Criminal Law Commons^™

Corpus Linguistics At The U.S. Patent And Trademark Office, Tabrez Y. Ebrahim

BYU Law Review

This Article examines the intersection of corpus linguistics and patent law. It introduces the foundations of corpus linguistics and its application to the law and advances the potential for its application to patent examination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Historically, the disciplines of corpus linguistics and patent law did not intersect until scholars began to consider the application of corpus linguistics to patent litigation for interpretation of terms in patent claims. Interpretation of legal language provided by corpus linguistics and applied to patent examination at the USPTO has yet to be addressed and is a novel …

Corpus Linguistics And The Original Meaning Of The Sixth Amendment, Wesley White

BYU Law Review

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused to have the assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution. Put simply, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s current framework, an accused does not enjoy this right until the government has brought a formal charge. Thus, an accused who engages in plea bargaining before being formally charged is not guaranteed the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Many critics of this framework focus on the purpose of the Sixth Amendment to argue that the right to counsel should be guaranteed in pre-charge plea bargaining. Others point to policy concerns.

This Note is among …

The Mass Murder Epidemic Of The United States: Policy, Reflections, And The Way Through, Isaiah Johnson

Dissertations, Theses, and Projects

This work is an in-depth look at American culture and how the culture has shaped gun policies in the U.S. I also examine various policies that could be used to mitigate mass shootings in the United States, as well as some of the reasons these incidents have become so prevalent.

State V. Curlew: Assessing The Sufficiency Of Evidence Under The Corpus Delicti Rule, Brett D. Baber

Maine Law Review

In State v. Curlew, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reversed a conviction for unlawful sexual contact. The court predicated reversal upon a reaffirmation of both the substantive aspect and the evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule. The substantive aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires the state "to produce, exclusive of any confession or admission by the defendant, such credible evidence as will create a substantial belief that the crime charged has been committed by some person." The evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires proof of the corpus delicti prior to the …

A Quarter Of A Century Of Rulemaking With Particular Attention To The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Frank J. Remington

Maine Law Review

It is a happy coincidence that Edward Thaxter Gignoux completes twenty-five years on the bench at about the same time that the present rulemaking procedures in the federal system reach their twenty-fifth anniversary. In the quarter of a century of the present system for rulemaking there have been three distinguished chairmen of the Standing Committee—the committee to which there is delegated overall responsibility for rulemaking by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The three chairmen are Senior Circuit Judge Albert Maris, generally thought of as the modern "Father" of federal rulemaking, Senior District Judge Rozell Thomson and the present …

Deadlocked Juries And The Allen Charge, Karen Pelletier O'Sullivan

Maine Law Review

Juries in cases requiring a unanimous verdict have three alternatives: a guilty verdict, a not guilty verdict, or no verdict for lack of unanimity. Deadlocked juries have long created a problem for efficient judicial administration. Early common law judges carried hung jurors around in oxcarts until a verdict "bounced out." More recent methods of forcing jurors to reach verdicts have included requiring them to deliberate all night and threatening to deprive them of water and heat. A more subtle method of encouraging jurors to reach verdicts is a trial judge's supplemental instruction to deadlocked jurors. A verdict-urging instruction is commonly …

Restraining The Prosecutor: Restrictions On Threatening Prosecution For Civil Ends, James A. Trowbridge

Maine Law Review

Prosecutors in some cases agree to dismiss criminal charges, admit a defendant to a diversion program, or enter a nolle prosequi in exchange for the defendant signing a waiver of any civil claims against law enforcement agents, governments, or private persons. The practice of a prosecutor bargaining for the release of law enforcement personnel or others from civil liability raises serious questions concerning the independence of the prosecutorial function, the relationship of prosecutors to other legal institutions, and the application of rules of professional responsibility. Generally, courts have been critical of these arrangements. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) …

State V. Durepo: Toward A Principled Maine Version Of The Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Andre D. Bouffard

Maine Law Review

As one might have anticipated, the broad substantive mandates of the major Warren Court exclusionary rule decisions have not been left completely intact by later Supreme Court decisions. Instead, the scope of the evidentiary exclusionary doctrine established by the Warren Court has been significantly narrowed by later Supreme Court decisions that have created numerous exceptions to the general command of the exclusionary rule that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Although some members of the present Court argue that the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are consistent with the purposes of the rule, and therefore …

State V. Farnham: The Defendant's Exercise Of The Right To Stand Trial As Negative Character Evidence, Richard F. Buckley

Maine Law Review

A defendant in a criminal case may not receive a more severe sentence because he exercised his sixth amendment right to stand trial. However, determining when a court has more severely sentenced a defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial is a difficult task. Some argue that a defendant's choice to stand trial is relevant to the sentencing process as character evidence. The decision to stand trial, the argument goes, indicates a defendant's lack of remorse and an unwillingness to take the first step toward redemption by admitting his guilt. Others take the position that consideration in …

State V. Boilard: Are Jury Instructions On Statutory Defenses Essential To A Fair Trial?, Kristin A. Gustafson

Maine Law Review

In State v. Boilard, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, recently addressed the question of when the failure to instruct the jury regarding a defense available under the Maine Criminal Code constitutes error. The court held that the trial court's failure to give an instruction on the defense of justification did not rise to the level of obvious error. The court reasoned that because the instruction conflicted with the defendant's theory of defense, and because counsel for the defendant did not claim error at trial or on appeal, any argument that the defendant had been prejudiced …

State V. Harding: Municipal Police Authority And The Fresh Pursuit Statute, David S. Schuman

