Criminal Procedure Commons^™

United States V. Patane: The Supreme Court's Continued Assault On Miranda, David Bosworth

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Patane, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the issue of whether a police officer's failure to give a suspect the complete Miranda warnings required the court to suppress a gun found as a result of the suspect's voluntary statements. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that failure to give such warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence gained from unwarned voluntary statements. The dissenting justices were concerned about the negative effects this ruling would have on police procedures, judicial inquiries, and suspect's rights. This decision creates another exception to the Miranda rule …

The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz

Indiana Law Journal

In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay's requestfor appointed counsel. ' Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …

Determining When Two Offenses Are The Same Under Indiana's Criminal Rule 4, Howard W. Anderson Iii

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Role Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The Wake Of United States V. Booker And United States V. Fanfan, Rosemary T. Cakmis

Mercer Law Review

The year 2004 began much like previous years, at least when it came to decisions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals interpreting the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "federal sentencing guidelines" or "guidelines"). In less than one year, however, the federal sentencing guidelines and related Eleventh Circuit decisions took on a fascinating new dimension in light of 2004-2005 United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. This jurisprudence culminated with the January 12, 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which was consolidated with United States v. Fanfan ("Booker/Fanfan"). Therein, the Supreme Court rejected the Eleventh …

Uncertain Waters: Tennard V. Dretke Provides Swells Of Protection For The Mentally Deficient But May Cause Rising Tides Of Frivolous Claims, Kristin L. Starnes

Mercer Law Review

Continuing to address the morality and constitutionality of executing mentally deficient offenders, the United States Supreme Court in Tennard v. Dretke held that the Texas jury instructions used during the sentencing phase violated the Eighth Amendment. The jury instructions were unconstitutional because they did not provide sentencers with an adequate vehicle for assessing the defendant's mitigating evidence of low Intelligence Quotient. This case has broad implications for jury instructions in capital cases across the nation. It also raises concerns that valid claims by deserving defendants will be lost in a sea of frivolous claims and unidentified intelligence tests.

Reliability Matters: Reassociating Bagley Materality, Strickland Prejudice, And Cumulative Harmless Error, John H. Blume, Christopher W. Seeds

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most commonly invoked after conviction and direct appeal, when a defendant may claim that his lawyer was ineffective or that the government failed to disclose exculpatory information, the Brady doctrine, which governs the prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense, and the Strickland doctrine, which monitors defense counsel’s duty to represent the client effectively, have developed into the principal safeguards of fair trials, fundamental to the protection of defendants’ constitutional rights and arguably defendants’ strongest insurance of a reliable verdict. But the doctrines do not sufficiently protect these core values.

The doctrines, despite their common due process heritage …

To Serve And Protect: Thornton V. United States And The Newly Anemic Fourth Amendment, Jason Lewis

Mercer Law Review

In Thornton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court further weakened the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment by holding that an officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest even when the suspect is first approached after exiting the vehicle. Under the guise of providing protection to police officers, this decision greatly expands the power of an arresting officer to search the private property of the arrestee and creates uncertainty on what constitutional limits apply to searches incident to arrest outside the home.

Plea Bargaining At The Hague, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

Plea bargaining has come to The Hague. For most of its existence, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) shunned plea bargains. However, under pressure from United Nations member states and the impending deadline for the resolution of its caseload, the ICTY has increasingly relied on plea bargains in recent months. This Article exposes the deficiencies in guilty plea procedures at The Hague, particularly those designed to assess whether a plea is fully informed and voluntary. In a series of case studies, the Article argues that judicial questioning techniques have exploited the vulnerable state of defendants appearing before …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.

Summary Of Fiegehen V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 30, Michael Shalmy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An intruder entered a residence, killed one person and shot another. The victim placed a 911 call, but within minutes, the 911 connection went dead. Sheriff's deputies arrived at the residence shortly thereafter and found one victim alive, lying on the floor in a pool of blood. The telephone line nearby had been cut. A body was discovered on a deck outside. Evidence implicated Christopher Fiegehen as the primary suspect. However, he abruptly fled Nevada on the day of the crime. Two months later, he was stopped and questioned by police officers in Indiana, where they apprehended him after a …