Criminal Law Commons^™

Keep Tinkering: The Optimist And The Death Penalty, Susan D. Rozelle

Arkansas Law Review

When it comes to capital punishment, it may make sense to be a little bit defeatist. Like abortion, the death penalty is a topic about which you have to presume that you are never going to change anyone else’s mind. Whether the other person views it as a necessary part of the justice system or as a moral outrage, odds of changing the other person’s mind through reasoned discourse are slim.

The Coming Federalism Battle In The War Over The Death Penalty, Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer

Arkansas Law Review

From the founding of the Republic until 2002, it appears that only a single person was ever sentenced to death by the federal government for criminal conduct occurring in a state that did not authorize the death penalty for the same conduct. However, in the last twenty-three years, the federal government has sought the death penalty dozens of times in non-death penalty states. Such cases virtually always involve offenses historically thought of as being best dealt with at the state level. And since 2002, eleven people have been sentenced to death by the federal government for criminal conduct occurring in …

Death Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Janet C. Hoeffel

Arkansas Law Review

In the forty-four years since the Court employed the Eighth Amendment to temporarily suspend the death penalty in the United States in Furman v. Georgia in 1972, the Court has spilled an enormous amount of ink attempting to instruct the states on how to properly guide jurors’ discretion in imposing the death penalty. Yet, in its voluminous Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, the Justices spilled not one drop suggesting the familiar and unifying standard of beyond a reasonable doubt as a guide.

Chasing Justice: The Monumental Task Of Undoing A Capital Conviction And Death Sentence, Jennifer L. Givens

Arkansas Law Review

After the botched 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, John Oliver tackled the issue of the death penalty on the second episode of his HBO show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Oliver opens the discussion with a sound bite from former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who says, “I [] do believe in the death penalty, but [] only with respect to those [that] are guilty of committing the crime.” Oliver responds, “Okay, bold idea. We shouldn’t execute innocent people. I think most people would probably agree with that. You, sir, are a regular Atticus Finch. But [] …

Should Death Be So Different?: Sentencing Purposes And Capital Jury Decisions In An Era Of Smart On Crime Sentencing Reform, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Arkansas Law Review

We are in an era of “Smart on Crime” sentencing reform. Several states and the federal government have made major changes to their sentencing policies—from reducing the incarceration of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders to the use of evidence-based sentencing to focus the most severe punishments on those who are at the greatest risk of recidivism. Often, today’s reform efforts are spoken about in terms of being fiscally responsible while still controlling crime. Though such reform efforts do not explicitly acknowledge purposes of punishment—such as retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, or deterrence—an undercurrent running through all of these reforms is an effort for …

Death Row Conditions Through An Environmental Justice Lens, Andrea C. Armstrong

Arkansas Law Review

Glenn Ford lived on death row at Louisiana State Penitentiary for twenty-nine years, three months and five days. Typically, he was confined in his cell for at least twenty-three hours of a given day, seven days a week. Glenn was convicted of the armed robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman. After prosecutors Martin Stroud and Carey Schimpf used six of their eight peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from the jury venire, Glenn was sentenced to death in 1984 by an all-white jury. He was a devoted friend to many and, to the extent possible given his incarceration, a committed father …

State V. Thurston: An Examination Of Assualt, Self-Defense, And Trespass In Relation To Domestic Violence, Megan E. Magoon

Maine Law Review

Darrell Thurston and Suzanne Harmon were romantically involved on an intermittent basis for five years and had one child together. As a result of an altercation that took place at Harmon’s home in Sullivan, Maine, on September 27, 2007, between Thurston and Harmon, Thurston was charged with assault, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of crime or injury. The testimony during the trial illuminated the major factual differences between Thurston’s and Harmon’s accounts of the night the incident took place. Thurston requested a self defense jury instruction based on his version of what had happened, which the trial court ultimately denied. …

Findings Of Fact Vs. Conclusions Of Law: How The Law Court Complicated The Case Of State V. Connor, Christopher S. Boulos

Maine Law Review

In State v. Connor, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, upheld a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Although the evidence presented in the suppression hearing seemed adequate to support the denial of the motion, the trial judge failed to clearly state his conclusions of law when denying the motion. However, the Law Court mistook the ambiguous conclusions of law as ambiguous findings of fact. Because the findings of fact were ambiguous in the court’s view, the majority and dissenting opinions spent the bulk of their energies discussing how the court should review …

Too Low A Price: Waiver And The Right To Counsel, Zachary L. Heiden

Maine Law Review

Easy waiver of the right to counsel is at the heart of the problem with inadequate funding for criminal defense counsel for the indigent: without freely granted waiver of the right to counsel, the crisis in funding for indigent defense would, in the short term, be greatly magnified. But, the ready acceptance of the waivability of the right to counsel devalues and diminishes the significance of the assistance of counsel in criminal matters.

