Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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 …

Time Travel, Hovercrafts, And The Framers: James Madison Sees The Future And Rewrites The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

ExpressO

The Framers could not have contemplated the interpretational problems that cloud the Fourth Amendment because police, in the modern sense, were unknown to the Framers. Also unknown to the Framers, of course, were wiretaps, drug interdiction searches, thermal imagining, helicopters, and blood tests. We can infer from the history surrounding the Fourth Amendment what the Framers hoped it would accomplish in their time. What if the Framers could have seen the future and known the kind of police techniques that are being used today? What kind of Fourth Amendment would they have written with that knowledge? This article seeks to …

Discretion And Criminal Law: The Good, The Bad, And The Mundane, George C. Thomas Iii

ExpressO

Most academic papers condemn discretion in the enforcement and prosecution of crime. This essay argues that discretion should be understood to come in three varieties: good discretion, which is beneficial; bad discretion, which is typified by acts motivated by race, sex, or class considerations; and mundane discretion, which is value-neutral. The decision to pursue a drunken driver rather than a speeder, for example, is a good use of discretion while the decision to pursue one speeder rather than another based on race is bad discretion. Most motives that prompt acts of discretion, however, are value-neutral or what I call “mundane” …

Summary Of Wilson V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, Kathleen L. Fellows

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A jury convicted Wiley Gene Wilson of four counts of use of a minor in the production of pornography and four counts of possession of visual presentations depicting sexual conduct of a person under sixteen years of age. Wilson appealed, arguing that his four convictions for using a child in a sexual performance were redundant convictions. In September of 2001, Wilson and the ten-year-old female victim (M.T.) left M.T.'s father's trailer to attend to errands related to installing a satellite television system. Apparently, while running errands and stuck in traffic, M.T. urinated in her clothing. Subsequently, Wilson took M.T. to …

Summary Of State V. Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 25, Kimberly Lou

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The State of Nevada convicted David Robert Riker (“Riker”) for murder. Riker filed two sets of post-conviction petitions for the writ of habeas corpus—one in 1998 and one in 2004. The district court denied the 1998 petition, but granted the 2004 petition and an evidentiary hearing. The State of Nevada petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arguing that Riker’s habeas corpus claims are procedurally barred and that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed in part with the State and ordered the district court to apply …

State Of Israel V. Jerusalem Magistrates Court, Dorit Beinisch, Mishael Cheshin, Aharon Barak

Translated Opinions

Facts: The third respondent (‘the respondent’) was indicted in the Jerusalem Magistrates Court for an offence of committing an indecent act. The victim of the alleged offence (‘the complainant’) kept a personal diary and the parts that were relevant to the period during which the complainant and the respondent were acquainted with one another were photocopied and sent to counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent applied to inspect the whole diary under s. 74 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The Magistrate Court ordered the prosecution to produce the whole diary for inspection by the court, after an ex …

Pursuing Justice For The Mentally Disabled, Grant H. Morris

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This article considers whether lawyers act as zealous advocates when they represent mentally disordered, involuntarily committed patients who wish to assert their right to refuse treatment with psychotropic medication. After discussing a study that clearly demonstrates that lawyers do not do so, the article explores the reasons for this inappropriate behavior. Michael Perlin characterizes the problem as “sanism,” which he describes as an irrational prejudice against mentally disabled persons of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnic bigotry. The article critiques Perlin’s characterization …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Overcriminalization, Discretion, Waiver: A Survey Of Possible Exit Strategies, Donald A. Dripps

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

In both the constitutional law of American criminal justice and the scholarly literature that law has generated, substance and procedure receive radically different treatment. The Supreme Court, even in this conservative political period, continues to require costly procedural safeguards that go beyond what elected legislatures have provided by statute. The Court, however, has shown great deference to the choices these same legislatures have made about what conduct may be made criminal and how severely it may be punished.

The distinction between substance and procedure pervades academic thinking all the way down to its foundations. Substantive criminal law still holds its …

Missing Miranda's Story, A Review Of Gary L. Stuart's, Miranda: The Story Of America's Right To Remain Silent, George C. Thomas Iii

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Miranda v. Arizona is the best known criminal procedure decision in the history of the Supreme Court. It has spawned dozens of books and hundreds of articles. The world does not need another Miranda book unless it has something new and interesting to tell readers. Unfortunately, to borrow an old cliche, the parts of Gary Stuart’s book that are new are, for the most part, not interesting and the parts that are interesting are, for the most part, not new. Stuart adds material to the Miranda storehouse about the involvement of local Arizona lawyers and judges in the original case, …

Police And Democracy, David Alan Sklansky

Michigan Law Review

Part I of the Article describes the emergence in postwar America of a particular understanding of a democracy, an understanding generally referred to as "democratic pluralism," "analytic pluralism," "pluralist theory," or simply "pluralism." We will spend a fair bit of time unpacking pluralism, because its fine points will prove important when we turn to the task of tracing its reflections in criminal procedure. That task is taken up in Part II, which examines the ways in which the central tenets of democratic pluralism found echoes in criminal procedure - construed broadly to include not only jurisprudence and legal scholarship but …

Victims Of Peace: Current Abuse Allegations Against U.N. Peacekeepers And The Role Of Law In Preventing Them In The Future, Alexandra R. Harrington

ExpressO

This article addresses the increasingly prevalent and horrific allegations of sexual abuse made against U.N. peacekeepers. The primary allegations addressed are those from the Congo, as the most plentiful and readily available evidence of these abuses comes from the region. The goal of this paper is not merely to critique the U.N. and its handling of the current peacekeeper abuse allegations, as such a critique would only serve half of the problem. Rather, this paper will use the past and current understandings of the U.N. Charter, peacekeeping, international law, and military justice to suggest several options for handling both the …

