Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Correctional Change Through Neuroscience, Arielle R. Baskin-Sommers, Karelle Fonteneau

Fordham Law Review

Currently, the U.S. criminal justice system is under intense scrutiny. High- profile cases question the appropriateness of specific types of evidence, decision making in sentencing, and the treatment of convicted offenders. Clearly, these issues are not new. And, as has been historically the case, the justice system looks toward science for assistance in addressing and redressing problems with the delivery of justice.

Neuroscience And Criminal Law: Have We Been Getting It Wrong For Centuries And Where Do We Go From Here?, Elizabeth Bennett

Fordham Law Review

Moral responsibility is the foundation of criminal law. Will the rapid developments in neuroscience and brain imaging crack that foundation—or, perhaps, shatter it completely? Although many scholars have opined on the subject, as far as I have discovered, few come from a front-line perspective.

Neuroscience And Sentencing, Nancy Gertner

Fordham Law Review

This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career. As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposedwereunfair,unjust,anddisproportionate. EverythingthatIthought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by …

When Empathy Bites Back: Cautionary Tales From Neuroscience For Capital Sentencing, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Amelia Courtney Hritz, Caisa Elizabeth Royer, John H. Blume

Fordham Law Review

This Article examines the implications of emerging neuroscientific findings regarding empathy for capital trials. We have approached this task with caution because neuroscientists’ understanding of the human brain is still evolving. As with any new field, if neuroscience is completely trusted before it is thoroughly tested, there is a risk of embracing the new phrenology. Given the state of the research, our advice to defense lawyers is quite modest, but we believe that there are some important lessons for lawyers, judges, legislators, and other stakeholders in the capital punishment system.

Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions To A Reconstruction Of Legal Insanity, Jane Campbell Moriarty

Fordham Law Review

Part I of this Article explains the insanity defense in the United States. Next, Part II discusses some of the brain-based research about mental illness, focusing on schizophrenia research. Then, Part III looks at traumatic brain injury and the relationship among injury, cognition, and behavior. Finally, Part IV explains how a new neuroscience-informed standard might better inform our moral decision making about legal insanity.

Bowman V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Oct. 27, 2016), Marco Luna

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A district court's failure to provide a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent research, investigations, or experiments in any criminal or civil case constitutes error. Though likely harmless, the resulting prejudice may constitute reversible error.

Cops On Trial: Did Fourth Amendment Case Law Help George Zimmerman’S Claim Of Self-Defense?, Josephine Ross

Seattle University Law Review

When police kill unarmed civilians, prosecutors and grand juries often decline to bring criminal charges. Even when police officers are indicted, they are seldom convicted at trial. There are many reasons why police are rarely convicted for violent acts. Commentators have criticized the inherent conflict of interest for prosecutors who decide whether to bring charges and the fact that police are investigating their own. However, this article considers another way that police may be treated differently than other people suspected of committing violent crimes. The Fourth Amendment, designed to protect civilians from overzealous officers, now helps insulate police suspected of …

The Right To Redemption: Juvenile Dispositions And Sentences, Katherine Hunt Federle

Louisiana Law Review

The article examines the laws concerning juvenile dispositions and sentences responsible for accountability, victim restoration, and retribution in the U.S. It reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of opinions emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment requires that the punishment of children must account for their lesser moral culpability, developmental immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation.

Incomplete Sentences: Hobby Lobby’S Corporate Religious Rights, The Criminally Culpable Corporate Soul, And The Case For Greater Alignment Of Organizational And Individual Sentencing, Kenya J.H. Smith

Louisiana Law Review

The article explores the history and policies that explain the disparate sentencing treatment of organizations and individuals under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and attendant sentencing guidelines. It reports the Supreme Court's recognition of a business corporation's religious rights in the case "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

The Lack Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil: Louisiana’S Ban On Bail Without Surety, Gabriel Loupe

Louisiana Law Review

The article presents a historical overview of bail and due process of law in Louisiana. Topics discussed include the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 334.4 imposes a ban on judges releasing defendants; constitutionality of Article 334.4; and laws aimed to prevent violation of procedural due process, equal protection, and the excessive bail clauses of the Louisiana.

Important Is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants For Sentencing Using The Important Interest Standard, Sarah Viebrock

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing.

Part …

Let The Judge Speak: Reconsidering The Role Of Rehabilitation In Federal Sentencing, Madeline W. Goralski

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note contends that the importance of rehabilitation as a valid and necessary principle of punishment is overlooked in § 3582(a) of the SRA and further argues that a judge should be permitted to consider rehabilitation when deciding to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment, so long as rehabilitation is not a dominant factor in coming to that decision. Part I outlines the principles of punishment and the rise and decline of the rehabilitative system of punishment in the United States. It also discusses the importance of rehabilitation and how society could benefit from a system that …

A “Second Magna Carta”: The English Habeas Corpus Act And The Statutory Origins Of The Habeas Privilege, Amanda L. Tyler

Notre Dame Law Review

In my own scholarship, Fallon and Meltzer’s work on habeas models prompted me to dig deeper into the historical backdrop that informed ratification of the Suspension Clause and think harder about the relevance of that history for questions of constitutional interpretation. This, in turn, has spurred work that has occupied me for many years since. In the spirit of engaging with my federal courts professor one more time, this Article tells the story of the statutory origins of the habeas privilege—what Blackstone called a “second magna carta”—and argues that any explication of the constitutional privilege and discussion of how …

Federalizing Retroactivity Rules: The Unrealized Promise Of Danforth V. Minnesota And The Unmet Obligation Of State Courts To Vindicate Federal Constitutional Rights, Ruthanne M. Deutsch

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

Supervised Release, Sex-Offender Treatment Programs, And Substantive Due Process, Max B. Bernstein

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that mandated PPG testing should be eliminated as a condition of federal supervised release. The test infringes on a constitutionally protected liberty interest against unwanted bodily intrusions and, as only the Second Circuit has held, any condition of supervised release that infringes on a constitutionally protected right may be mandated only where it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Because there are a number of viable, less intrusive alternatives, PPG testing as it stands today is not narrowly tailored enough to serve a compelling government interest.

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

Doe V. O'Donnell And New York's Sex Offender Registration Act: The Problem Of Continued Registration Under Sora After Leaving The State, Samantha R. Millar

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Consolidating Local Criminal Justice: Should Prosecutors Control The Jails?, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Argument Against Civil Marriage, J. David Bleich

Articles

The article argues against the legal recognition of civil marriage, particularly in the context of same-sex marriage as upheld by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. The author contends that legal recognition of same-sex marriage conflates moral approval with legal neutrality, leading to potential conflicts between individual conscience and state mandates. Drawing on Talmudic principles and historical legal precedents, the article advocates for the abolition of civil marriage and proposes an alternative system of designating "close friends" for legal purposes to avoid such conflicts.