Criminal Procedure Commons^™

A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr

Senior Honors Theses

Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem with …

Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

Commentary on Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (2016).

Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.[1] Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.

[1] 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

"A Middle Temperature Between The Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies For The Failure To Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute, Marc A. Desimone Jr.

University of Baltimore Law Review

This article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues why …

Veterans Banished: The Fight To Bring Them Home, Alejandra Martinez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Race, Policing, And Technology, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Immigrating While Trans: The Disproportionate Impact Of The Prostitution Ground Of Inadmissibility And Other Provisions Of The Immigration And Nationality Act On Transgender Women, Luis Medina

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

The Unconstitutional Application Of Apprehension And Detention Laws: Section 236(C) Of The Immigration And Nationality Act, Rigoberto Ledesma

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Methamphetamine, Money, And A Motion To Withdraw As Counsel: United States V. Jimenez-Antunez All Boils Down To The Appropriate Standard-, Jessica Haygood

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Jimenez-Antunez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a defendant is not required to show good cause to dismiss his retained counsel, even if the defendant then intends to request appointed counsel. The issue was one of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, and one that has caused some disagreement between the other circuits. There are distinct differences between the right to appointed counsel and the right to retained counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case continues to uphold those distinctions by keeping the standards …

Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, David Rossman

Faculty Scholarship

The regime created by Miranda v. Arizona is at this point in its history bankrupt both intellectually and in terms of practical effect. Justices who have joined the Court after Miranda have cut back its scope by stingy interpretations of the doctrine’s reach and effect. In practice, few suspects actually benefit from the way Miranda is now implemented in police stations and courtrooms. Given the failure of Miranda’s promise, can we envision an alternative? Here is one that may be politically palatable and doctrinally feasible, largely adopted from English practice:

1. Police would give the same Miranda warnings that they …

The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar

Articles

A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …

Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …

Remarks On Campus Sexual Assault, Alison M. Tinsey

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Manipulation Of Suspects And Unrecorded Questioning, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Fifty years after Miranda, courts still do not have clear guidance on the types oftechniques police may use during interrogation. While first-generation tactics (a.k.a. the third degree) are banned, second-generation tactics such as those found in the famous Reid Manual continue to be used by interrogators. The Supreme Court has sent only vague signals as to which of these second- generation techniques, if any, are impermissible, and has made no mention of newly developed third-generation tactics that are much less reliant on manipulation. This Article divides second-generation techniques into four categories: impersonation, rationalization, fabrication, and negotiation. After concluding, based on …

Jail Isolation After Kingsley: Abolishing Solitary Confinement At The Intersection Of Pretrial Incarceration And Emerging Adulthood, Deema Nagib

Fordham Law Review

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that allegations of excessive use of force in pretrial detention are subject to an objective standard. However, it is unclear whether the objective standard extends to claims arising out of different factual circumstances. The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Darnell v. Pineiro to extend Kingsley v. Hendrickson to conditions-of- confinement cases provides hope. This Note argues that Kingsley should extend to solitary confinement litigation—particularly the isolation of emerging adults in pretrial detention. Solitary confinement is a widespread practice in the criminal justice system, but the implications of its use in pretrial detention have …

Toward A Science Of Torture?, Maxwell Gregg Bloche

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Does torture “work?” Proponents, including President Trump and the architects of CIA “Enhanced Interrogation” say it does, by breaking terrorists' resistance to revealing information that saves lives. Torture's foes typically dismiss this claim as false to the point of fraud--fortuitous coincidence with torture's unlawfulness. Neither view, I argue herein, rests firmly on evidence. Rival anecdotes, not data, have, so far, driven this debate. And a scientific answer is beyond our reach, since: (1) rigorous comparison between interrogation methods that do and don't involve torture isn't possible, and (2) studies of this sort would be transparently unethical. This hasn't stopped the …

Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

In the realm of Federal Courts, the question of “implied rights of action” asks when, if ever, may a plaintiff bring a federal right of action for the violation of a federal statute that does not expressly create one. Justice Scalia argued that a court should not entertain an action for damages for the violation of a federal statute unless the text of the statute demonstrates that Congress meant to create a right of action. The Supreme Court adopted this approach in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Certain judges and scholars have argued …

Drugs Law And Legal Practice In Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Singapore, And Vietnam, Maskun Maskun

Indonesia Law Review

Drugs Law and Legal Practice in Southeast Asia investigates criminal law and practice relevant to drugs regulation in three Southeast Asian jurisdictions: Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam. These jurisdictions represent the spectrum of approaches to drugs regulation in Southeast Asia, highlighting differences in practice between civil and common law countries, and between liberal and authoritarian states.

Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists, Frank Sullivan

Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs (2012 - Present)

No abstract provided.

Retributive Medication: A Discussion Of A Maine Law Allowing Involuntary, Forcible Medication Of A Pretrial Defendant For The Purpose Of Rendering The Defendant Competent To Stand Trial, Ashley T. Perry

Maine Law Review

Innocent until proven guilty—it’s a phrase we have all heard, know, and accept. But there are circumstances where this simple concept is strained in its application, such as when a legally incompetent defendant is facing trial. After all, how can a defendant be proven guilty if he cannot stand trial? The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that forcibly medicating an incompetent defendant solely to render the defendant competent to stand trial is permissible under the Federal Constitution. However, the Federal Constitution provides only the floor-level of civil rights; states are free to set their own ceilings. The …