Maine's Sex Offender Registry And The Ex Post Facto Clause: An Examination Of The Law Court's Unwillingness To Use Independent Constitutional Analysis In State V. Letalien, Lauren Wille

Maine Law Review

In 1996, Eric Letalien pleaded guilty to the gross sexual assault of a thirteen year-old girl, an offense he committed when he was nineteen years old. At the time of his sentencing in August of 1996, Letalien was subject to Maine’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1995 (SORNA of 1995). Pursuant to SORNA of 1995, Letalien was required to register his address with the State Bureau of Identification (SBI) and update his address in the event he moved. This registration requirement was to be in effect for fifteen years from the time he was released from incarceration. After …

Comparative Perspectives On Specialized Trials For Terrorism, Sudha Setty

Maine Law Review

President Obama has made clear that the United States must grapple with questions of how to detain and try potentially dangerous terrorism suspects in a manner that maximizes national security while adhering to the rule of law. Yet the United States faces a serious quandary in terms of how to prosecute suspects who have been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that puts at risk the reputation of the United States justice system and its adherence to rule of law. The question of what trial system to use for suspected terrorists requires an historical interrogation of how and to what effect …

Unpacking The Deterrent Effect Of The International Criminal Court: Lessons From Kenya, Yvonne M. Dutton, Tessa Alleblas

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I begins by explaining deterrence theory in more detail. It follows with an overview of the debate surrounding the ability of international criminal tribunals and the ICC to produce a deterrent effect.

In Part II, we advance our argument regarding the need to reframe the debate about the ICC’s potential to deter. We explain the reasons why the ICC’s deterrent effect must be unpacked and, in doing so, we describe several factors that influence whether and under what conditions the ICC should or should not be able to deter. In Part III, we …

How To Read International Criminal Law: Strict Construction And The Rome Statute Of The International Criminal Court, Caroline Davidson

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The Article proceeds in four parts. Part I introduces the Rome Statute’s provision on nullum crimen sine lege, focusing in particular on its requirements that judges strictly construe crime definitions, construe ambiguous provisions in favor of defendants, and avoid crime creation by analogy. It offers working definitions for relevant concepts and describes some of the difficulties in applying them, particularly in light of the Rome Statute’s provision setting out the sources of law the court is to consider. Part II asks whether strict construction makes sense in the context of international crimes. It assesses the values that undergird the …

"I Did Not Want A Mad Dog Released" - The Results Of Imperfect Ignorance: Lack Of Jury Instructions Regarding The Consequences Of An Insanity Verdict In State V. Okie, Christopher J. Rauscher

Maine Law Review

In 2007, John Okie, an allegedly schizophrenic twenty-year-old, brutally murdered his father and his nineteen-year-old friend. At trial, Okie asserted an insanity defense. The jury found him guilty of intentional and knowing murder; he will be incarcerated until he is at least seventy-two years old. During trial, Okie requested that the jury receive an instruction regarding what would happen to him if they returned a verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity. The instruction was refused. He appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Generally, Maine common …

Enough Is Enough: The Law Court's Decision To Functionally Raise The "Reasonable Connection" Relevancy Standard In State V. Mitchell, Robert P. Hayes

Maine Law Review

In State v. Mitchell, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed a jury verdict finding Thomas Mitchell guilty of a 1983 murder. In doing so, the Law Court examined two issues: First, whether the trial court “abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an alternative suspect”; and second, whether the trial court’s decision to admit evidence stemming from an autopsy performed two decades before the trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching the alternative suspect decision, the Law Court held that the evidence proffered by Mitchell did not establish a reasonable …

Williams V. State Dep’T Of Corr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (Oct. 5, 2017), Xheni Ristani

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether an offender must serve the minimum term of his or her sentence before any credits earned pursuant to the Credits statute apply to eligibility for parole. The Court disagreed with this argument and held that credits earned can factor-in for parole eligibility if the offender was sentenced under a state that requires a minimum term but does not explicitly mention parole eligibility.

A Theory Of Differential Punishment, Jack Boeglin, Zachary Shapiro

Faculty Publications

A puzzle has long pervaded the criminal law: why are two offenders who commit the same criminal act punished differently when one of them, due to circumstances beyond her control, causes more harm than the other? This tradition of result-based differential punishment the practice of varying offenders' punishment based on whether or not they cause specific "statutory harms"-has long stood as an intractable problem for scholars and jurists alike.

This Article proposes a solution to this long-standing conceptual problem. We begin by introducing a dichotomy between two broad and exhaustive categories of ideological justifications for punishing criminal offenders. The first …

Johnson V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Court reverses a death sentence on direct appeal and remands for a new penalty hearing, there is no longer a final judgment that triggers the one-year period set forth in NRS 34.726(1) for filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Post-Trial Judicial Review Of Criminal Convictions: A Comparative Study Of The United States And Finland, Christopher M. Johnson

Maine Law Review

In 2011, two murder cases involving defendants who professed their innocence came to dramatic conclusions in appellate courts. In Finland in August 2011, the murder prosecution of Anneli Auer ended with her acquittal by an appellate court. In the United States in September 2011, the murder prosecution of Troy Davis ended in his execution in Georgia’s death chamber, despite exculpatory information developed after his trial about the reliability of some eyewitnesses identification evidence. The Finish case arose out if the December 2006 death if Jukka Lahti in Ulvila. His wife, Auer, called the police and claimed that an intruder entered …

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

Maine Law Review

Young children are frequently precluded from testifying at trial on the grounds of incompetency because they cannot answer questions about abstract concepts regarding “truth” and “lies.” In this situation, should the child’s earlier, out-of-court statements disclosing the abuse and identifying the abuser also be inadmissible? The stakes are huge. If young children cannot testify, and their out-of-court statements are precluded, they simply become safe prey, unprotected by the judicial system. The pivotal question becomes, are there procedures that can ensure fairness both to children and to their alleged abusers? This article argues that a child’s testimonial incapacity at trial ought …