Criminal Procedure Commons^™

City Of Las Vegas V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 82 (Nov. 16, 2017), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

(1) The Court held the district court’s order was “contrary to the evidence” because the record was not sufficient to determine that any unpreserved issues were “plain” error. (2) The court also determined that NRS 50.155(1) does not presently bar witnesses from communicating outside of the courtroom about topics other than witness testimony when the witness exclusion rule is in effect.

Crime And Punishment: A Catholic Perspective, Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond

Maine Law Review

In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …

Smashing The Tragic Illusion Of Justice: The Reprehensibility Of The Death Penalty In Virginia, Meagan E. Costello

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Capital Punishment In The Age Of Terrorism, Norman L. Greene, Norman Redlich, David Bruck, Paul Saunders, Richard Weisberg, Kenneth Roth

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley

Maine Law Review

In the consolidated case of United States v. Pho, the government appealed two district court rulings that imposed criminal sentences outside of the range provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). At separate trials, both defendants pied guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as crack). Rejecting the Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the district court imposed sentences that were below the Guidelines' range, but above the statutory mandatory minimum. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated both sentences and remanded the …

Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus

Book Chapters

Public-defense delivery systems nationwide are grossly inadequate. Public defenders are forced to handle caseloads that no one could effectively manage. They often have no funding for investigation or expert assistance. They aren’t adequately trained, and there is little to no oversight of their work. In many jurisdictions, the public-defense function is not sufficiently independent of the judiciary or the elected branches to allow for zealous representation. The result is an assembly line into prison, mostly for poor people of color, with little check on the reliability or fairness of the process. Innocent people are convicted, precious resources are wasted, and …

A Step Toward Robust Criminal Discovery Reform In Virginia: The Disclosure Of Witness Statements Before Trial, Jennifer Horan

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate Deferred Prosecution As Discretionary Injustice, Peter Reilly

Utah Law Review

A recent federal appellate court ruling of first impression permits the resolution of allegations of serious corporate criminal wrongdoing by way of an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism called Deferred Prosecution, without appropriate judicial review. This Article describes why this ruling is ill-advised, and suggests how other courts might address these same legal issues while arriving at different conclusions. This Article argues that if federal prosecutors are going to continue using Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”) in addressing allegations of corporate criminal misconduct, then that discretionary power must be confined and checked through meaningful judicial review. The overriding concern with the appellate …

Designed To Fail: The President’S Deference To The Department Of Justice In Advancing Criminal Justice Reform, Rachel E. Barkow, Mark Osler

William & Mary Law Review

One puzzle of President Obama’s presidency is why his stated commitment to criminal justice reform was not matched by actual progress. We argue that the Obama Administration’s failure to accomplish more substantial reform, even in those areas that did not require congressional action, was largely rooted in an unfortunate deference to the Department of Justice. In this Article, we document numerous examples (in sentencing, clemency, compassionate release, and forensic science) of the Department resisting common sense criminal justice reforms that would save taxpayer dollars, help reduce mass incarceration, and maintain public safety. These examples and basic institutional design theory all …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

University of Richmond Law Review

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal

law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia

and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead

of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article

focuses on the "take-away" of the holdings with the most

precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy

changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia

General Assembly.

Thinking Inside The Box: Placing Form Over Function In The Application Of The Statutory Sentencing Procedure In State Of Maine V. Eugene Downs, Matthew E. Lane

Maine Law Review

In State v. Hewey, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the sentencing court erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum applicable period of incarceration for a Class A crime and accordingly vacated the sentence. Perhaps more importantly, the Law Court used the case as an “opportunity for clarification of [its] review of an appeal from a sentence imposed by the trial court.” A unanimous court sought to clear up some inconsistencies in previous decisions regarding “the terminology used to define each of the three steps” of the sentencing process by better describing the procedure “by which the …

The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr

Maine Law Review

On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …

Establishing Guidelines For Attorney Representation Of Criminal Defendants At The Sentencing Phase Of Capital Trials, Adam Lamparello

Maine Law Review

In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal holding that single-handedly rendered it nearly impossible for a capital defendant to demonstrate that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the underlying trial or at sentencing. Indeed, due in substantial part to the fact that "Strickland was not intended to impose rigorous standards on criminal defense attorneys," the Court found ineffective assistance of counsel in only one case over the next sixteen years. Critically, however, during this time, both state and federal courts bore witness to some of the most horrific examples of death …

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.

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.

Sweat V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (October 5, 2017), Shannon Zahm

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from prosecution of any original charges when the defendant accepts a plea agreement for a lesser-included offense and then fails to comply with all the terms of the agreement. The Court ultimately determined that a defendant waives his double jeopardy rights when he pleads guilty and fails to comply with the remaining terms of the agreement.

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.