Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Public Policy
Regulating The Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor To Consumer Protection, Stephanos Bibas
Regulating The Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor To Consumer Protection, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Padilla v. Kentucky was a watershed in the Court’s turn to regulating plea bargaining. For decades, the Supreme Court has focused on jury trials as the central subject of criminal procedure, with only modest and ineffective procedural regulation of guilty pleas. This older view treated trials as the norm, was indifferent to sentencing, trusted judges and juries to protect innocence, and drew clean lines excluding civil proceedings and collateral consequences from its purview. In United States v. Ruiz in 2002, the Court began to focus on the realities of the plea process itself, but did so only half-way. Not until …
Abnormal Mental State Mitigations Or Murder – The U.S. Perspective, Paul H. Robinson
Abnormal Mental State Mitigations Or Murder – The U.S. Perspective, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
This paper examines the U.S. doctrines that allow an offender's abnormal mental state to reduce murder to manslaughter. First, the modern doctrine of "extreme emotional disturbance," as in Model Penal Code Section 210.3(1)(b), mitigates to manslaughter what otherwise would be murder when the killing "is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." While most American jurisdictions are based upon the Mode Code, this is an area in which many states chose to retain their more narrow common law "provocation" mitigation. Second, the modern doctrine of "mental illness negating an …