston V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 87, Kendra Kisling

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal of a district court order denying a writ of habeas corpus.

Alvarado Revisited: A Missing Element In Alaska’S Quest To Provide Impartial Juries For Rural Alaskans, Jeff D. May

Alaska Law Review

In Alvarado v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court declared that an impartial jury is a cross section of the community and that the community where the events at issue transpired must be represented in the jury. This decision spurred changes to jury selection procedures and the creation of Criminal Rule 18, an effort to ensure defendants from remote villages are judged by a jury representative of these rural areas. The Alaska Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue of first impression regarding the application of Criminal Rule 18. In Joseph v. State, the defendant was convicted of murdering his …

Aedpa's Ratchet: Invoking The Miranda Right To Counsel After The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act, David Rubenstein

Washington Law Review

In Davis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court established a high standard to invoke the Miranda right to counsel, holding that a suspect must make a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney. Two years later, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which created a highly deferential standard of review for state court judgments challenged under federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. Generally, a state prisoner challenging the alleged deprivation of his Miranda right to counsel may obtain federal court relief under AEDPA only if his conviction in state court was based on an “objectively …

Understanding New York's "Mode Of Proceedings" Muddle, Gary Muldoon

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Mosaic Shield: Maynard, The Fourth Amendment, And Privacy Rights In The Digital Age, Erin Smith Dennis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.