Criminal Law Commons^™

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.

Dimensions Of Prosecutor Decisions: Revealing Hidden Factors With Correspondence Analysis, Megan S. Wright, Cindy Cain, Shima Baradaran Baughman

Faculty Scholarship

Despite the significant impact of prosecutorial discretion on criminal justice outcomes, there are very few large-scale studies of state and local prosecutor decision-making. Our previous empirical research demonstrated that a defendant’s race and class do not affect prosecutorial charging decisions and revealed a gap in the literature about factors that do influence prosecutorial charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. Accordingly, we designed a study to obtain more information about prosecutor discretion and decision-making. Over 500 prosecutors from across the United States completed our vignette-based experiment and survey, which produced quantitative and qualitative data. We transformed these data to use Correspondence Analysis …

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 …

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 …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Tanner M. Russo, Hallie Hovery-Murray, Alli M. Mentch

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article surveys recent developments in criminal procedure and law in Virginia. Because of space limitations, the authors have limited their discussion to the most significant published appellate decisions and legislation.

Distorted Narratives In The Treatment Program Complex, Evelyn Lia Malavé

Fordham Law Review

Problem-solving courts and alternatives to incarceration have been both celebrated as successful attempts to address the factors that lead to defendants’ involvement in the criminal legal system and critiqued as ineffective reforms that worsen mass incarceration. Specifically, critiques of the “treatment program complex” have tended to focus on how it harms defendants by exposing them to higher levels of incarceration if they fail to complete court mandates. But these critiques have failed to account for another way the treatment program complex harms defendants: by suppressing their voices regarding what kind of help they need and how they are affected by …

Growing Rich Off The Fruits Of Private Incarceration, Joseph Hennessy

Journal of Law and Policy

Mass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon. With roots in chattel slavery, modern mass incarceration truly exploded in the latter half of the 20th Century. As Reagan-era politicians advocated for fiscal conservatism on the one hand and heavy-handed responses to crime on the other, private prison pioneers saw an opportunity to derive profit from society’s most vulnerable. Today, private prisons house as much as half of some states’ total prison population, and private prison corporations have demonstrated an insatiable desire to expand their reach. This Note explores the unique social vulnerability of privately incarcerated people through a statutory and judicial …

The Geopolitics Of Group Referrals To The International Criminal Court And Its Implications On The Court's Legitimacy And Credibility, Dr. Destaw A. Yigzaw

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Under the Rome Statute, situations are referred to the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) either by a state party or the Security Council. In recent years, however, referrals from both sources have become difficult to come by. Instead, there is an evolving practice of referrals by a coalition of third states parties (“group referrals”). Yet, a group referral as a trigger mechanism does not have an explicit textual basis under the Rome Statute (“Statute” or “ICC Statute”). There is no rationale for it either, since a referral by a single state party is all that is needed to trigger …

A Broken Shield: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims In Cases Of Racist Defense Attorneys, Sophia Sabet

Fordham Law Review

Defense attorneys are not immune to racism, and a defense attorney who holds racist beliefs about their client’s race fundamentally calls into question the representation received. Under the Sixth Amendment, all criminal defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington that a criminal defendant must prove that their counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. The Supreme Court supplemented the Strickland standard in Cuyler v. Sullivan and United States v. Cronic, holding that a conflict …