Maine Law Review

As early as 1551, during the reign of King Edward VI, courts held at common law that, except in cases of fresh pursuit, the power of a sheriff or justice of the peace does not extend beyond his jurisdiction. Recognizing the importance of jurisdictional boundaries as limits on a sheriff's authority, the Barons of the Exchequer denounced the possibility of "two several sheriffs in one same county," observing that "in this realm there are divers authorities, and none may exceed his limits or bounds." Modern state statutes setting forth the powers of local police continue to limit the extra-jurisdictional authority …

The Denial Of Bail Under Maine's "Proof Evident Or Presumption Great" Standard, Maureen Dea

Maine Law Review

When the framers of the Maine Constitution gathered in Portland in the fall of 1819, they decided that the document, unlike the Massachusetts Constitution on which it was based, should guarantee a right to bail pending trial. The convention adopted, apparently without debate or dissent, the following provision as part of the Declaration of Rights in article I . . .

Ad Hoc Constructions Of Penal Statutes, Joel S. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court construed penal statutes in forty-three cases from the 2013 Term through the 2022 Term. In those cases, the Court tended to adopt narrow constructions, a preference consistent with several substantive canons of construction, such as the rule of lenity and the avoidance of constitutional vagueness concerns. Substantive canons were routinely included in party briefs, frequently raised during oral argument, and occasionally explicated in concurring opinions. Yet the Court did not rely on substantive canons in the vast majority of the narrow-construction cases. For example, the Court never firmly relied upon the rule of lenity—the substantive canon most …

Roving Extraterritoriality: The Murky Doctrine On State Laws Regulating Absent Citizens, Leo Schlueter

Notre Dame Law Review

It is generally agreed that sovereigns have the power to punish the crimes of their citizens abroad, at least in some situations. But sovereigns rarely exercise this power, and its contours are not well understood. This is especially true in the context of American federalism. It is unclear to what degree states have retained their sovereign extraterritorial powers, and the Supreme Court has never had occasion to fully explain their limits. Recent political developments, however, make it plausible that the question will soon arise. This Note attempts to provide some insight into the future debate over state criminal extraterritorial jurisdiction …

Criminal Law, K. David Cooke Jr., Andrew M. Healy

Mercer Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to review a selection of recent opinions from appellate courts that affect the practice of criminal law in a few important categories. This Article seeks to give guidance to both prosecutors and the defense bar in these areas, with an eye towards highlighting statements in opinions, concurrences, and dissents that display the Justices’ concerns of the current state and application of the law or projections of where the law can and should be.

Debunking Criminal Restitution, Lula A. Hagos

Michigan Law Review

Criminal restitution—the money paid by a defendant to a victim—is often overlooked amidst growing scholarly consensus about the adverse impact of criminal court fines and fees. Restitution receives less attention because it is perceived as a fair and unobjectionable sanction with legitimate goals, while fines and fees are now widely condemned as primarily serving as a funding source for local and state governments. Consequently, the animated and extensive discourse around financial punishment largely excludes criminal restitution.

Though criminal restitution may appear to have legitimate penological purposes, it serves to perpetually punish defendants who are poor—the vast majority of those in …

Two Bites, Different Apples: The Georgia Supreme Court Revolutionizes Forty-Year Precedent On First-Offender Appeals In Howard V. State, Joshua R. Wright

Mercer Law Review

Since 1968, Georgia’s First Offender Act has provided for an alternative sentencing procedure for criminal defendants who have not previously been convicted of a felony. The Act allows trial courts to place a defendant on probation or sentence them to a term of confinement before a conviction and without entering a judgment. The significance of this procedure is that, if a defendant successfully completes the terms of their first-offender status, they are exonerated and the prosecution’s case is discharged by law. The former defendant receives no criminal conviction and their civil rights and liberties are preserved.

Survey Of Capital Cases In Georgia, Jessica L. Heywood

Mercer Law Review

This Article examines five cases decided during the Survey period: two decisions by the Supreme Court of Georgia and three decisions by federal courts involving Georgia defendants. The Georgia Supreme Court cases are a direct appeal and a habeas appeal. All three federal cases are habeas petitions by Georgia state prisoners. We included federal cases because they involve significant points of law and illustrate the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s continued lax oversight of habeas claims, decades after the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) by Congress. The small number of cases …

Tackling Terry: Georgians’ State Constitutional Protections On Searches, Seizures, And Privacy, Hunter J. Rodgers

Mercer Law Review

Currently found in Paragraph XIII of our state Bill of Rights, Georgia has had a search and seizure provision in its Constitution for over 160 years. For the last sixty, our courts interpreted it in lockstep with the Fourth Amendment. Countless cases treat our state provision as an afterthought, only worth mention as an aside to the Fourth Amendment, or in acknowledgment that the court was not reviewing on state grounds, or both. Even where the Georgia Supreme Court issues opinions enhancing search and seizure protections, or at least arguing for it, it shunts Paragraph XIII into a corner to …

Violence In The Administrative State, Emily R. Chertoff

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Drawing on an original, interview-based case study of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a synthesis of six decades of social science literature, this Article offers a theory of physical violence in the administrative state that challenges foundational assumptions about administrative law. Approximately one-fifth of federal employees work for administrative agencies that police, fight wars, enforce immigration law, or incarcerate people—in other words, agencies that use force to execute the laws. These agencies are saturated with administrative law that obligates front-line administrators to confer due process, give notice, behave non-arbitrarily, and comply with law. Yet this law often fails to …