Summary Of Rosky V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 22, Jason Peck

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Police executed a search warrant at John Rosky’s apartment as part of an investigation into the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. Two police officers eventually drove Rosky to a police substation for questioning but they did not formally arrest him or administer Miranda warnings. Police informed Rosky that his participation was voluntary and that he was free to leave at any time. At one point during the questioning, Rosky took a ten-minute break and went outside the police station unaccompanied by the detectives. The detectives used mild forms of deception and confronted Rosky with their belief that he was …

Summary Of Viray V. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, Chris Orme

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A jury convicted Benjardi Batucan Viray for lewdness with a minor. He appealed claiming that there was an improper inclusion of new information at a preliminary hearing and that this inclusion was sufficient to declare a mistrial. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a change in the factual situation is not sufficient to declare a mistrial if the inclusion of new information does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights and the charged offense remained the same. The second issue was whether a court should declare a mistrial when a juror disregards the admonishment of the court to not speak about …

The Crawford Issue- The Supreme Court Sharpens The Teeth Of The Confrontation Clause, Nathan Reed Haines

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Beyond Blakely And Booker: Pondering Modern Sentencing Process, Douglas A. Berman

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Blakely v. Washington and its federal follow-up United States v. Booker are formally about the meaning and reach of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial. But these decisions implicate and reflect, both expressly and implicitly, a much broader array of constitutional provisions and principles, in particular, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the notice provision of the Sixth Amendment. And the future structure and operation of modern sentencing systems may greatly depend on how courts and others approach the due process provisions and principles which lurk in …

An Unwarranted Intrusion: The Constitutional Infirmities Of Washington's Dna Collection Law, Erin Curtis

Washington Law Review

Washington State law requires all convicted felons to submit a biological sample for purposes of DNA testing. Washington State courts have upheld this law as a permissible search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, however, provides broader protections against governmental intrusion than does its federal counterpart. Under the state constitutional provision, law enforcement officials may disturb a citizen's private affairs only if authority of law supports the disturbance. A statute alone cannot provide the requisite authority; rather, the search prescribed must either be pursuant to a warrant or …

Crossing Eight Mile: Juries Of The Vicinage And County-Line Criminal Buffer Statutes, Brian C. Kalt

Washington Law Review

Several state statutes allow the state to choose the county in which to prosecute a person who allegedly committed a crime near a county line. Because these buffer statutes apply even in cases where the location of the crime is not in doubt, they are inappropriate on two levels. First, they are needless as a matter of policy; other statutes solve all of the problems that buffers purport to address, but without the detrimental effects. Second, they conflict with the principle—traditional in some states but constitutionally required in others—of trial by a jury of the vicinage, i.e., from the neighborhood …

In Defense Of Porfiry Petrovich, Robert Batey

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equality, Objectivity, And Neutrality, Alafair S. Burke

Michigan Law Review

When is homicide reasonable? That familiar, yet unanswered question continues to intrigue both courts and criminal law scholars, in large part because any response must first address the question, "reasonable to whom?" The standard story about why that threshold question is both difficult and interesting usually involves a juxtaposition of "objective" and "subjective" standards for judging claims of reasonableness. On the one hand, the story goes, is a "subjective" standard of reasonableness under which jurors evaluate the reasonableness of a criminal defendant's beliefs and actions by comparing them to those of a hypothetical reasonable person sharing all of the individual …

Is There A Future For Leniency In The U.S. Criminal Justice System?, Nora V. Demleitner

Michigan Law Review

The spring 2004 release of the gruesome pictures of sexual humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad revealed how some U.S. troops, intelligence officers, and private contractors treated Iraqi prisoners taken during and after the war. High-ranking government officials may have condoned, if not encouraged, the abuses. Only reluctantly have they agreed to extend protections customarily accorded civilians and military fighters during a war to individuals detained in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Congressional investigations appear to have stalled, military inquiries have been manifold but resultless. Only a handful of low ranking soldiers have been court-martialed, and a …

The Appeal, Alex Kozinski, Alexander Volokh

Michigan Law Review

Appeal from the United States District Court. Hermann Bendemann, District Judge, Presiding. Argued and Submitted July 3, 1926. Filed May 1, 2005. Before: Alex K., Bucephalus and Godot, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Alex K.

United States V. Booker: The Demise Of Mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines And The Return Of Indeterminate Sentencing, Jonathan Chiu

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Apprendi's Limits, R. Craig Green

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Causing Constitutional Harm: How Tort Law Can Help Determine Harmless Error In Criminal Trials, Jason M. Solomon

Scholarly Works

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part II is a brief overview of harmless-error doctrine in the context of habeas challenges to state criminal convictions, focusing on the nature of the inquiry and the doctrinal deadlock described above. Part III is an empirical analysis of the post-Brecht cases in the federal courts of appeals. To search for a way out of the doctrinal deadlock, I started with a relatively straightforward question: what has happened to harmless-error analysis since Brecht? To answer this question, I reviewed and, with the help of a research assistant, coded all of the 315 …

Securing A Journalist's Testimonial Privilege In The International Criminal Court, Anastasia Heeger

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article argues that given the unique and significant contribution of journalists to uncovering and documenting war crimes, the ICC should amend its evidentiary rules to recognize a qualified journalist's privilege. In doing so, the ICC should clearly identify who may benefit from such a privilege, clarify a procedure for balancing the need of reportorial testimony against prosecution and defense interests, and, lastly provide for mandatory consultations between the court and affected news organizations or journalists before allowing the issuance of a subpoena. Such clarity will benefit not only journalists working in war zones and the ICC, but will provide …